Author Topic: Latin - Common Pleas Entry From 1486  (Read 485 times)

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,418
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Latin - Common Pleas Entry From 1486
« on: Tuesday 18 December 18 16:58 GMT (UK) »
I would like to ask for some help please in completing the translation of this entry from CP40/895 (last entry on the dorse image numbered 926).

Most of the entry is standard wording, which I have been able to handle.  However a couple of passages require more expert eyes.

The first issue is the interpretation of the passage (CP_Hilary_1486_1.JPG) concerning John Smyth of Bedworth:

                                                                             ...v(er)sus Joh(ann)em Smyth de Bedeworth

in Com(itatu) p(re)d(i)c(t)o husbondman alias [d(i)c(tu)m?] Joh(ann)em Smyth de Bedeworth in Com(itatu) p(re)d(i)c(t)o husbondman

[manentem?] in tenura Edwardi Sanderys de pl(ac)ito...



What is it saying about his relationship to Edward Sanderys?  Is it perhaps suggesting John was a manorial tenant;  in which case why is that significant to his debt of ten pounds owed to the plaintiff Thomas Clerk?

(I don't necessarily expect a definite answer, but I would like to squeeze as much nuance from the language as can be extracted.)

Secondly I would appreciate help with the translation of the final line and a half (CP_Hilary_1486_2 Left & Right).

I have the translation to the end of Et ip(s)i non ven(iunt), but am unsure of aspects of the remainder.

Thank you for your help.  I am in no hurry so whenever is convenient will be fine.

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,898
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Latin - Common Pleas Entry From 1486
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 18 December 18 22:49 GMT (UK) »
What is it saying about his relationship to Edward Sanderys?  Is it perhaps suggesting John was a manorial tenant;  in which case why is that significant to his debt of ten pounds owed to the plaintiff Thomas Clerk?

First, I agree with your queried words – dictum and manentem.
manentem is from the verb maneo, meaning ‘remaining’, ‘staying’, ‘abiding’, or just ‘being’ -- nothing to do with a manor.
alias dictum means ‘otherwise called’.

Looking at the whole entry on AALT, where it’s easier to grasp the overall sense, I think these words have no bearing on the plea itself. I think John Smyth is just being referenced in two different ways, translating as:

'... against John Smyth of Bedeworth in the aforesaid county, husbandman, otherwise called John Smyth of Bedeworth in the aforesaid county, husbandman, being the tenant of Edward Sandyrys.'

I suspect that in earlier documents in the case he’d been referred to as ‘John Smyth being the tenant of Edward Sandyrys’, so the fuller description had to be included in this entry too, to ensure his identity was clear.

Secondly I would appreciate help with the translation of the final line and a half (CP_Hilary_1486_2 Left & Right).

I have the translation to the end of Et ip(s)i non ven(iunt), but am unsure of aspects of the remainder.

...  Et ip(s)i non ven(iunt)  Et prec(eptum) fuit vic(ecomiti) q(uo)d sum(moneret) eos &c  Et vic(ecomes)

modo mand(at) q(uo)d nichil h(ab)ent &c  I(de)o capiant(ur) q(uo)d sint hic a die
Pasche in xv dies &c.


' ... and they do not come; and the sheriff was instructed to summon them etc; and the sheriff now reports that they do not hold anything etc [any goods/assets within his jurisdiction]. Therefore they should be arrested, so that they are here within 15 days after Easter Day.'

The above is similar to something you had in an earlier plea, with slightly different wording ...
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=786154.msg6414068

All rather routine, I’m afraid.

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,418
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Latin - Common Pleas Entry From 1486
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 19 December 18 04:41 GMT (UK) »
Many thanks, Bookbox.  Although it's rather routine in itself, this record is very significant to my research.  It's worthwhile to me to understand it properly.

In his will, my known ancestor Edward Saunders of Harrington (Northants) mentions lands at Bedworth and a brother, described as Sir Richard Saunders.

Edward's origins are not proven.  Some internet pages hold him to be from the SAUNDERS family in Bedworth:  others place him elsewhere.

The Ric(ardu)m Sanders de Bedworth...Cl(er)icum mentioned in this case should be the brother and Edwardi Sandyrys is probably my Edward.

In about 1455 (TNA C1 25/160) a widow of the CLERK family took action in Chancery against John SAUNDERS of Bedworth over a land dispute.

Being able to place Richard the brother in Bedworth and the link from Richard and Edward to the CLERKs constitutes enough to make it most unlikely that my Edward isn't from the SAUNDERS family of Bedworth.

I did use your previous transcript in my work on this one.  However, while I got nichil h(ab)ent I couldn't understand what it signified beyond the strict meaning. The information in your parentheses makes all the difference.

Thanks again.  As always your help is appreciated greatly.

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,898
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Latin - Common Pleas Entry From 1486
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 19 December 18 09:47 GMT (UK) »
You're welcome. Excellent that you've made such good progress on this line.