| 1334.076 |
1334 |
Common Pleas |
writ against sheriff on the statute |
|
| Pasch. |
8 |
Edw. 3 |
26 |
30a-31a |
Gaynesford, John de Sjt Gain (for P)
Pole, Richard de la Sjt (for D)
Herle, William CJCP
Pole, Richard de la Sjt
Parvyng, Robert Sjt Parn (for P)
Pole, Richard de la Sjt
Parvyng, Robert Sjt Parn
Herle, William CJCP
Pole, Richard de la Sjt
Parvyng, Robert Sjt Parn
Herle, William CJCP
Parvyng, Robert Sjt Parn
Herle, William CJCP
Parvyng, Robert Sjt Parn
Herle, William CJCP
Hillary, Roger Sjt |
Tregor |
Thomas |
|
|
|
Lovel, Richard, litigant against plaintiff |
England
Westminster
S., manor of |
|
| |
related case 1332.044 = Pasch. 6 Edw. 3, pl. 16, fols. 15a-15b (writ of right)
related case 1333.076 = Trin. 7 Edw. 3, pl. 11, fols. 26b (writ against sheriff on the statute) |
Statute of Westminster 2nd (1285), 13 Edw. 1, ch. 38 (damages against sheriff for unlawful summons to juries), Articuli super cartas (1300), 28 Edw. 1, ch. 9 (sheriff not to return jurors who are insufficient, not near neighbors, or suspicious; double damages) |
| Thomas Tregor porta son brief vers William Vaghan Vic' de Sussex. In haec verba. Rex coronator' suis |
57 |
|
s.v. Thomas (de Tregoz), Lord Tregoz, d. shortly before 5 May 1335, in Cokayne, Complete Peerage, vol. 12B, pp. 25-26. William Vaghan was Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex from 19 Nov. 1331 to 8 Mar. 1334, and from 20 Jul. 1335 to 30 Sep. 1338. |
Summary: Action on the statute providing for recovery of double damages against the sheriff by the adversely affected party if he returned members of the inquest who were not in accordance with the law, for example, because they were insufficient or distant or suspicious. The plaintiff, Thomas Tregor, alleged that, because the sheriff had put such persons on the inquest, he had lost his land in a suit brought by Richard Lovel. The defendant argued that the record said that the jurors had been chosen with the consent of the parties. Herle CJCP said that the plaintiff could have challenged the jury at the time; if he had not put his challenge, he thereby agreed to the jury, and if he had put his challenge and the prospective jurors were tried, then they were found to be as they should, so that the plaintiff could not complain in either case. Herle CJCP explained the circumstances in which a party could recover damages against the sheriff under the statute.
Thomas Tregor brought a writ against William Vaghan, Sheriff of Sussex. (Latin begins) In these words. The king to his coroner of the county of Sussex, greeting. If Thomas Tregor makes to you etc. then put by surety (pone p' vadium) etc. W. Vaghan, sheriff of our aforesaid county, that he be present at the court of our justices at W. on the day of St. John the Baptist in 15 days, to show why, whereas among other articles which Edward I ordained for the improvement of the state of the people of his kingdom, it was contained that no sheriff or bailiff would put on an inquest or jury otherwise or in another manner than was ordained by statute, and one who did otherwise and was convicted thereof would render to the plaintiff double his damages, and notwithstanding (nihilominus) would be in our grave mercy, the aforesaid sheriff on a certain inquest taken in the court of our justices at Westminster, of a suit which was in the court of our justices by our writ between Richard Lovel, plaintiff, and the aforesaid Thomas, tenant, of the manor of S. with the appurtenances, put men who were insufficient (minus sufficientes) and more distant (magis remotos) and more suspect, against the form of the aforesaid statute and articles, by which the aforesaid Thomas lost the aforesaid manor with appurtenances, to the damages of Thomas of a thousand pounds. As he said, and have there the names etc. And note, (Latin ends) that the statute on which this writ was founded was Westminster Second, (Latin begins) Because also the sheriffs and hundreders and bailiffs of liberties were accustomed to grieve those who were in subjection to them etc. (Latin ends). And also by the articles, which said that the king wished and commanded that no sheriff or bailiff should put on an inquest or a jury many men (plusers gents) nor others in another manner than was ordained by the statutes, and that on such juries and inquests should put the closest and the most sufficient, and not suspicious, and one who did otherwise and was attainted of this would render to the plaintiff double his damages and be in the grave mercy of the king.
