RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: dejay on Thursday 20 September 18 17:25 BST (UK)
-
Having trouble making any sense of an entry in a Manor Court Book for Pulham in Norfolk. Date at beginning of document is 1695. Apart from the names I cannot decipher what is going on ....... I have attached 4 lines from the document. It is about 21 lines in total, but am limited by size restrictions on images. Would really appreciate it if anyone could tell me what was in dispute here!! Many thanks
-
The beginning seems to be missing? But the extract as posted goes something like this:
===
(...) tent(...) de hec man(er)io tunc in Occupac(i)one Will(elm)i Gooderham(?)
et Assign(atis) suis Ad opus et usum Joh(ann)is Artis & Ed(wa)rd(i) Artis fil(ii)
Will(elm)i Artis et hered(ium) suor(um) post Decessu(m) d(i)c(t)i Will(elm)i Et
Comp(er)tum est p(er) homagiu(m) hui(us) Cur(ie) q(uo)d p(re)d(i)c(t)us Will(elm)us Artis obijt
(...) held of this Manor, then in the occupation of William Gooderham(?) and his assigns, for the use and behoof of John Artis and Edward Artis, sons of William Artis, and their heirs after the decease of the said William. And it was found by the homage of this Court that the aforesaid William Artis died ...
===
Latin can’t easily be handled in isolated extracts like this, because the grammar is complicated and the word-order isn’t always as expected.
You will need to post the whole entry to make any real sense of it, split into sections as necessary. Help on resizing images is given here
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,372537.0.html
ADDED - or if it's online, post a link.
-
Thanks - exactly what I needed to know!
I have had a go at resizing, so attached whole document in 3 parts - hope it is ok.
cheers
-
There's one word (in Part 2) that I can't get, but I believe the rest is clear enough.
Other people may have opinions on the name of the property (in Part 2), which I've transcribed with some uncertainty as Woodflete Croft.
(It's a manorial court, by the way, not a court of law -- so there was no 'dispute' as such.)
=====
Part 1
Cum ad Cur(iam) hic tent(am) Vicesimo die Octobris & p(er) Adjorn(amentum) Vicesimo
septimo die eiusd(e)m Octobris Anno D(omi)ni 1675: Comp(er)tum
fuit p(er) homagiu(m) istius Cur(ie) quod Will(elm)us Artis nat(ivus) ten(en)s hui(us)
Man(er)ij ex(tra) Cur(iam) Scil(ice)t decimo nono die Julij ult(imo) p(re)terito Sursumredd(it)
in manus D(omi)ni hui(us) man(er)ij Om(n)ia messuagia terr(e) et ten(emen)ta sua
nat(iva) tent(a) de hec Man(er)io tunc in Occupac(i)one Will(elm)i Gooderham
Et Assign(atis) suis Ad Opus Et Usum Joh(ann)is Artis & Ed(wa)rdi Artis fil(ii)
Will(el)mi Artis et hered(ium) suor(um) post Decessu(m) d(i)c(t)i Will(elm)i Et ...
Whereas at the court held here on the twentieth day of October, and by adjournment on the twenty-seventh day of the same October in the year of the Lord 1675, it was found by the homage of that court that William Artis, a villein tenant of this manor outside the court, on the nineteenth day of July last past did surrender into the hands of the lord of this manor all his messuages, lands and tenements, held in villeinage from this manor, which were then in the occupation of William Gooderham(?) and his assigns, for the use and behoof of John Artis and Edward Artis, sons of William Artis, and their heirs after the decease of the said William. And ...
-
Part 2
... Comp(er)tum est p(er) homagiu(m) hui(us) Cur(ie) q(uo)d p(re)d(i)c(t)us Will(elm)us Artis obijt
diutine(?) et q(uo)d Joh(ann)es Artis obijt post ult(imam) Cur(iam) et ante istam
Cur(iam) Modo ad hanc Cur(iam) venit p(re)dic(tus) Ed(wa)r(d)us et petit admitti
ex gra(tia) D(omi)ni d(i)c(t)i man(er)ij Admitti ad p(re)missa Scil(ice)t ad unu(m) ten(amen)t(um)
sive Cottagiu(m) nup(er) edificat(um) cu(m) tres Acr(is) ter(re) de d(...)cis hui(us)
man(er)ij vocat(um) Woodflete(?) Croft(?) cu(m) p(er)tin(entijs) in Pulham Que
p(re)missa p(re)dic(tus) Will(elm)us Artis cepit sibi et hered(ibus) suis
Sursumredd’ Joh(ann)is Stone Ad Cur(iam) hic tent(am) decimo se(...) ^die^ ...
... it has been found by the homage of this Court that the aforesaid William Artis died long ago, and that John Artis died after the last court and before the present court; now to this court came the aforesaid Edward and sought admittance, by the grace of the lord of the said manor, to be admitted to the premises, namely, to one tenement or cottage recently built, with three acres of (...) land of this manor known as Woodflete(?) Croft(?), with appurtenances, in Pulham, which premises the aforesaid William took for himself and his heirs from the surrender of John Stone at this court held on the (sixteenth/seventeenth?) day ...
