A HISTORY OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 



together and made a separate presentment. Generally they merely said that 

 everything was well, but occasionally some concealed offence was presented 

 by them. The business of the court was a review of the tithings and the 

 presentment of offences against the peace. For certain offences the lord 

 himself levied fines. He thus was responsible for the condition of the roads, 

 and dealt with encroachments and poaching. If he also held other franchises, 

 such as the assizes of bread and ale, and waifs and strays, the numerous 

 offenders were presented at the view of frankpledge, and finally the tithing- 

 men gave a fine to the lord de certo from their tithings. 



The view of frankpledge was afterwards called the court-leet of the 

 manor. The name was used once at Fawley, in I377, 18 but afterwards the 

 older designation of the court reappeared. In 1500 there was a court-leet 

 at Aylesbury, but at Wingrave the name had not been introduced sixty years 

 later. 



Besides the jurisdiction originating in a grant from the crown the lord 

 of a manor had the right, inherent to the possession of a manor, to hold a 

 court for his tenants, both free and customary. 



In the fourteenth century there was no trace of any divisions of courts 

 for the two classes of tenants. At that time the free tenants had, when 

 possible, withdrawn their suit, and the service was specially noted in their 

 charters if it was to be exacted. It was, however, extremely difficult to 

 enforce the attendance of the more important tenants, and a long list of 

 absent free tenants continually began the business of the court, although the 

 lord could distrain their goods for default. For the customary tenants on 

 the other hand the manorial court was the only court of justice. The suits 

 between tenants were so numerous as to suggest that litigation was one of 

 the few excitements in an otherwise monotonous life. The chief actions 

 were for debt and trespass, and were decided by the verdict of recognitors. 

 Pledges for appearance and fines for non-appearance in these suits were levied 

 by the lord, so that the perquisites of the court were a valuable asset. 



At Kingsey, 19 for instance, Thomas Chapman summoned William de 

 Aston to recover a debt of js. William denied that he owed the money, and 

 put himself ' at law.' He was, however, unable to find the necessary pledges, 

 and so was held to be convicted of the debt, which Thomas was to recover, 

 with damages to the same amount. 



In another case Henry le Webbe accused John le Cornmonger and his 

 wife Isabella of having harboured the son of the Cornmonger after he had 

 killed a pig belonging to the plaintiff, worth %d. The plea failed, however, 

 since John and Isabella were not held to be responsible, and Henry was fined 

 for making a false accusation. 



In other cases the plaintiffs came to terms before the end of the suit, 

 and paid a fine to the lord for leave to make a formal agreement. 



Cases of disputed inheritance of customary land were brought to the 

 lord's court and settled by the evidence of the suitors. All grants of lands, 

 both free and customary, were recorded in the Court Rolls, in the latter case 

 the actual transfer of the land being made in court, while fines and dues were 

 also paid to the steward in the same place. 



Lastly, fines were exacted in punishment of all encroachments on the 



" B.M. Add. R. 27029, rot. 2, i. P.R.O. Ct. R. ptfo. 155, No. 15. 



42 



