Latin Writ From 1437

[horselydown86]

I would appreciate please a transcription and translation of the remainder of this court entry from 1437.  (I have a few of these to do and the transcript will help with the others.)

It will be easier to use this link rather than me post a split image.  It's the sixth entry on this page:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no705/aCP40no705fronts/IMG_0103.htm

So far I have:

Joh(an)es Olney Civis & mercerus london in p(ro)pria p(er)sona sua [?] de iiij^to die [?sus] Joh(an)em michell de Dodford in

Com(itatu) Northt Gentilman de pl(ac)ito q(uo)d reddat ei viginti libras quas ei debet & iniuste detinet &c Et [?] non...

John Olney Citizen & mercer of london in his own person.......fourth day....John Michell of Dodford in
the County of Northampton Gentleman............twenty pounds which he owes & unjustly detains...

After that I can get only odd words.

I believe this is related to a writ of "Praecipe Quod Reddat", and that that means “command that he render".

However, I'm not sure how to translate the placito construction, and what the use of that construction signifies about this entry.

I'm in absolutely no hurry, so please take as much time as is comfortable.

Thank you for your help.

[Bookbox]

I don't think it's a writ. It's part of a plea roll from the Court of Common Pleas, held at Westminster. This court heard civil disputes between individuals, often about debt, and the plea rolls briefly summarize the proceedings in each case.

=====
Joh(ann)es Olney Civis & Mercerus* london' in p(ro)pria p(er)sona sua op(tulit) se iiij^to die v(er)sus Joh(ann)em Michell nup(er) de Dodford in

Com(itatu) Northt’ Gentilman de pl(ac)ito q(uo)d reddat ei viginti libras quas ei debet & iniuste detinet &c. Et ip(s)e non

ven(it)  Et prec(eptum) fuit Vic(ecomitibus) q(uo)d cap(er)ent eum &c.  Et Vic(ecomes) modo mand(at) q(uo)d non est invent(us) &c.  I(de)o sicut prius capiat(ur)

q(uo)d sit hic a die Pasche in unu(m) mensem &c.

=====
John Olney, Citizen and Mercer* of London, presented himself on the fourth day in his own proper person, against John Michell, lately of Dodford in the county of Northants, gentleman, concerning a plea that he (Michell) should pay him twenty pounds which he owes him and is retaining unjustly etc. And he (Michell) did not come. And the sheriffs were instructed to arrest him etc. And the sheriff now states that he has not been found etc. Therefore, just as previously, he is to be arrested so that he is here within a month of Easter Day etc.

     * capital M, I think, showing that he is of the Mercers’ Company of London (not just any old mercer).

[horselydown86]

Thank you very much, Bookbox.  That makes it all much clearer.

I couldn't make sense of placito, but now I see that (had I just Googled it), de placito is a standard legal phrase.

Does anyone know whether the quarto die represents a day within the Term or a period elapsed since some previous plea or action?  I have a few of these from different years and a quick survey shows they are all the quarto die.  It has to be the latter, surely?

Thanks again for your generosity with your time and experience in the Latin.

ADDED:

Or did the Court only sit on certain numbered days within a Term, thus skewing the distribution?

[Bookbox]

Does anyone know whether the quarto die represents a day within the Term or a period elapsed since some previous plea or action?  I have a few of these from different years and a quick survey shows they are all the quarto die.  It has to be the latter, surely?

Yes, the latter.

The procedure for common pleas was quite complicated. The defendant was summoned to court on a particular date, but was given four days’ leeway to appear. If he failed to appear on the fourth day, the plaintiff would renew his plea, and the penalty for the defendant’s non-appearance the next time was increased. This process could be repeated several times, with heavier penalties imposed each time.

I’ll try to find you a reference.

ADDED - There’s a good explanation of the process here (start at ‘The process in personal actions ...’).
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/staffs-hist-collection/vol4/pp1-8
It relates to Staffordshire, and an earlier period, but probably still relevant in the early 15th century.

[horselydown86]

Excellent, thank you very much.

I'm sure the Latin phrases in that BHO article will come in handy too.

Thanks again.