Richard de Breuse aka de Braose

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Paul Mackenzie

Richard de Breuse aka de Braose

Legg inn av Paul Mackenzie » 17 nov 2005 02:13:37

Hi All:

As part of my research, I recently transcribed and translated a copy of
an original document obtained from PRO. My transcription and translation
is set out below for your information.

Any comments on the translation below would be most welcome,
particularly the last couple of sentences.


Kind Regards

Paul Mackenzie


Transcription

Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas

Adhuc de Juratis et assize apud Eboracum Cressingham

Alicia que fuit vxor Ricardi de Breuse petit uversus Thomus de Multon de
Gillesland tertiam parcella manerium de Thurgramby cum pertinenciis
sicut dotem etc.

Et Thome venit Et dicta quod ipsa non tenet integre predictum manerium
qua dicta quod Galfrid de Hertenpol tenet inde unius mesuagium unius
toftum . contine & decem & septem acre terre tres acre pasturi et duas
acras bosci ei tenuit die brevis impetrateri videlicet decimo octavo die
June hoc anno . Et quodam resduitim dicta quod Matillis que fuit uxor
Thome de Multon (avia ipsius Thome quo heres ipsa est) alias in curia
domino rex. tulit quaddam brevis de ingressu de isto eodem manerio
uversus Rogerum de Colevile & Margaretam uxem manerio tale videlicet
quod clamauit ut ius et hereditatem suam et in quod ijdem Rogerus et
Margareta non habent ingressium nisi post dimissionem quam predictus
Thome quondam vir it . onere ipsa it inde fecit Willelmo de Breuse it.
et . ad quod brevis ijdem Rogerus et Margareta votameruit ad Warant
predictium Ricardum quodam virimi ipsius Alicia. qui in eadem curia ei
Warant et votameruit inde ad warant Willelmum de Breusse & Willelmum fil
eius . qui ei Warant & votameruit inde ad Warantn Thome filius Thome de
Multon . qui es Warant . ita quod per judicium curia censeo fuit quod
predicta Matillis recuperaret predicta tenent uversus predictos Rogerum
et Margaretam et ijdem Rogerus et Margareta de terra predicti Ricardi et
Ricardus de terra predictors Willelmi & Willelmi et indem Willelmi &
Willelmi de terra predicta Thome ad valentia it et dicti quod ipse
paratus est verificare omnibus modis quibus curia consideraverit quod
ius predictis tenuit fuit ipsius Matillis in forma qua ipsa petebat it .
et desicut ipsa Matillis recuperamt predicta tenuit de altior seisin
quam seisina predicta Ricardi de cuius dotatone predicta Alicia modo
petit ita quod ius ipsuis Ricardi de predicta manerio fuit extramanus
petit judicium si predicta Alicia dotari debeat de predicto manerio.

Et Alicia bene cognostit quod predicta Matillis tulit brevis predictim
in forma predicta set dicit quod predictors Thome filius Thome supremus
warantus quod reddidit predicta Matillis in curia domini Rex. predictim
manerium . et postea in patria extra curia idem Thome Warantus it.
assignavit predictis Rogero et Margarete quedam tenuit de quibus
predicta Margareta adhuc est in seisin . ita per sicut quod ipsi non
sequerentur ulterius de aliqua valentia habenda de terra ipsuis Ricardi
.. et fit predictos Ricardus sequi non potuit de aliqua valentia habenda
it et desicut per hujusmodi redditorum nullius ius ist extramanum
illegible reddentes et ipsa non petit dotem de statu viri per Warantiam
it . set de statu quem habuit in predicto manerio ut de feodo . antequam
manerium illa aliena uit . it. idem Thome dicere possit quod ipsa dotata
est de aliquam valent per predicto manero et predictum manerium illarum
est in seisinam predicti Thome per descensum hereditariam per medium
predicti Thome prius sui supremus Waranti qui reddidit it. Petit indidem
si de predicto manerio dotem brevis non debeat et Thome dicit quod ei
videlicet quod per formam statuti ei debet subveniri ubi continetur quod
si vir mulieris reddiderit it . mulier post mortem viri petat dotem it
et tenens excipiat quod vir mulieris us non habuit it vivus excepcionem
debet admitti it et dicit quod ipse paratus est verificare quod antequam
predictis Ricardus aliquid habuit in predicto manerio + tempore quo
predictim manerium fuit in seisin predicti Ricardi it post . semper fuit
ius predicti manerium ipsius Matillis in forma qua petiit it. et desicut
predicta Alicia non potest deditem qu status quem predictus Ricardus
quodam vir suus habuit in predicto manerio sibi accrenerio per factum
Willelmi de Breusee cui predictis Thome vir ipius Matillis illud
dimisit, cui ipsa Matillis in vita sua Concessita non potuit it et ipse
paratus est verificare ius predicti manerium semper fuisse ipsius
Matillis toto tempore predicto et . qualitercumque predicta Alicia dicat
quod predictis . Thome pater fuit cuius heres ipse est Warant et
reddidit it . Petit indidem si predicta Alicia debeat inde dotem brevis
it et Alicia dicti quod ipsa non est in casu statutti it quia dicit quod
vir suus non reddidit it. set de statu quam tenent habuit per warantiam
suam it fuit ipse warantizatur it . per quod status suus potuit fuit
affirmater quam infirmatus . et desicut predictos Thome non potest
deditem qui predictos Ricardus quodam vir it fuit in seisin de predicto
manerio ut de feodo et status suus nunquam aliter fuit adnullat quam per
predictam redditorum predicti Thome prius istuis Thome cuius heres ipse
est quam fetit predicte Mattillis natus sue in forma predicta et per
predictam circumlocutorum habitam inter imprimus Thome patrem it et
predictos Rogerum et Margaretam est ipsa exclusa de dote habenda de
aliquam valentia ipsius manerium et petit indidem ut prius si dotem inde
versus eum recuperare non debeat.

