Robert of Linton

Curia Regis Rolls 1225-1226    p297

Curia Regis Roll 86  m 2

Trinity Term, 8 Henry III (1224)


Ebor – Robertus de Percy optulit se iiij. die versus Henricum de Percy Hugonem de Lillay Ricardum de Littlington’ Robertum de Plumton’ Matheum de Bram, Nigellum Picernam, Reinbaldum de Montibus Baldewinum de Stoche  Robertum de Beringrant Willelmum Pincewar’ Robertum de Linton’ Willelmum filium Roberti de placito roberie et pacis etc.

Et nullas coram venit etc; et attachiati fuerunt primo per Alam de Burhill’ Rannulfum Har’ Alanum de Munketon’ Ricardum filium Walteri Jordanum de Lutington’ Henricum de Abbarford’ Thomam filium Radulfi de Plumton’ Maugerum de Plumton’ Walterum filium Alani de Folifet Nicholaum de Duneford’ Adam ad Moram Thomam filium Wimundi de Delinton’ Johannem filium Roberti de Stache Alanum filium Godwini Joscelinum de Okinton’ Maugerum Pistorem Thomam filium Hugonis Jordanum de Hwatevill’ Rogerum Blundum Thomam le Mariner Willelmum filium Roberti de Eboraco, et secundo per Osbertum de Brunneby Josep de Heyton’ Ricardum le Franceis Gilebertum filium Normani Robertum Karle Adam Prepositum de eadem villa (sic) Willelmum de Stiveton’ Willelmum de Plumton’ Willelmum filium Mathei Walterum filium Mathei Ricardum Dagun Johannem de Ayketon’ Gilbertum filium Toraudi Alanum filium Godwini Willelmum le Goiz Thomam le Lardeiner Ricardum de Montecanis’ Lucam de Bridlington’ Willelmum de Staxton’ Willelmum Prepositum de Lutone Jordanum de Sikelinghal’ Robertum filium Alani Johannem de Aquila et Willelmum Flur Ricardum de Munceus. Et ideo omnes plegii in misericordia; et vicecomes habeat corpora omnium predictorum apellatorum in octabis sancti Michaelis etc., et similiter Henrici de Capella Hugonis de Safford’ Hugonis de Wavill’ Stephani de Mara Oliveri de Brinkel’ et Roberti filii Willelmi ad respondendum de eodem etc.

Idem Robertus optulit se quarto versus Willelmum de Percy de placito manerii de Lalton cum pertinenciis, quod idem Willelmus clamat versus eum etc; et Willelmus non venit etc., et fuit petens. Et ideo Robertus inde sine die: et Willelmus et plegii sui de prosequendo in misericordia, scilicet Thomas le Gardiner de Tattecastr’ et Willelmus le Grant de Torneton’.


York – Robertus de Percy offered himself iiij. day towards Henry de Percy, Hugh de Lillay, Richard de Littlington, Robert de Plumton, Mathew de Bram, Nigel Picerna, Reinbald de Montibus, Baldewin de Stoche, Robert de Beringrant, William Pincewar, Robert de Linton, William the son of Robert, de plato of servitude and peace, etc.

And he came before none, etc. and they were attached first by Alam de Burhill, Rannulf Har, Alan de Munketon, Richard son of Walter, Jordan de Lutington, Henry de Abbarford, Thomas son of Ralph de Plumton, Mauger de Plumton, Walter son of Alan de Folifet, Nicholas de Duneford, Adam to Mora Thomas the son of Wimund de Delinton, John, the son of Robert de Stache, Alan, the son of Godwin, Joscelin de Okinton, Mauger Pistor, Thomas, the son of Hugh, Jordan de Hwatevill, Roger Blund, Thomas le Mariner, William, the son of Robert de York, and secondly through Osbert de Brunneby, Joseph de Heyton, Richard le Franceis Gilbert, son of Norman, Robert, Karle Adam, Prefect of the same town (sic), William de Stiveton, William de Plumton, William, son of Matthew, Walter, son of Matthew, Richard Dagun, John of Ayketon, Gilbert, son of Toraud, Alan, son of Godwin, William le Goiz, Thomas le Lardeiner, Richard de Montecanis, Luke de Bridlington’ William de Staxton’ William Prepositum de Luton Jordan de Sikelinghal’ Robert son of Alan John de Aquila and William Flur Richard de Munceus. And therefore all were afflicted in mercy; and the sheriff shall have the bodies of all the aforesaid persons addressed in the octaves of St. Michael, etc., and likewise of Henry de Capella, Hugh de Safford, Hugh de Wavill, Stephen de Mara, Oliver de Brinkel, and Robert son of William to answer for the same, etc.

The same Robert offered himself fourth against William de Percy concerning the plea of the manor of Lalton with the appurtenances, which the same William claims against him, etc. and William did not come, etc., and he was asking. And therefore Robert thenceforth without a day: and William and his pledges for proceeding in mercy, namely Thomas le Gardiner de Tattecastr’ and William le Grant de Torneton’.


Select Cases of Procedure without writ under Henry III

Seldon Society Vol 60  1941

Plaints in the King’s Court.


Pleas at Westminster of Michaelmas Term in the Eighth year of the reign of Henry III (1224)

Further Pleas of the Octave of Michaelmas.


