Family Lessons 124: Amerced

In 1299 or so, my ancestor sued another man for removal of a boundary stone. In 1238, another ancestor of mine was taken to court by one of his neighbours. Richard de la Croyze, my 23x great-gramps, was accused by Richard de Bikerstath of ‘novel disseisin’: illegally dispossessing him of his right to use certain land. The year’s Assize Roll reports:

…Whether Richard de la Croyz unjustly and without Judgment disseised (ie dispossessed) Richard de Bikerstath of his common of pasture in Lathom which belongs to his free tenement in the same vill...and whereof he complains that he disseised him of his common in 60 acres of land in which he was wont to common with his beasts of all sorts in open time and of his common in 6 acres of wood in which he was wont to common with his beasts of all sorts for the whole year.

Evidently, Richard Bikerstath alleged that my ancestor who had 60 acres stole from him an additional 6, preventing him from pasturing his animals. A record of the defence is also made:

And Richard de la Croiz (sic) comes and says that he did no injury or disseisin for he says that the said Richard de Biherstath (sic) was never in seisin (ie legal possession) of the said common so that he could thereof be disseised. For he says that his father and he likewise in all his time have held the said land and wood in their own severalty and further than this that the said Richard de Bickerstath has not any common in the same and that such is the case he puts himself on the Assize. And Richard de Bickerstath says that he stood in good and peaceable seisin of the said common of which view has been made until the said Richard de la Croiz him thereof unjustly and without Judgment disseised and as to this he puts himself on the Assize.

Quite what evidence was given to support these claims, the court clerk does not seem to have recorded. And this was the outcome:

The Jury say on their oath that the said Richard de la Croiz did not disseise the said Richard de Bickerstath of the said common, for they say that he was never in seisin of the said common which he put in their view. And so it is considered that the said Richard de la Croiz go thence without a day (ie without delay) and that Richard de Bickerstath take nothing by that Assize but be in mercy for false claim.

‘In mercy’ had a different meaning in 1238 to what we might expect it to today. Mercy is the withholding of punishment, where as to ‘amerce’ means to fine. De Bickerstath was therefore fined by the court for bringing a false accusation against De la Croyze, and was therefore held to be at the court’s mercy. The level of fine is not recorded, but if he was a poorer man, and denied the right of pasture, the required silver might not have been very readily found.

My own, initial instincts are for the poorer man, notwithstanding the wealthier man’s provision of my DNA. Nevertheless, a jury determined that the accuser was a liar, a dishonest chancer hoping to improve his lot at another’s expense. For this, he fell foul of the very court to whose judgement he had initially appealed, and at whose mercy he then found his pocket. Sometimes we appeal to God’s terrific justice while considering others’ sins and shortcomings, without fully realising that the same terrifying standard shall be applied to our own lives, too. Scripture urges our doling of mercy to our peers, for the standard we use shall be used with us: