
287 
only by fines and amercements. . . . . The view 
is therefore to be taken into the King’s hands, and 
Henry has it again for a fine of half a mark. 
Ibid, rot. 17, p. 527.—Ibid. 
In like manner the Prioress of None Eatonclaims . . . 
tumbrell . . . . in Brandeston and Assheby Legers. 
It is found, as above, that she punishes by amercements, 
&c., and that she has neither pillory nor tumbrell “ que 
proprie sunt judicialia ad visum franciplegii necessarie 
spectantia, per que transgressores secundum legem terre 
punire non potest.” . . . . The Prioress has the 
view of frankpledge again on paying a fine of Ios. 
P. 531.—-The case of Ralph Bassett of Weldon, claiming tumbrell in 
ij his manors of Pightesle and Weldon; & of Hugh de 
°P. 571-2. Audele and Margaret his wife, claiming tumbrell in 
their manor of Rothwell, are on precisely similar lines. 
P. 689-90.—Somerset, mem. 58. 
Master Walter Mautravers claims . . . .  tumbrell 
in Gynele & his other lands in the county 
as appurtenances of his church of Gynele of 
which he is parson, . . . . and he & his pre- 
decessors, parsons of that church, have enjoyed that 
liberty from time immemorial. . . . . The jury say 
that he and his predecessors from time immemorial 
have fully used the liberties claimed, making judgment 
with tumbrell and pillory when necessary. He is there- 
or fore to retain them. 
P. 690.—John de Columbariis and his ancestors are found by the 
jury to have had pillory and tumbrell in the hamlet of 
Chedesmud from time immemorial; which he there- 
fore retains. (No particulars.) 
P. 690-1 (mem. 58 dors.)—The Abbot of Keynsham claims . . . . 
tumbrell . . . . in the vill of Keynesham. (He 
does not claim pillory.) 
The prosecution for the King alleges that the Abbot and his 
predecessors have abused the liberty of tumbrell, taking 
redemptions, &c., and that the hundred, &c., belongs to 
