76 Bedfordshire 1 (1276) [Edward I]

WILLIAM SON OF SIMON BAIOUSE

v.

ISABEL DE FORZ, COUNTESS OF AUMALE, ET AL.

Plea of Novel disseisin

William Son of Simon complains that Isabel De Forz,[1] Countess of Aumale, Simon Son of Richard and the others named in this writ have wrongfully etc. disseised him of the manor of Chapham with its appurtenances.

The countess answers that she claims neither fee nor free tenement except by way of wardship with Simon son of Richard. She says that one Simon held the manor of Chapham and engendered Richard. She says that one Simon held the manor of Richard, with the assent and at the wish of his father, took a wife and brought her to his father's house and there engendered Simon in his father's house. Subsequently, during the lifetime of his father Simon, Richard died and Simon Son of Richard remained with his grandfather as a hearth-child[2] and his heir. Then Simon the grandfather died and Simon the son of Richard remained in as his heir until this William came with the assistance of men of war and intruded himself. He is ready to prove that he had no other title to the free tenement.

For William.Sir, we are ready to prove that William remained in the tenement after the death of Simon as his son and heir and held it and continued that estate until the countess and others named in the writ disseised him wrongfully and without a judgment.

For Simon Son of Richard.Sir, he (William) could not be the hearth-child and heir of Simon unless Richard, his elder brother was excluded from the household of his father. But Richard was the son and heir of Simon and took a wife at his wishes and engendered Simon, who remained in as hearth-child and heir during his grandfather's lifetime and held after his death until William came with the assistance of men of war and intruded. When the war was over Simon the son of Richard entered into his own estate through this guardian, the countess. He asks for the assize on this.

The Record

An assize comes to give its verdict as to whether Isabel De Forz, Countess of Aumale, Robert De Wyville, Lucy the widow of Ralph de Bray and Simon Son of Richard Baiouse had unjustly , etc., disseised William the Son of Simon Baiouse of his free tenement in Clapham. His complaint is that they have disseised him of the manor of Clapham with appurtenances, etc.

Isabel and the others do not appear but one Geoffrey Clerk does and he answers for them as their bailiff. He says that the countess claims no right in the manor other than wardship in the names of Simon Son of Richard, who is below age and ought to be in her wardship because Simon his grandfather, whose heir he is, held that manor of her by knight service and after his death she had seized the manor into her hands and had been in seisin of it as by way of wardship in the name of the said Simon Son of Richard.

William admits that Simon, the grandfather of Simon, died seised of said manor and that he held it of the countess but he says that after Simon's death he entered the manor as the son and heir of Simon and was in peaceful seisin of it until the countess and the others unjustly disseised him of it. He asks that an inquiry be made by the assize on this.

The countess and the others through their bailiff say that Richard, the father of said Simon, who is now under age, was the eldest son of Simon the grandfather. Richard with the consent of his father Simon had married a wife by whom he had issue in the house of his father Simon. That issue was this Simon, whom Simon his grandfather after the death of his son Richard, who had predeceased him, treated as his next heir. He says that after the death of Simon his grandfather she had entered the said manor into her wardship by reason of the minority of Simon the son of Richard, and remained in seisin until William, during the time of disturbances in the kingdom, intruded into the manor, and was in seisin for some time, until at the end of the disturbances she went to the Earl of Cornwall and her other friends and arranged with them to get back the seisin of the said manor in wardship, as already said. She puts herself on the assize that this is so.

The jurors say on their oath that Simon the grandfather who held the manor by knight service had three sons. These were Richard the eldest and John the middle son, both of whom predeceased their father, and William the youngest. Richard the eldest son had married a wife with the consent and at the wishes of his father Simon and had a son by her, the said Simon, and a daughter, Richard and his wife and children lived in the house of Simon as members of his household all of Richard's life. Richard died four years before his father Simon. The wife and children had lived with Simon in his household after Richard's death until the death of Richard's father Simon, who died one Sunday after Easter between the battles of Lewes and Evesham.[3] On the morning after his death, Richard's wife fearing the children by Richard would be taken away from her went away. Then William the younger son of Simon, who had remained continually at all times with his father Simon in his household, remained in seisin in the manor, claiming to be the oldest heir of Simon and continued to remain in seisin for eight weeks, He then approached Henry of Lutton, the bailiff of the countess, and arranged with him for the bailiff to allow him to continue in seisin of the manor, and he remained with him in seisin of it for fifteen days. During that time, in the presence of the bailiff, he fished in the fishponds and took fish and cut trees and sold them as he wished and took the fealty of the villeins but did no cultivation or other work on the manor. Subsequently the countess, understanding that William was not the right heir of Simon, sent the said Robert de Wyville and ejected William from the manor. Asked if William entered the manor through force of power of anyone else, they say not. Asked where the countess was at the time of the death of Richard's father Simon, they say they do not know, but they do know she was within the kingdom.

They are adjourned to hear their judgment one month after Michaelmas at Westminster.

Damages, if any 180 pounds.[4]

[1] Isabella de Forz (Latinized to de Fortibus) (July 1237 - 10 November 1293) was the eldest daughter of Baldwin de Redvers, 6th Earl of Devon (1217-1245). On the death of her brother Baldwin de Redvers, 7th Earl of Devon (d.1262) without progeny, she inherited the earldom and also the feudal barony of Plympton in Devon and the Lordship of the Isle of Wight. After the early death of her husband and her brother before she was thirty years old, she inherited their estates and became one of the richest women in England, living mainly in Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight, which she held from the king as tenant-in-chief. She was a much sought after wife for several powerful and ambitious men. She subsequently called herself "Countess of Aumale and of Devon and Lady of the Isle" (of Wight).

Simon de Montfort. Despite the younger Simon de Montfort (second son of Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester) having acquired the very valuable rights to her re-marriage in 1264, (female tenants-in-chief or widows of such requiring royal license to re-marry) she refused to marry him and hid away in Breamore Priory in Hampshire and later in Wales.

Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster. In 1268 her marriage was granted to Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster, son of King Henry III, but she refused to marry him either. Instead, however her daughter Aveline de Forz (1258-1273) did marry Edmund in 1269, but died four years later, aged 15.

[2] Children of the same father.

[3] (1263-1267) Two major battles of the Second Baron's War during the reign of Henry III with Simon De Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester. Simon De Montfort won at Lewes and lost at Evesham. Resulted in Dictum of Kenilworth (vis., Wilton Estate]

[4] Purchasing value - 140,000.

Re: William Son of Simon Baiouse v. Isabel De Forz- Based on basic understanding of 13th century English law, identify who wins and who loses and most importantly, WHY??