-
Part 3
... Octobris Anno D(omi)ni 1643: & ut p(er) Rot(ulum) eiusd(e)m Cur(ie)
patet et Admittit(ur) Cui Lib(er)ata est inde Sei(sin)a p(er) Virgam
Tenend(um) p(re)dic(ta) p(re)missa cu(m) p(er)tin(entijs) sibi et hered(ibus) suis Ad volunt(atem)
D(omi)ni S(e)c(u)nd(um) Consuetud(inem) hui(us) man(er)ij p(er) reddit(um) et servic(ia) inde
prius debit(a) et de Jure consuet(a) &c Salvo Jure &c Et
dat D(omi)nor(um) de Fin(e) &c Et p(re)d(i)c(t)us Ed(wa)r(d)us fecit p(ro)inde ...
... of October in the year of the Lord 1643, as shown in the roll of the same court, and he (Edward) was admitted, and seisin by the rod was granted to him, to hold the aforesaid premises with appurtenances for himself and his heirs at the will of the lord, according to the custom of this manor, for payment and services thus previously owed and by right accustomed etc., saving the rights etc., and he gave to the lord as a fine etc., and the aforesaid Edward accordingly ... (did fealty? and was admitted tenant? has a line been cut off at the end?)
-
Bookbox
Amazing. Many thanks.
In the will there is a reference to a property called "Woodstile House" which I assume is this one. Could never work out where it was, so this is a major breakthrough!
Yes, unfortunately seem to have cropped out the last line (2 words) which I have added to this note. If you could just confirm the meaning then I would be most grateful.
cheers :D
-
In the will there is a reference to a property called "Woodstile House" which I assume is this one.
Yes, Woodstile looks much better here than Woodflete. Good suggestion.
the last line (2 words) which I have added to this note.
... Ed(wa)r(d)us fecit p(ro)inde
Fide(litatem) &c.
... Edward accordingly did fealty etc.
(The final etc. will presumably encompass the standard phrase '... and was admitted tenant'.)
ADDED - apologies, I just realised it is p(ro)inde, meaning 'accordingly', not p(er)inde -- now corrected above.
-
Thanks.
Just a couple of dating issues:
When it uses the term "now" or "the present court" ..... does this refer, in your view to the 27th October 1675 as stated in the preamble? This was found in the Norfolk Record Office under an Index for 1677-1686. Is that just a technicality?
In Part 1 "on the nineteenth day of July last past" - do I take this to be 1675 or 1674?
-
My impression is that William surrendered the property on 19 July 1675, and it was reported retrospectively at the courts of 20 and 27 October 1675. This court, where Edward is now being admitted, must be some time later, since both William and John have died in the interim.
I would expect there to be a date for ‘this court’ at the very top, in the heading where the steward is named and the jurors are listed, but it may be on a previous page if there was a lot of court business. If you don’t have the page showing the date, the NRO might be willing to check it for you.
-
Bookbox
Unfortunately only have copy of this page and no date appears above. It is "indexed" in date range 1677-1686 so must be shortly after - it is near front of the book.
I attach "side notes" which appear alongside. Other than names is the lower text any guide .... looks like numbering to me (?)
Otherwise, yes, back to NRO I guess.
PS Have found earlier entry - must be the 1675 court entry. I will have to get this resized etc. but will then place as separate post.
Many thanks
-
I attach "side notes" which appear alongside. Other than names is the lower text any guide .... looks like numbering to me (?)
I think the last bit is ijs vjd s(e)c(un)d(u)m = 2 shillings 6 pence accordingly.
It could be the entry fine paid by Edward for admittance to the property.
-
I see. Yes, guess that is right.
Will leave it there. Thanks again for all your help.
-
Not sure that this is what you were looking at in the record office, but the date range is 1677-86
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DTWQ-S8Y?i=882&cat=433874
-
Good find!
The extracts posted above are on images 924-925 (of 2111). Paging backwards to the start of the court, the date is 23 October 1680 (image 920, top right).
Ad Cur(iam) Gen(er)alem cu(m) Leta ib(ide)m tent(am) Vicesimo tertio die
Octobris Anno regni D(omi)ni n(ost)ri Car(oli) s(e)c(un)di dei gr(ati)a Anglie Scot(ie)
ffrancie et Hib(er)nie Regis fidei Defensor(is) &c Tricesimo s(e)c(un)do
Annoq(ue) D(omi)ni 1680
At a General Court with Leet held in the same place on the twenty-third day of October in the thirty-second year of the reign of our lord Charles the Second, by the grace of God King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc., and in the year of the Lord 1680.
-
Well, that is a great find. Had not realised that these were of FS!
Notice list of names under the heading .... these are members of the court I assume(?)
Which "Artis" do you think is listed ..... looks like John to me.
-
Notice list of names under the heading .... these are members of the court I assume(?)
The list is headed Cap(ita)les Plegij = Chief Pledges, or Tithingmen, in charge of keeping the peace in a section of the manor (originally a ‘tenth’ part of it).
I read the sixth name as Will(el)m(us) Artis.
ADDED - he is also listed on the next image (921) as a member of the homage, or jury.
-
Got it ... yes. William it is. Ta
I am so grateful for all your help ..... if you can stand it I attach the original 1675 entry .....
-
I’m afraid the right-hand edges have been slightly clipped, and the copy is rather poor. It might be easier to do from the online images at FamilySearch, but I don’t have time just now. I’ll revisit it later in the week, unless anyone else has done it before that.
-
Understand. This is a bit difficult ... the document I copied from the RO in Norwich does not appear in the 1675 section of the court book on FS! I am having trouble matching up the microfiche reference with the equivalent in the FS copy. It must be from a different date - I will try and find it and re-post, as intended.
Thanks again for help to date
Regards