Plea Rolls of the Reign of Edward I
Banco Roll, Easter 1 E I [20 Nov 1272 - 19 Nov 1273]
Headed "Pleas at Westminster on the Quindene of Easter" 1 E I [Easter Day = 9th April 1273; Quindene = Sun 23rd April 1273]
Staff. Ela the widow of James de Audelegh sued James son of James de Audelegh for a third of the manor of Audelegh, except the castle of the manor, and for a third of the vills of Betelegh (Betley), Bokenhowe (Bucknall), Talk, Wrineford (Wrinehill?) and Baltrydelegh (Balterley), and for a third of the manor of Helegh, excepting the castle of the manor, and for a third of the vills of - - - as her dower. James de Audley appeared, and by the permission of the Court conceded the dower claimed. m. 3, dorso.
CHS Vol VI, Part 1 1885 p.58]
1278 April 17
Plea Rolls of the Reign of Edward I. Banco Roll, Easter 6 E I [17 April 1278]
Staff. Agnes the widow of Roger le Aruesmyth sued Robert de Tykenes, Clerk, for a third of an acre in Bettylegh, and William le Hunte for a third of two acres and a rood of land, and seven other tenants in the same vill for a third of their holdings as her dower. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff is ordered to summon them for Trinity Term, and to take the dower claimed into the King's hands. m. 32.
CHS Vol VI, Part 1 1885 p. 87
1281
Plea Rolls of the Reign of Edward I. Banco Roll, Hillary 9 E I [1281]
Staff. and Salop. William de Ryther and Lucy his wife sued William de Audidelegh for a third of the manor of Helley (Heleigh), Dymmesdale, and Boteresdon, and for a third of the passagium of Wrimestrete, and of the advowson of Audelegh; for a third of the manors of Betteley, Dunestall, and - - -
as her dower, of the gift of Henry de Audidelegh her first husband. William appeared and stated he only held - - -
and this was the whole of his tenure when Lucy sued out her writ, viz on 2nd November, 8 E I, and he appealed to a jury, and William de Ryther and Lucy likewise. The Sheriff is ordered to summon a jury for five weeks from Easter. m.49, dorso.
CHS Vol VI, Part 1 1885 p. 113]
1292/3
Stafford Assize Roll, 21 E I [1292/3]
Nicholas de Audithele claimed free warren in the manors of Enedon, Aldythele (Audley), Bettelegh, Tunstall, Cesterton (Chesterton), Horton, and Alstanfeld by a charter of the king's father to James de Aldythele his ancestor; and he claimed to have in Enedon (Endon), Aldythele and Bettelegh view of frankpledge, assize of bread and beer {f.n. By assize of bread and beer is meant the fines for the infraction of the assize of bread and beer; the words in the original are, "emendas assisæ panis et cervisiæ fractæ.}, wayf and infangenthef. The king's attorney disputed the latter franchises, but a jury found that he and his ancestors had held them from time out of memory. - - - - - - -
He also claimed a fair and market in Bettelegh (Betley) by a grant made to his ancestor Henry de Audelegh by King Henry III, and it was allowed him. And as regarded the manor of Chesterton he stated that Ela formerly wife of James de Aldithelegh held it in dower.m.32.
CHS Vol VI, Part 1 1885 p. 243]
1292/3
Stafford Assize Roll, 21 E I [1292/3]
The Hundred of Pyrhull appeared by twelve jurymen and presented inter alia:
- - -
Nicholas de Longedone and Alice his wife were quarrelling in their house in the vill of Betlegh, and one Cecilia the mother of Alice coming up to appease the quarrel, the said Nicholas struck her with a knife on the head, so that she died on the fourth day afterwards. Nicholas immediately fled, and is suspected; therefore he is to be outlawed. His chattels are worth 53s., for which the Sheriff answers. He was in the tything of Adam le Blake of Bettele, which is therefore in misericordia.. m.24, dorso.