The plaintiff counted that the sheriff had put eight on the panel, and said who they were, and he said that they were insufficient (meintz suffisantz), because they did not have 100 shillings of land, and that they were distant because they were 30 leagues from there, and too suspicious because they had taken from Richard Novel to say for him etc., and he said further in his count that of these eight, five were on the inquest, which five had forced (arcteront) the others to say falsely for Richard, as a result of which Thomas lost the manor wrongfully and to his damages of two thousand pounds. The defendant said that in each writ founded on the statute, the writ would mention in itself the tenor of the statute, as in a writ of waste, which said (Latin begins) Whereas by the common council of our reign etc. (Latin ends), and this writ did not mention that which the statute said, judgment of the writ. Herle CJCP said that the defendant spoke at random; they were made in the time of the grandfather, as a result of which he told the defendant to answer. The defendant said that in counting, the plaintiff had said that the five had forced the others to say falsely against him, and thereby he supposed that his recovery would be by attaint, and thus his count (demonstrance) abated his writ, judgment etc. The plaintiff said that this was to the action, and asked if he wished this as his answer. The defendant did not wish to demur, as a result of which he prayed hearing (oyer) of the record. The plaintiff said that, if the defendant wished to say that there was no such record, the plaintiff would vouch it at his peril. Herle CJCP said that the court would see if those of whom the plaintiff spoke were on the inquest, before the court would compel the defendant to answer. He saw the record, and saw that they were on the inquest, by reason of which he compelled the defendant to answer. The defendant said that the court saw clearly that the plaintiff was to recover damages, because the defendant had brought on the inquest men who were insufficient and suspicious and distant, so that the plaintiff lost his land, and the record said (Latin begins) chosen to this by the consent of the parties (Latin ends), and thus the record proved that he himself had assented to the inquest, by reason of which the defendant did not think that the plaintiff should not an action against the defendant for putting those to whom the plaintiff had assented. The plaintiff prayed judgment, since the defendant did not deny that which gave the plaintiff his action, that is, that they were insufficient, and as to this that the defendant said that the record said (Latin begins) that the jurors were chosen by the consent of the parties (Latin ends), this was nothing other than the common form of enrollment here, which matter could not be taken as proof, because it could also be that they were such as the plaintiff had supposed by the writ and the count, so that these words in the record could not purge the wrong that the sheriff had done, so that etc. Herle CJCP said that, when the inquest passed, where the plaintiff made his challenge or not, if the plaintiff did not make his challenge, thereby he agreed to these, so that he could not complain, and if he had challenged them then, and they had been tried (eins), therefore they were adjudged to be such as they should be, so that it seeemed that he could not complain in the one case nor in the other. The plaintiff said that, even if they were previously tried (eins), this did not prove the act of the sheriff to be good, which he had done against the law of the time before, and before the plaintiff had lost his land he could not complain against the sheriff. Herle CJCP asked what the plaintiff intended, to recover damages double the value of the lost land, or how. The plaintiff said that this fell in the opinion (avisements) of the court, and if he did not have his recovery, this statute would serve nothing. Herle CJCP said that there were some statutes made that those themselves who made them did not wish to put in fact, but this statute could be understood in the case where the plaintiff was delayed of his suit by such return of the sheriff, that by such statute he would recover damages against the sheriff, and also where, after the tenant had lost his land by the oath of those who were thus put, and after he brought the attaint, by which they were attainted so that he had the land back, then he could have his recovery of damages against the sheriff, and not while the plaintiff held the land that he had recovered before. A serjeant said that he understood the statute thus. Then they were adjourned to the 15th of Trinity. |
|