Translation

Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas

Still from the Jurors and the Assize at York

Alice who was the wife of Richard de Breuse sues versus Thomas de Multon
of Gillesland concerning the third part of the manor of Thurgramby with
appurtenances as dower etc.

And Thomas appears and says that he does not hold the whole of the
aforesaid manor, because said Geoffrey de Hertenpol holds thence one
messuage containing one toft, and 16 acres land, three acres pasture and
two acres of forest held to him acquired at an earlier date namely
Eighteenth day of June this year. And as to the residue says that
Matilda who was the wife of Thomas Multon ( grandmother of himself
Thomas and who is her heir ) previously brought in the Lord King’s Court
a writ of entry about that manor against Roger Colevile and Margaret his
wife, namely claiming by right such manor as her inheritance. And in
that the same Roger and Margaret had not entered until after the demise
which said Thomas her former husband, was charged, and thence had made
to William de Breuse. And in answer to which writ, the same Roger and
Margaret called to warranty the aforesaid Richard former husband of
Alice, who in the same court warranted to them and therein thence called
to warranty William de Breusse and William his son, who warranted to him
and called to warranty Thomas son of Thomas Multon, who warranted to him
on condition that by judgement the court is of the opinion that the
aforesaid Matilda should recover the aforesaid tenancy against the
aforesaid Roger and Margeret, and the same Roger and Margaret in turn
from the aforesaid Richard, and Richard in turn from the aforesaid
William and William, and the same William and William in turn from the
aforesaid Thomas of land of equivalent worth. And says that he is
prepared to verify all manners with which the court has adjudged that
the aforesaid tenancy belongs to Matilda who had brought the writ. And
inasmuch as Matilda has recovered the aforesaid tenancy of a more
rightful possession than the possession of the aforesaid Richard, of
whom the aforesaid Alicia seeks her dowry by manner of this petition,
that the right to the aforesaid manor is out of the hands of the
judgement of the petition on whether the aforesaid Alice ought to be
endowed with the aforesaid manor.

And Alice provisionally recognises that the aforesaid Matilda brought
the aforesaid writ in the aforesaid form but says that the said Thomas,
son of Thomas above, is the superior warrantor concerning the surrender
of the aforesaid manor to the aforesaid Matilda in the King’s Court. And
afterwards in the district outside the court the same Thomas as
warrantor assigned the aforesaid Roger and Margaret certain tenants of
with which Margaret hitherto is in possession, on condition that they
would not further pursue land held by Richard of equivalent worth, and
in turn not make the aforesaid Richard pursue land of equivalent worth.
And inasmuch through this effect the right to the property is rendered
invalid out of the hands of the defendent illegible, and does not ask
for dowry with regard to the estate of her husband by warranty, yet asks
for dowry of the estate including the aforesaid manor as of fee before
the manor is alienated for life. The same Thomas is able to say that she
is endowed of equivalent worth to the aforesaid manor and the aforesaid
manor is in the possession of the aforesaid Thomas by hereditary descent
by mesne. The aforesaid Thomas who in early times recovered it by a
superior warrant, asks in the same place whether the writ of dowry with
regard to the aforesaid manor should not be allowed. And Thomas says
that it must be restored to him namely by form of statute which
comprises that if the husband of the woman had handed over, the woman
may petition after the death of her husband for her dowry and the right
of the tenant may be removed where the husband of the woman has not done
so, in full vigour of feudal tenure the exception ought to be granted.
And says that he is prepared to verify the time before which the
aforesaid Richard has held something in the aforesaid manor and the time
with which the aforesaid manor has been in the possession of the
aforesaid Richard, and afterwards at all times the right of the
preceeding manor has belonged to Matilda in the form which had been
petitioned. And inasmuch the aforesaid Alice cannot be given those
estates which the aforesaid Richard her husband has held in the
aforesaid manor himself, which was acquired by deed from William de
Breusse, to which the aforesaid Thomas the husband of Matilda had
demised, which Matilda in life could not have granted. And he is
prepared to verify by oath the aforesaid manor always has belonged to
Matilda the whole preceding time. And whatever the aforesaid Alice may
say concerning Thomas the father, whose heir he is, the manor was
warranted and surrendered, and asks in the same place whether the
aforesaid Alice ought to have her writ of dowry. And Alice says that she
is not in any circumstances necessary for application of the statute,
because she says that her husband did not surrender, but of the estates
that he had held through his warranty, he has been warranted, by which
status she has been able to affirm it has been diminished. And since the
aforesaid Thomas cannot be given which the aforesaid Richard the said
husband, has been in the possession of the aforesaid manor as of fee and
his status at no time in any other way has been annulled as said given
in earlier times by the aforesaid Thomas, whose son and heir is Thomas
the defendant of the aforesaid Matilda in the aforesaid form and by the
aforesaid circumlocutory had between the first Thomas, the father and
the aforesaid Roger. And Margaret herself is excluded of the dowery to
be had of equivalent worth of the manor and asks in the same place as in
earlier times whether the dower from that place ought not be recovered
against him.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»