Plea of detinue of chattels against Thomas Wayte by Richard Ferrour, personally, in that Thomas withholds from him chattels valued at #20. Thomas fails to appear. Judgement postponed until Monday before Christmas of this year, [3] with order that Thomas be attached to appear. [4]

Payment of a half-mark by John Gritford [5] for a licence of concord with William Mil[...] [6] [in a dispute concerning] one messuage and three acres of land with appurtenances in Ramsey, Wistow and Hepmangrove. [7]

Assize of novel disseisin against Richard Ferrour of Ramsey, Nicholas de Stukele, knight, William de Wassyngle and Thomas othe Seler by Alan Colwyk of Ramsey, who complains that they unjustly disseised him of his free tenement in Ramsey, namely of one messuage with appurtenances. [9] The said Richard, Nicholas and Thomas come in person, but William is represented by a certain Adam Joie, [10] acting as his bailiff, who says that the said Alan never had anything in the said messauge except a tenement with Nicholas Capron, who is not named in the writ, whereupon he seeks judgement of the writ. Further, [if his exception is not allowed], [11] then he says that [the said William] never committed any injury or disseisin against Alan, and concerning which he puts himself on the assize, as does [Alan.] [12]

The said Richard says that he is the tenant of the said messuage by right of his wife, Agnes, and was on the day of the seeking of the writ, and [shared the property] with Nicholas de Stukele and the others named in the writ, but that Agnes is not named in the writ, whereupon he seeks judgement of the writ. (The said Nicholas de Stukele and Thomas say that they are tenants of the said messuage and were on the day of the seeking of the writ, [sharing the property] with Richard and William. Further, they say that the assize should not be held because Richard Ferrour and his wife, Agnes, brought a writ of formedon against Thomas Wayte and his wife, Alice, then tenants of the said messuage, which writ was returnable before Robert Balknapp and his associates, late justices of the Bench at Westminster, on the morrow of the Ascension, in the forty-ninth year of King Edward III, [13] claiming that a certain Emma, [14] who was the wife of Alan Cocus of Ramsey, had given that messuage to a certain Ivette, her daughter, and to the heirs of her body. The writ traced the descent [of the property] from Ivette to her son Alan, and from Alan to his son, Alan, and from him to his daughter, Agnes. Upon that writ, action began in that court until the bailiffs of the abbot of Ramsey's banlieu came and, having sought the abbot's liberty, obtained it. Later, before the said abbot's justices in the banlieu of Ramsey, on Monday in Easter Week, 1 Richard II, [15] Richard and Agnes, by judgement of the court, recovered the said messuage from Thomas and Alice, and by grant [of Richard and Agnes], Nicholas de Stukele and Thomas othe Seler [16]obtained the status they now have in the messuage, and they say that the status of Alan Colwyk in that messuage was that of an intermediary tenant, whereupon they seek judgement whether he should bring the assize against them. (The said Alan Colwyk says that neither the said Richard Ferrour's request for the quashing of the writ nor Nicholas' and Thomas' claim that they are separate tenants should be admitted, for he says that on the day he sought the writ—6 October, 6Richard II [17]—the said Richard, Nicholas, William and Thomas were tenants of that messuage in common, which he seeks be established by the assize, as do Richard, Nicholas, William and Thomas.

[Verdict of the Jurors], elected by the consent of the parties: [18] at the time that the disseisin of Alan Colwyk was supposed to have been committed—as alleged in his writ—the said Alan alone was seised of the said messuage as of a free tenement, although the aforesaid Nicholas Caperon also had some [interest] in it. Further, on the day he sought his writ, the said Nicholas de Stukele, William and Thomas were tenants in common of that messuage with appurtenances, and that the said Richard only had anything in it at the will of Nicholas, William and Thomas.

The jurors seek the discretion [19] of the Justices, and a day before the said Justices at Ramsey is given to the parties to hear the judgement: Monday after Christmas, [20] on which day Alan Colwyk came in person, but Richard and the others did not, sending a certain Adam Capron to answer for them as their bailiff. [Because of that], a day was immediately given to the parties at Ramsey to hear the judgement [based on] the said verdict, namely: Thursday before Palm Sunday, [21] at which day the said [Alan] [22] did not prosecute his writ. Therefore, he and his pledges for prosecuting are amerced. [23]