1326-07-13, Henley

To L. bishop of Durham. Whereas William de Neuton and John de lately impleaded in the king's court John Arthurgh, Joho de Nesbit, de Nesbit, John de Haukesle, Thomas de Wulston, Thomas de William de Seton, Reger de Gosewyk, Thomas le Keu, John Tremdon, John Boweman, Thomas Warde, Simon Scoule, Nicholas Goldsmyth, John de Stotfold, Henry de Shepestowe, Gilbert atte Fery, Warner, William Gilberd, William Warde, Elias Boucher, William Nesbit, William Gervays, Robert de Malteby, John Belle, Walter Richard atte Boure, Eustace Boucher, William de Gretham, de Bruntoft, Richard Barker, Robert Warde, John Plaicefot, Walker, Thomas Bruet, William Cutbert, Nicholas Tounnessone, Warner, Stephen Warde, Robert Dibel, John de Thorston, Peter Esyngton, Hugh Bikres, Richard Birlot, John son of Thomas, Adam de Robert Barker, and Gilbert de Gretham of Hertilpole for a committed hy them upon the said William and John, and the men were placed in exigent to be outlawed in county [court] of (sic), and were afterwards outlawed, because they did come before king to answer to William and John, as appears by the record of the which the king caused to come before him, and the king parthe said men the outlawry on condition that they render themselves the prison of the marshalsea and stand to right if William and John will against them, as contained in divers of the king's letters patent; and de Oxewyk, attorney of William and John in this suit, has before the king that the aforesaid men have stood to right in the court concerning the trespass aforesaid, and have satisfied William John for the trespass; the king therefore orders the bishop to restore . 589 to the said men their lands, goods and chattels, if he have taken them into his hands by reason of the premises, and not to intermeddle further therewith, nor to molest the said men by reason of the outlawry aforesaid, contrary to the king's letters aforesaid.