STAC 5/P16/10r

From Rpalmer
Jump to: navigation, search

Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 53v.

Damages. An undersheriff and his deputy for riot and other misdemeanor committed by colour of a fieri facias. Prater, plaintiff; Richard Errington, an undersheriff, Richard Moody, a High Sheriff, William Kent, deputy undersheriff, and Anthony Hawes his bailiff, for riot by them committed by colour of a fieri facias to the sheriff directed at the suit of one Richard Prater for the levying of £146 1s of the plaintiff’s goods whereby they committed diverse riots upon the plaintiff and hurt one of his men, and so possessed themselves of a messuage and certain lands and diverse acres sowed with wheat and barley to the value of £500 and yet the sheriff returned but £49 13s 4d into the King’s Bench and so being in possession of the said lands and goods did by colour of the same writ of fieri facias commit diverse wastes and spoils in pulling down of walls, in burning up of timber, spoiling hay and 2 pigeon houses, for which the undersheriff was fined at 500 marks, [fo. 54r.] Kent 300 marks, Hawke £20 and Fleet, and because the High Sheriff was dismissed, and for that the other defendants were not able to make satisfaction to the plaintiff of the waste and damages, therefore the court ordered, that upon the return of the commission awarded for the proof of the damages sustained that the bond which the said Moodie had of the said Errington for the due execution of his said office of undersheriff and the sureties of him in the said bond shall be chargeable and liable by the order of this court to the recompense and full satisfaction thereof, and of any parcel thereof to the plaintiff’s damages and losses. Trinity 34 Elizabeth [fo. 59r.] Costs and damages. Prater, plaintiff; Herrington et al: the defendants convicted, ordered to make restitution of all such goods and chattels as they took away and of all such losses and hindrances as the plaintiff thereby sustained and a commission of inquiry being awarded to prove the loss and damages, the plaintiff died before restitution and the court ordered upon the plaintiff’s wife’s motion, she being his administrator, that the same should be paid unto her as they should have been to her husband. Easter 36 Elizabeth. By a later order the court ordered, that if she will challenge the same, her husband being dead and the certainty thereof nether known nor reported, that she shall pray the same by bill of revivor where to the defendant may plead matter of discharge if any he have, and then the court will take further order.

Trinity 36 Elizabeth