Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/108

100 MERCHANTS' COURTS AT WINCHESTER January The court of piepowder, as its name implies, was primarily a court for dealing with cases in which the non-burgess merchants visiting the city were concerned. Consequently it meets at frequent and irregular intervals and the adjournments are for short periods. In 7 and 16 Henry VI it meets more than an average of once a week, in 11 Henry VI twice a week, and the adjournments are often for such short intervals as from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. In one yeair (3 Henry VI) six out of eighty-two meetings of the court are on Sunday afternoon, and it is evident that everything was done for the convenience of non-resident litigants. These, however, are not merchants only. In 6 Henry VI there are three cases of ' clericus ' prosecuting * clericus ', one of ' armiger ' v. * gentil- man ' ; in other rolls the warden and fellows of Winchester College claim a com rent from a ' husbondman ' of Knight's Enham near Andover ; J. Sandes, ' clericus ', claims for debt, possibly for tithe, from T. Kayt, ' husbondman ', of Soberton ; John Somerey, chaplain of Depedene in the New Forest, and vicar of Overton, is summoned by the rector of Depedene for debt ; the bishop of Winchester and the prior of St. Swithun's, the abbot of Hyde, also appear as plaintiffs. In 3 Henry VI the frequency of clerical litigants is very remarkable ; there are thirteen cases where the plaintiff is described as * clericus', in one of which he is also ' mercator', eight where the defendant is ' clericus'. But on the whole the occupation and place of abode of litigants are stated so rarely and with such an absence of system that it is difficult to establish principles. Details enough are given, however, to make it clear, first, that burgesses of boroughs which had their own charters and their own courts are prosecuted in Winchester ; secondly, that cases are frequent where both litigants are burgesses of such boroughs. In 6 Henry VI W. Hampstede, ' fissher', of NewSarum, is plaintiff against W. Brown, drover, of New Sarum, R. Elvyngton, merchant, of Andover against T. Bedeswelle, merchant, of Andover, W. Warrewyk, civis and mercator, of New Sarum, against J. Wodeford, burgess and mercator, of Southampton ; and there are several cases where a citizen of London is defendant. All these may have been cases of merchants visiting Winchester, but what of a plaint of the fee farm baiUffs of Andover against R. Couk, ' husbondman ', of Chilwarton (five miles from Andover) ? or why does Sir S. Popham, late sheriff of Southampton (in 7 Henry VI), prosecute W. Atte Noke for debt of £7 16s. lie?., or J. Serle, subvisor of the county, prosecute T. Lane in the court of piepowder ? In Popham's case the debt was for arrears which had been before auditors, and therefore was probably due to the sheriff in his capacity as such, and was not a private debt ; or again, why does a claim of