Mary, otherwise Mariot (1372)

Reference: Mary, otherwise Mariot (1372) 46 Edw. 3. 22

Also referenced as:
  • Folio no 22a
  • Plea no 2
  • Seipp no 1372.070

Court of Common Pleas ↗
Michaelmas Term, 1372

Before (the judges sitting on the bench)

Counsel (the barristers representing the parties)

  • Henry de Hasty, Sjt on behalf of the Demandant (Plaintiff)
  • Henry Percy, Sjt on behalf of Mary, otherwise Mariot, otherwise Marie (the Defendant)

Summary of the facts

Praecipe quod reddat against one Mary.

Arguments submitted by counsel

Henry Percy —

He that brings the writ, released, and confirmed to this Mary, and to her first husband, by the name of Mariot his wife, and to the heirs of their two bodies, all the right etc.  And the same woman, who was baptised Maria, was called throughout her whole youth Mariot, or Marion, according to the usage of the country, and she demands judgment on whether the demandant should have an action.

Henry de Hasty —

You see well how our writ is brought against Marie, and she does not plead anything against us, and the deed that she puts forward, which was made to Mariot, cannot be understood to be to Mary, against whom out writ is brought, which demands judgment, especially since she does not deny that her proper name is as our writ supposes.

Norman French (original text)

English (translation)

Chief Justice Finchden ad idem —

Vostre fait voit que le release, et la confirmation fuit fait a Mariot, et a son primer baron, et a les heires de lour deux corps engendent, et le baron est mort sauns issue, issint n’avera el que a terme de vie, et a vous ne poit pas le fait extendre, per nosme de Mary, issint moy semble, que vous ne pleades riens envers luy.

Chief Justice Finchden ad idem —

Your deed says that the release and the confirmation were made to Mariot, and to her first husband, and to the heirs of their two bodies, and the husband is dead without issue, so you only have a term of life, and the deed cannot extend to you, by the name of Mary, so it seems to me, that you do not plead anything against him.

Henry de Hasty —

We tell you that there is such a name Mariot, by name of baptism in the country, as well as Marie, and we say that she had the name Marie by baptism, and was known by such name, so that the deed that was made to Mariot cannot extend to her, and to that which he says, that the release was made to a certain person, and to his wife Mariot in fee tail, who died without issue, it is therefore void against him.

Henry Percy —

A confirmation made to a certain person, and to his wife, without naming by the name W. of baptism, is good for the wife during her life.

Judgment

Norman French (original text)

English (translation)

Witchingham JCP —

Si vous releases per nosme de R. et vous estes connus per tiel nosme, coment que vous fuistes baptise per le nosme John, il serroit fort a voidre le release, car si home soit arraine per nosme Robert, et indict per le maner, coment que il allu que il ad nosme William, il serra enquise, s’il soit mesme le person.

Witchingham JCP —

If you release by the name of R., and you are known by such name, although you were baptised by the name of John, it would be harsh [“fort”] to avoid the release, for if one were arraigned by the name of Robert, and indicted in that way, although he alleged that he had the name William, it would be inquired if he were the same person.

Chief Justice Finchden —

En case home poit estre baptise per un nosme, et confirme per auter nosme, et ceo covient estre monstre, etc.

Chief Justice Finchden —

In some cases one can be baptised by one name and confirmed by another name, and this must be shown etc.

And the demandant demurred in judgment if he would have the advantage of the deed by surmise of another name.

Orders of the court

Order accordingly.