Robert de Percy complains that on Friday after last Candlemas, (9 February 1224), there came to his mill at Hornington William de Percy, with his force and horses and arms, armed, that is to say, with a hauberk and other weapons, and with banners unfurled and pennons and barded horses. And, in time of the king’s peace and feloniously, he, along with a crowd of armed men, wickedly broke down his mill and pulled out all the timber. And he took one of his grindstones away in a boat, and the other fell in to the water as they were trying to put it into the boat, and afterwards they smashed it with iron hammers. And they broke open his chests and carried them away, as also the corn and hay and timber from his mill. And thereupon came Jordan of Stokes, serjeant of that township, and raised the cry, and asked that the king’s peace should be kept. And William and his men seized him, beat him evilly and shamefully treated him and robbed him of his cloak and a sword and a felt hat. And Jordan offers to prove by battle against William, as the court shall award, that he did this wickedly and feloniously and in the time of the king’s peace. And if this does not suffice, Robert offers the king three marks to have an inquest thereon.
Walter of Boroughbridge, Robert’s servant, appeals Henry de Percy of this, that, insomuch as he came to the hue raised for that robbery, Henry and others seized him and beat him evilly, without drawing blood, and shamefully treated him and robbed him of an axe with which they beat him. And he offers to prove by battle, as the court shall award, that he did this wickedly and feloniously.
William of Holme, Robert’s servant, appeals Walter de Percy of this, that he was present with wicked and felonious intent at the robbery of the mill and beat him him evilly and robbed him of a cloak of grising. And he offers to prove by battle that he did this wickedly and feloniously.
In the same way as William, Henry le Noreis, Robert’s servant, appeals Jordan le Estre of this, that he was present with wicked and felonious intent at the robbery, with horses and arms, and robbed him of a scapular of burel and beat him. And he offers to prove by battle that he wickedly etc.
And William and Henry, Walter and Jordan come and deny the breach of the king’s peace, the felony and robbery and whatever is against the king’s peace. And they say that they have no day against the appellors; nor did the latter ever appeal them either in county court or elsewhere; nor are the appellors mentioned in the writ with the exception of Robert, who is present and says nothing against them. Therefore they refuse to answer them, unless the court shall so award, because they have been attached through Robert’s appeal and not that of his men.
And Robert says that when the robbery was committed, he was, in fact, lying ill and as soon as he had recovered from his illness, he came to the king and, on behalf of himself and his men, he complained to him about the robbery. And so it is that his men are suing against them. And, if this plaint does not suffice, and the court shall award that he can have an appeal against them, although by reason of his illness he did not see the robbery, he is ready, as one who heard about it but did not see it, to prove it by battle, as the court shall award.
And William and the others ask that it should be allowed in their favour that Robert acknowledges that he did not see what was done. And therefore it is awarded that there is no appeal, and that the appellees are not to make answer to the writ. And so William and the others are to be acquited thereof, and Robert is to be amerced’.


Curia Regis Roll 90  Adhuc de Quindena   Trinity 1225

m9 (Curia Regis Rolls 1225-1226 p132)

Ebor – Willelmus de Percy per attoratum suum optulit se quarto die versus Adam de Novo Mercato et Johannem de Birkin Willelmum de Tameton’ et Willelmum Britonem, quos dominus rex constitut justiciarios ad assisam nove disseisine capiendam inter predictum Willelmum querentum et Robertum de Percy de quodam stagno levato in Hornington’, de placito quod fecerent recordum de assisa illa secundum quod coram eis capta fuit, et versus omnes recognitores ejusdem assise qui sacramentum fecerent de placito quod certicarent justiciarios de sacramento suo quod inde fecerent etc., unde predictus Willelmus dicit quod numquam fuit ibi aliquod stagnum levatum vel exaltum nisi per predictum Robertum, qui illud levavit ad nocumentum liberi tenementi ejusdem Willelmi in Tatecastr’ etc., et versus eundem Robertum de placito quod audiret illud recordum. Et justiciarii non venerunt etc. nec recognitores etc., nec Robertus venit etc.; et plures fecerunt defaltas. Et ideo mandatum est vicecomiti quod habeat predictos justiciarios coram justiciaris ad primam assisam cum in partes illas venerint ad assisas nove disseisine capiendas et ad gaolas deliberandas et faciendum recordum illud et quod habeat corpora predictorum ad certicandem eosdem justiciarios et corpus predicti Roberti ad audiendum recordum illud’.


York – William de Percy by his attorney offered himself on the fourth day against Adam de Novomerato and John de Birkin William de Tameton and William Briton, whom the lord the king appoints justiciaries to take the assize of the novel disseisin between the aforesaid William the complainant and Robert de Percy de raised in a certain pond in Hornington, concerning the plea that they should make a record of that assize according as it was taken before them, and towards all the reviewers of the same assize who would make the sacrament of the plea that they should certify the justiciaries of their sacrament that they had done therefrom, etc., wherefore the aforesaid William says that there was never any pond raised or raised there except by the aforesaid Robert, who raised it to the detriment of the freehold of the same William in Tatecastr, etc., and towards the same Robert on the plea that he should hear that record. And the magistrates did not come, etc. neither did the reviewers, etc., nor did Robert come, etc.; and many made defaults. And therefore the sheriff is commanded to have the aforesaid justices before the justiciary at the first assize when they come to those parts to take the assizes of the new disseision and to resolve the gaols and to make that record and to have the bodies of the aforesaid to certify the same justiciars and the body of the aforesaid Robert to hear that record. .