Disclaimer
&
Bowles DNA Project
 
The Bowles of Canada and their Roots in Ireland and Great Britain

Home  My Story  My Bowles Family  Bowles in Canada  Bowles in Ireland  Bowles in Great Britain  Bowles in the US

Origin of the Name  People's Lives  Related Links  New Additions

Bolles in the Lincolnshire Assize Rolls of 1202-1209

Back to The Early Bolles of Lincolnshire and The Bolles of Swineshead

 

The Lincolnshire Assize Rolls AD 1202-1209

 

Viewable online at

https://archive.org/stream/publicationslinc22lincuoft#page/152/mode/2up

   

 

 

Assize Roll 479  -  Pleas of the Crown at Lincoln, Trinity, 1202

 

Kirton Wapentake

 

The Kirton Wapentake included the communities of Swineshead, Bicker, Wigtoft, Surfleet, Algarkirk, Donington, Fosdyke, Quadring & Gosberton.

There were a number of cases heard from the Kirton Wapentake.

 

 

 

 

Entry 922 was on a case brought by a Cristiana, widow of William son of John against Radolph (Ralph) and Richard sons of Aggi for the death of her husband and does not appear to me to relate to the following hearings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entries 923 and 923a are a separate trial concerning the concealment of the death of Osbert son of Wigan. 

 

Entry 923 refers to Nigel of Wyberton denying that he took a bride to conceal the death of Osbert but paying a fine of 20s to end the accusation. 

 

Entry 923a refers to a John, the parson (the rector or vicar) of Swineshead who was charged with the same and also paid a fine of 1 mark by pledge of Walter of Pinchbeck and was also cleared of the charge.



 

 (my thanks to Dr. Matthew Tompkins for providing me with the following translations)

Entry 924 is an appeal, or criminal prosecution, for the murder of one Reynold, brought by Reynold's brother Joce son of Picot (sometimes called John) against William de Netelham and Ralph his brother and William's servant Henry (in those days there were few public prosecutions and most victims or their relatives had to bring private prosecutions, called 'appeals').  Joce withdrew his appeal, and William then sued Joce for having brought it.  Eventually they settled out of court.  Roger Bolle's participation was to act as a pledge for Joce [anyone starting a lawsuit had to provide pledges, men who guaranteed that he would prosecute the case and would be responsible for any amercements, or fines, which he might incur].

924 says: Joce son of Picot appealed William de Netelham and Ralph his brother concerning the death of Reynold his brother, and Henry the man of William concerning 'ui' [not sure what this word is, possibly 'vi', meaning 'force' or 'violence'].  And John came and withdrew [his suit] and placed himself in mercy.  And William [was] quit and Henry likewise. Ralph the clerk was convicted in an ecclesiastical court and is defrocked. Joce's pledges: Robert son of John, Roger Bolle, Thomas son of John, William de Biker. (In the margin: They are kept [?]. John found pledges afterwards.)


924a says: The aforesaid William appealed the same John/Joce son of Picot concerning the plea he made against him.  And afterwards they both came and placed themselves in mercy for permission to agree.  William's pledges for the amercement: Theobald Hautein and Roger Norensis.  Joce's pledges: Robert son of John, Roger Bolle, Thomas son of John, William de Bikere. (Margin: amercements.)

Note: 'is/are' in mercy' means is/are guilty of an offence and so liable to a punishment, to be determined by the court (usually a small cash fine ). To place oneself in mercy was to acknowledge an offence and submit to the court's punishment.  Starting a lawsuit and then withdrawing it, or settling it out of court, was an offence.

  

 

927 refers to an Allan son of Osbert who may be the same Osbert whose death was the root of the cases of interest above.

 

 930 refers to case 924a and just restates the pledges for the two parties in the case.  Theobald Hautein is now transcribed as Thedbaldus Haltein.   ‘Thomas son of John and William of Bicker’ has been incorrectly transcribed as ‘Thomas son of William of Bicker’.

 

  

936 may be interesting as it mentions Lecia daughter of Robert of Algerkirke which is also a community in the Kirton Wapentake.  While this is slightly on the early side to be the same Robert, we know from the close rolls of Edward I that a Robert Bolle held land at Algarkirk.  At a stretch this could be the Robert son of John Bolle mentioned above.

 

Close Rolls of Edward I vol. 1 1272-79

#558  April 4, 1279

 

 

The Lincolnshire Lay Subsidy of 1332 (a land value assessment  for tax purposes) lists an Isabel Bolle at Algarkirk assessed to pay 12s 5 ½ d which was one of the larger sums in the list.  That figure represented one fifteenth of her assessed annual income from her lands.

 

   

(again my thanks to Dr Matthew Tompkins for the following translation)
 
945  says that R
obert son of John Bolle and Robert son of Thomas and John Carpenter sold wine against the assize and are in mercy. And Alan the smith and [8 others including Simon of Blankeney] are likewise in mercy for the same. [They all committed some breach, probably minor or technical, of the assize ('law') which regulated the sale of wine.]


 

945 was the last hearing for Kirton Wapentake in this assize session.

 

These are extracts from the record of all the fines and amercements imposed during the assizes. 

 

Entry 1066

 

From Nigel of Wyberton a 20s fine to end the charge against him (as was stated in session 923).

From John of Swineshead 1mark for the same by the pledge of Walter of Pinchbeck (as in 923a).

From Joce son of Picot because he withdrew,  4 marks, by pledge of Robert son of John, Roger Bolle, Thomas son of John and William of Bicker. (as in entry 924)

 

 

Entry 1069

 

From Robert son of John Bolle for wine sold against the assize (?) 1 mark


 

 

 

 


This site was last updated 10/19/18