Page:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 1.djvu/47

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
History of the Church and Manor of Wigan.
35

pleas de vetito namio[1] in the said Borough, nor has he ever determined them, neither has he abused the aforesaid liberties, as is laid to his charge, and he begs that this may be inquired into. A Jury was accordingly impanelled, consisting of William le Butiller, Robert de Lathun, Nicholas de Leycestre, Henry de Kyghele, and John de Ewyas, knights, William de Moeles, Henry de Tyldesley, Richard de Urmeston, Alan de Bisheton, Nicholas Blundel, Robert de Bolde, and Alan de Halshal, who stated upon oath that the aforesaid Master Adam and his predecessors from the time of the making of the said charters have been used to hold fairs and markets in the said borough, and when any one is convicted of breaking the assize of bread and beer he is amerced in the court of the same Master Adam in the aforesaid vill, and if he should be convicted once, twice, thrice, or more, he is always amerced for a fault of this kind, and not punished in any other way by judgment. And as to infangenthef they say that a certain Roger de Asheton caused a certain William le Procuratur detected with the stolen goods in his possession to be attached by the said Master Adam's bailiff for a certain ox which he asserted that the aforesaid William had stolen in Hasphulle (Aspull) in the Wapentake of Salford, and accused him of felony, and the said William procured Henry Crowe to be his warranty, who came to the next court, and warranted him, and said that he would procure good warranty at the next court. On this the suitors and the burgesses of the town discharged William le Procuratur, the felon, and detained the aforesaid Henry Crowe in prison for three weeks, until the next court, when the said Henry Crowe came and acknowledged the robbery, and was hung by judgment in the absence of the Coroner. And the aforesaid William is yet living. The jurors were asked who was then the bailiff of the aforesaid court. They said it was a certain Matthew le Clerk,

  1. Placitum de namio vetito; this suit was the remedy of a person whose cattle, &c., had been wrongfully impounded, or impounded in some place not warranted by prescription or other right.