CHS Vol VI, Part 1 1885 p. 273
Of Warrens they say that Robert de Staundon claimed to have free warren in his demesne lands of Staundon - - - Nicholas de Audelegh claimed the same in Audelegh, Horton, Helegh, Norton, Tunstall, Thoresfeld, Colde Norton, and Bettelegh. - - -
CHS Vol VI, Part 1 1885 p. 276
1293/4
CORAM REGE ROLL. Trinity, 22 E I [1293/4]
Staff. In the suit of Quo warranto of the King versus Nicholas de Aldithele, the claim of Nicholas to free warren in Endon, Aldithele, Bettele, Tunstal, Chesterton, Horton and Alstanfeld, is allowed, Nicholas having produced a charter of King Henry granting free warren to his ancestor James de Aldithele in those manors; and he claimed view of frankpledge, amends of the assize of bread and beer, and infangenthef in Enedon, Aldithele, and Bettele by prescription, and appealed to a jury, and the jury stated that Nicholas and his ancestors had held those franchises in those manors before the time of King Richard. They are therefore allowed; and as regards the manor of Horton, he claimed view of frankpledge - - - - - - And as regards the manor of Bettelegh, he [Nicholas] stated he claimed to have in it a fair and market by a charter of King Henry, which he produced, and which testified that the King had given to Henry de Aldithele his ancestor that he and his heirs should have in perpetuity a weekly market on Thursdays, and a fair of three days on the Vigil, the Feast and the Morrow of St Margaret in the manor of Bettelegh. These franchises are therefore allowed to him. - - - - - - A postscript states that afterwards, in the Octaves of St Michael 22 E I, the King sent a writ stating that whereas he understood from the said Nicholas that the King had recovered the franchise of wayf against the said Nicholas in his manors of Enedon, Tunstal, Alditheleie, Horton, Chesterton, Betteleie, and Alstanfeld, through default of appearance of Nicholas, whilst he was in the service of Edmund the King's brother in Gascony, he was to be put into the same position as regards the question as before his default. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to put Nicholas again into seisin of the said liberty of wayf, saving the King's rights, etc. m. 19, dorso.
CHS Vol VII, Part 1 1886 p. 16-17]
1295
Assizes taken at Wolvernhampton before Adam de Crokedayk and William Inge, Justices assigned, etc., in co. Stafford, on the Monday after the Feast of St. Michael, 23 E I [3 Oct 1295]
Staff. An assize, etc., if Richard de Thyknes, William de Podmor, William de Thyknes, Richard son of Magister Richard de Thyknes, William son of William de Betteleye, Thomas son of Ughtred, and Eudo le Chapeleyn, had unjustly disseised Nicholas de Thyknes of a messuage and a carucate of land in Aldytheleye (Audley). None of the defendants appeared; and Richard son of Magister Richard was attached by John de Whytemore and Ralph brother of John; the others were not attached. The assize is therefore taken against them by default. The jury say the defendants, with the exception of Eudo, had disseised Nicholas as alleged. Nicholas is therefore to recover seisin, and his damages are taxed at 100s. m.1.
CHS Vol VII, Part 1 1886 p. 26
1336-1338
De Banco 10-11 E III [1336-1338]
Staff. William le Weduesone recovers five acres in Bettelegh from Thomas de Thicknes, Robert de Baskerville, and Margaret, his wife, and Elena and Matilda, sisters of Margaret, by default of the defendants. m. 337.
CHS Vol XI 1890 p.73
1378 Sept 29
Betley, Court. Private suits, presentments, appointments, pains. WSL Salt Deeds No. 261.
"Magna Curia de Beteley tenta ibidem die sabbati prox. post festum Sa. Mich. Anno r r Ra secundi secundo..."
1380/1
DE BANCO, Mich, 4 Ric. II [1380/1] Staff. James Daudeley, of Helegh, sued John de Thyknes, son of Richard Dun (sic) of Bettyley for breaking, vi et armis, into his close at Helegh, and taking a cow worth 13s. 4d., and cutting down his trees to the value of 100s. John did not appear, and the Sheriff returned he held nothing, etc. He was therefore ordered to arrest and produce him on the Quindene of St. Hillary. m.203, dorso.
[note] In other suits James de Audley sued Richard Thicknes, of Bettyley, for taking his game at Helegh.
