‹ E-CIPM 26-552: JOHN PENROS ›

Holdings

John Penros, once king’s justice, was lately seised in demesne as of fee, by grant and feoffment of John Wantele , of

He was also seised in demesne as of fee, by grant and feoffment of Nicholas Slifeld , of various He granted the above to John Aderley , John Chirche of London, and Thomas Assherst and their heirs and assigns, on condition that they enfeoff his son and heir, John Penros, junior , and his heirs and assigns, whenever John Penros, junior should require them to. On 14 May 1436 John Penros, junior , required John, John, and Thomas to enfeoff him, and they refused. He entered the above and was seised in demesne as of fee. He was an idiot from his birth and still is, and of unsound mind.

[Head:] Delivered to Chancery on 16 March on which day William Sonde sought etc.

Holdings

[The findings of 551 above are recited.] Now on 16 March 1447 William Sonde comes in his own person before the king in Chancery and complains that he has been unjustly expelled from his possession of a messuage, a carucate and 100 a. land, 20 a. meadow, 40 a. pasture, and 12 a. wood in the parish of Dorking, specified in the inquisition, by colour of the inquisition, and by colour of the king’s letters patent [CFR 1445–52, pp. 67–8] to John Trevylyan , Henry Kyppyng , and John Bobdon , granting to them the custody of the lands and tenements specified in the inquisition, by reason of the idiocy of John Penros, junior , as long as they are in the king’s hands for that reason. William complains that the messuage, carucate, land, meadow, pasture, and wood remain in the king’s hand unjustly and he does not acknowledge any contents of the inquisition to be true. He says that specified in the inquisition. As to these, he says that one Edward Sonde , long before the taking of the inquisition, was seised in demesne as of fee, and died seised of such estate without heir of his body. After his death the land and pasture descended to William Sonde as kin and heir, as the son of Richard, the son of Richard, the brother of Henry, the father of Edward. William entered and was seised in demesne as of fee until he was removed and expelled for the above reasons. He says that the matter in the inquisition is not sufficient at law to take the land or pasture or any parcel thereof into the king’s hand, or to put William to answer the inquisition, and thereon he seeks judgement. He says that specified in the inquisition. As to these, William protests that the matter in the inquisition is not sufficient at law to take the messuage, land, meadow, wood, or any parcel thereof into the king’s hand, or to put William to answer the inquisition. He says that Thomas atte Schete alias Thomas Scilt , on 12 October 1438, sought from the king’s Chancery at Westminster a writ of formedon in the descender against John Aderley , John Chirche , and Thomas Assherst , then tenants of the messuage, land, meadow, and wood, concerning the same. They were described as John Hatherle of London, ‘yermonger’, John Cherche of London, ‘mercer’, and Thomas Assherst of Dorking, and the premises were described as a messuage, 200 a. land, 20 a. meadow, 30 a. wood, and 10s. rent in Dorking, Betchworth, and Milton. In the writ it was supposed that Robert Weston granted the premises to Alice, daughter of Margery Slaplee , and the heirs of her body, and that after the death of Alice they ought to descend to Thomas atte Schete , son and heir of Alice, by form of the grant. The writ was directed to the sheriff of Surrey, returnable before the king’s justices at Westminster in the octave of Purification following, when, before John Cottesmore and his fellow justices of the common bench, Thomas atte Schete came by William Thwaytes , his attorney, and John Hatherle , John Cherche , and Thomas Asshurst did not come. The sheriff, namely James Fienles, returned that they had been summoned by Henry Skynner and Stephen Balhorn , etc., for which the sheriff was ordered to take the premises into the king’s hand, by the view of law-worthy men of the county, and to inform the justices at Westminster of the date of the taking by letters sealed by the sheriff; and to summon by good summoners John, John, and Thomas to be before the justices at Westminster in the octave of John the Baptist following, to answer Thomas atte Schete concerning the plea, and concerning their defaults. At which day before John Cottesmore and his fellow justices of the common bench at Westminster came both Thomas atte Schete , by William Thwaytes his attorney, and John, John, and Thomas, by Thomas Adams their attorney. The sheriff, namely James, witnessed the day of taking and that he had summoned, etc. Thomas atte Schete proceeded against (precise se cepit ad) the default which John, John, and Thomas made on the octave of Purification, and sought seisin of the premises. John, John, and Thomas said that the default ought not to harm them because they were never summoned at law to be present, which they offer to defend as the court will consider. It was considered by the court that they should wage their law and that they should find pledges, namely John Abbot and John Sonne, and that they should come with their law before the justices of the bench at Westminster in the quindene