fitz William v. Amice et al. (1200, king's court):
The assize comes to recognize if Amice who was the wife of
Richard earl of Clare and Hugh of Ceriton, John of Cornherd,
William of Wattevill, Alexander son of Gilbert, Alexander
son of Matthew, Bartholomew son of Alexander, Robert of
Cornherd, and Geoffrey son of Leveric unjustly and without
judgment disseised Richard son of William of Sudbury of his
free tenement in Sudbury after the feast of St Michael next
before the coronation of the lord king. The countess says
that, when she was separated by papal order from the earl of
Clare her husband by reason of consanguinity, to which
husband the vill of Sudbury had been given with her as
marriage portion, she came to Sudbury and convoked her court
and made the same Richard to be summoned to come to show by
what warrant he held her land. He willingly entered into the
plea and vouched the earl of Clare her former husband to
warrant and at the day given him to have [his warrantor] he
did not have him. And thus by consideration of her court she
seised her land and holds it. Which court she produced and
which attests this. Richard comes and denies that he was
ever summoned or came into her court by summons or vouched
to warranty or so lost seisin by consideration of the court
of the countess. And this he offers [to prove]. It is
considered that he defend himself 12-handed that he did not
willingly enter into the plea and vouch to warranty.
Pages:
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247