CHS Vol XIII 1892 p.163
1392/3
FINES OF MIXED COUNTIES, TEMP. RIC. II
On the Octaves of Holy Trinity. 16 Ric. II [1392/3]
Between William Stretehay, Thomas Thickenes, Philip Stretehay, and Richard Snede, complainants, and Roger Hillary, Knight, and Margaret his wife, deforciants of a moiety of the manors of Audley, Chesterton, Bradwall, and Endon, and of a messuage in the vill of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and of half a moiety of the manor of Norton, and of a moiety of a third part of the manors of Balterley and lstanesfeld, and of a third part of the manors of Betteley, Tunstall, and Horton, and of the park of Helegh, and 30s. rent in Helegh, Betteley, Audeley, and Over Longesdon, in co. Stafford, and of a third part of the castle and manor of Redecastell, in co. Salop.
And afterwards recorded on the Octaves of St. Martin. 20 Ric. II., [1396/7] after the death of the said William.
The complainants acknowledged the said moieties and third parts to be the right of Margaret, for which Roger and Margaret granted to them a moiety of the manor of Chesterton, and of a messuage, two parts of a moiety of the manor of Audeley, half a moiety of the manor of Norton, a third of the manor of Tunstall, and two parts of the said third part of the manor of Horton, and of the said rent, to be held by them for the life of Margaret, and they further conceded that the said moiety of the manor of Endon, of the third part of the said castle and manors of Redecastell and Betteley, a moiety of the manor of Audeley, a third of the said manors of Horton, the park and rent and the said moiety of the third part of the manor of Balterley, which Elizabeth, formerly wife of Nicholas de Audeley, Knight, held as dower, and also that the said moiety of a third part of the manor of Alstanesfeld, which Nicholas de Stafford, Knight, held for life, and likewise the said moiety of the manor of Bradwall, which John Marshall held for his life, of the inheritance of Margaret, shall remain to the complainants for the life of the said Margaret, with remainder to John Tochet, son of John Tochet, of Marketon, Knight; Thomas Tochet, Parson of the Church of Makworth, John Cokayn l'uncle, John Tochet, son of Richard Tochet, of Makworth, and William Pakeman, and to the heirs of the said John, son of John, for ever. CHS Vol XI 1890 p.209 1396 Apr 16, Sun
DE BANCO. Easter, 19 R. II [16 Apr 1396]
Staff. Nicholas, the prior of St. Thomas the Martyr near Stafford, sued William de Egerton of Wryngeford (Wrineford) and Elena his wife, daughter and heir of John de Hawkeston, and William Gregory of Betteley and James Bryddesmere for a debt of £22. The defendants did not appear and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain William de Egerton and Elena, and William Gregory who had found bail and to arrest James, and produce them on the Octaves of Holy Trinity. m. 77.
CHS Vol XV 1894 p.73
1406 Mar 8, Mon
Pleas of Assize taken at Lichefeld before the same Justices [?] on the Monday after the Feast of St. Cedde. 7 H. IV. [Mon 8 Mar 1406]
Staff. An assize, etc., if William Smethe and Rose his wife, John Lobershawe, chaplain, Thomas Malbone, John Alsegger the elder, and John Alsegger the younger, had unjustly disseised William Marchall, of four messuages and eight acres of land in Bettelegh.
William Smethe and Rose appeared in person, and the others by John atte Doune, and William and Rose answered as tenants of the land, and stated that one Hugh Loker, the father of Rose, and whose heir she was, was formerly seised of the tenements in fee, and they had descended to her as his daughter and heir, and that the said William Marchall, supposing that Rose was illegitimate, had claimed the tenements as heir of Hugh, viz., as son of Peter, son of John, the brother of Peter, father of the said Hugh, and had attempted to enter into them, and had been prevented; they prayed therefore for judgment, whether the assize would lie.