of Martinmas next. And the attorney of John, John, and Thomas was told that he should have them before the justices in their proper persons to wage their law. At which day, before Richard Neuton and his fellow justices of the bench at Westminster, John, John, and Thomas made essoin de male veniendi and they had a day by their essoin before the justices of the bench at Westminster in 5 weeks from Easter. At which day before Richard Neuton and his fellow justices of the bench at Westminster, Thomas atte Schete came by his said attorney, and offered himself against John, John, and Thomas, in a plea that they should be there to wage their law; and on the fourth day they, solemnly exacted, did not come, by which it was considered that Thomas atte Schete should recover his seisin of the messuage, 200 a. land, meadow, wood, and rent, by default etc. Afterwards Thomas atte Schete entered the premises and received the rent, and was seised in demesne as of fee fail by virtue of the recovery. Thus seised he feoffed Thomas Pyryer , Robert Stapulton , and Ralph Wymeldon and their heirs, so that they were seised in demesne as of fee. Ralph died thus seised; Thomas and Robert survived him and held the premises by right of survivorship and were solely seised in demesne as of fee. They feoffed Edward Sonde and his heirs, so that he was seised in demesne as of fee. He died without heir of his body. After his death the premises descended to William Sonde as kin and heir of Edward, in the above form. William entered and was seised in demesne as of fee long before the above inquisition. He continued his possession until he was removed and expelled for the above reasons. He says that the seisin of John Penros the father, and his estate and possession, were mesne (medii) between the grant mentioned in the writ of formedon, and the recovery, and that John did not have any estate or possession except this; and he says that John Penros, junior , never entered the lands or tenements or any parcel of them or had anything in them or ever asked the above John, John, and Thomas to enfeoff him therein. William is prepared to prove all the above as the court will consider. He seeks that John Trevylyan , Henry, and John Bobdon be summoned before the king in Chancery wherever etc. to show for the king or for themselves what they have, or to show why the letters patent as to ‘Westonis tenement’ and as to the lands and tenements in Bradley should not be revoked and annulled, and the king’s hand removed, and William restored to his possession with the issues and profits from the time of the inquisition etc. [C 139 text ends here.] By a writ dated at Westminster 12 February 1448 the sheriff was ordered to warn John Trevylyan , Henry Kyppyng , and John Bobdon to be before the king in Chancery, on the morrow of Ascension next, to show why the letters patent should not be annulled and William restored. The sheriff returned that he had warned them by Richard Luggesford and John Polstede . On that day William Sonde came before the king in Chancery, and John, Henry, and John did not come. By advisement of the king’s justices and serjeants-at-law, and of John Vampage , the king’s attorney, and of other’s of the king’s council, it was considered that the letters patent should be annulled. Upon this John Vampage , who sued for the king, did not acknowledge William Sonde ’s claims as to ‘Westonis tenement’. He said that Robert de Weston did not grant the premises to Alice, daughter of Margery Slaplee , and the heirs of her body, and he was ready to prove this, and sought judgement, and he said that the premises should remain in the king’s hand. As to the land and pasture in the lordship of Bradley, he said that the inquisition was sufficient in law to take the same into the king’s hand. William denied that it was sufficient and sought judgement as above. As to ‘Westonis tenement’ William said that the grant took place as pleaded above and sought inquiry by a jury. John Vampage similarly etc. A day was given to them before the king in the quindene of Trinity. The sheriff was ordered to summon 24 knights and other law-worthy men from the neighbourhood of Dorking with no affinity to William. On that day at Westminster William Sonde came in his own person and the sheriff returned the names of 24 jurors. He was ordered to have their bodies before the king in the octave of John the Baptist next. The same day was given to Thomas Greswold who sues for the king, and to William Sonde . On that day at Westminster William Sonde came in his own person, and the jurors came. They say that the grant took place as stated in the writ of formedon and as alleged by William Sonde . Therefore it was considered that the king’s hand should be removed from ‘Westonis tenement’ and William restored to his possession, with the issues from the time of the inquisition, saving the king’s right etc. As to the land and pasture in the lordship of Bradley it seemed to the court that the matter in the inquisition is not sufficient in law to take the same into the king’s hand or to put William to answer the inquisition. It was considered that the king’s hand should be removed and William restored to his possession with the issues from the time of the inquisition saving the king’s right etc.