William Marchall replied that he should not be precluded from the assize on the above grounds, and that one Peter Loker, the father of Hugh, was formerly seised of the tenements in fee, and had married one Margery, and they had issue, John and Matilda, and Margery died, and Peter then married one Isabella, by whom he had issue, Hugh, the father of Rose, and after the death of Peter, John had entered as son and heir, and Matilda had issue one Richard, and Matilda died, and John leaving no issue, and Richard then entered as kinsman and heir of the said John, son of Peter, and died leaving no issue, and after his death the said William Marchall entered as cousin and heir of Richard, viz as son of Peter, son of John, brother of Peter, father of John, the uncle of the said Richard (viz. the brother of Matilda, the mother of Richard), and he was seised of the tenements, until dispossessed by the said William Smethe and Rose. And William Smethe and Rose replied that it was true that Peter Loker was seised of the tenements, and had married Margery and Isabella as stated, but that he had had issue by Isabella, Hugh, the father of Rose and one Emma; and Peter by his deed which they produced in court had given the tenements to Emma, and Emma had died seised of them, and after her death, Hugh had entered as her brother and heir, and died seised of them, and after his death Rose had entered as daughter and heir of Hugh, and was now seised of them together with her husband William Smethe, and that neither Peter, nor John, son of Peter, nor the said Richard were ever seised of the tenements as stated by the plaintiff.
The jury found that John, son of Peter, was seised of the tenements in fee when he died as stated by William Marchall, and also that the said William was seised of them, until William Smethe and Rose, and John Alsegger the elder had disseised him vi et armis, and they assessed his damages at 7 marks, William Marchall was therefore to recover seisin and his damages, but was in misericordia for a false claim against the other defendants. m. 4, dorso.
CHS Vol XV 1894 p.120
1420, Jan 13, Sat
DE BANCO. Hillary, 7 H. V. [Sat 13 Jan 1420]
Staff. John Meverell, of Throuley, sued John Brasse, of Betteley, gentilman, for a debt of 40s., and he sued William Erle, chaplain, Thomas Loken, husbondman, both of Betteley, for a debt of 100s. And he sued Hugh Lanton, of Betteley, yoman, and John Hethecokson, of Thykkenes, yoman, for a debt of 40s. The defendants did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to arrest William, Thomas, Hugh and John Hethecokson, and to distrain John Brasse, who had found bail, and produce them on the Quindene of Easter [Sun 21st Apr 1420]. m. 37.
CHS Vol XVII 1896 p.70]
? 1420/21
? DE BANCO. 8 H. V [1420/21] ?
Staff. John Meverell, son of Margaret, late wife of Henry Delves, and William Porter, chaplain, executors of the will of Margaret, late wife of Henry Delves alias called Margaret Delwes (sic) , sued John Colclough of Newcastle under Lyme, gentilman, for a debt of £20; and they sued John Brasse, of Bettiley, gentylman, John Thykkenes, of Bettiley, the younger, husbondman, and William Smyth, of Bettiley, yoman, for a debt of 100s. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain John Colclough, who had found bail, and to arrest the others, and produce them on the Quindene of St. Michael [13 Oct]. m. 392, dorso.
CHS Vol XVII 1896 p.80
1446 Sept 29, Thurs
EXTRACTS FROM THE PLEA ROLLS. DE BANCO. Mich., 25 H. VI. [Thurs 29 Sept 1446]
Staff. Elizabeth, late wife of Richard Delves, sued John Delves for a third of the manors of Bukenale and Fenton, and of 16 messuages, 6 cottages, 40 acres of land, an acre of meadow, an acre of wood, and 2s. 10d. of rent in Bukenale and Fenton, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Betteley, and Chesterton, which she claimed as dower.
John stated that she was not entitled to dower as she had never been lawfully married to the said Richard, which he was prepared to prove. Elizabeth replied that she had been lawfully married to Richard at the Parish Church of St. Mary atte Hill of Chester. As the question belonged to the ecclesiastical court, a writ was sent to the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, the Diocesan, to convoke the parties before him and return his Inquisition by his Letters Patent on the Octaves of St. Hillary.
A postscript shows that the process was continued up to Michaelmas term, 26 H. VI. [Oct 1447], when Elizabeth failed to appear and the suit was dismissed. Up to that date the Bishop had made no return to the writ. m. 106, dorso.
CHS Vol 3 New Series 1900 p.173]
1638 April 29
? Examination? taken at Whittmore - - - [bridge in Betley]
Wilton Papers. Egerton family of Wrinehill
Held at Greater Manchester County Record Office; ref: DDEg.
Wilton Papers catalogue available from GMCRO: http://www.gmcro.co.uk/Downloads.htm
back to top