(From Morris R. Arnold, ed. Select Cases of Trespass from the King's Courts, 1307-1399. vol. I. Selden Society Publications. vol. 100. 1985.)

Robert de Heydon was attached to answer Stephen de Upton concerning a plea why he ravished Sybil the wife of the same Stephen at London with force and arms and abducted her with the goods and chattels of the same Stephen and still detains them from him, and inflicted other enormities on him, to the grave damage of the same Stephen, and against the peace etc., and against the form of the statute in such case provided etc. And thereof he complains that the aforesaid Robert, on the Wednesday next after the feast of St. Andrew the Apostle in the first year of the reign of the present king, ravished the aforesaid Sybil the wife of the aforesaid Stephen at London with force and arms and abducted, took and carried her away with the goods and chattels of the same Stephen, namely golden the jewels, linen and woollen cloth, and other goods and chattels of his to the value of sixty pounds found there, and other enormities etc., to the grave damage etc., and against the peace etc., and against the form of the statute etc. Wherefore he says that he is deteriorated and has damage to the value of one hundred pounds; and thereof he produces suit etc.

And the aforesaid Robert comes and denies force and wrong and whatever etc. and when etc. And he says that he is in no wise guilty of the ravishment, abduction, carrying away, and the other trespasses aforesaid. And of this he puts himself on the country; and the aforesaid Stephen does likewise. Therefore let a jury herein come before the king on the octave of the Purification of Blessed Mary wherever etc., and who neither etc., because both etc.

On which day the aforesaid Stephen and the aforesaid Robert come, the latter brought by the marshal; and likewise the jurors come, who say on their oath that the aforesaid Robery did not ravish the aforesaid Sybil with force and arms or against the form ot the statute etc. But they say that the same Robert, who at one time was the apprentice of the aforesaid Stephen, thereafter lay with the same Sybil and frequently returned to the house of the same Stephen for that purpose. And they say that the same Sybil afterwards by the procurement and counsel of the aforesaid Robert left the house and company of the aforesaid Stephen and carried away with her goods and chattels of the same Stephen to the value of sixty pounds to the house of Adam Wolgar the father of the same [Sybil], the aforesaid Stephen being wholly unaware and ignorant thereof. Questioned whether the aforesaid Robery had any part of the aforesaid goods, the jurors say that the goods and chattels at the time of the carrying away of the same were continually under the power of not only the same Robert but also the same [Sybil], and still are; and that Robert at that time was supported [by Sybil] and that the goods and chattels were carried away and detained by the counsel and procurement of the aforesaid Robery and devolved to his use at will, to the damage of the aforesaid Stephen of one hundred marks.

Therefore it is considered that the aforesaid Stephen recover against the aforesaid Robert sixty pounds for his goods and chattels aforesaid thus maliciously carried away the detained by the counsel of the same Robert, and coming into his use, together with his damages which are fixed by the jury at one hundred marks by virtue of the malice and trespass aforesaid done by the same Robert in the premises. And the same Robert being present is committed to the marshal etc.

Afterwards, on the quindene of St. Martin in the seventh year of the reign of the present king, the aforesaid Stephen de Upton came here in court and admitted that the aforesaid Robert de Heydon had satisfied him with respect to the aforesaid damages. Therefore let him go quit thereof. 

Damages and chattels ?126. 13s. 4d., whereof 20 marks to the clerks. 

...And the aforesaid Walter comes and denies force and wrong when etc. And he says that the aforesaid Gundreda is his daughter and the aforesaid Stephen married her. And afterwards the same Stephen was indicted for thefts and other felonies, on account of which he withdrew from his country leaving his aforesaid wife in the aforesaid vill of Ipswich without any support, and she was wholly impoverished in the same vill. And the same Walter at the request of his wife, the mother of the aforesaid Gundreda, took her into his house and supported here there for the love of God and because she was his daughter; and he says that he did not ravish the same Gundreda against the form of the statute with the goods of the aforesaid Stephen as the same Stephen imputes to him. And of this he puts himself on the country; and the aforesaid Stephen does likewise. Therefore let a jury herein come before the king on the quindene of Easter wherever etc., and who neither etc., because both etc. 

...And the aforesaid Stephen de Beck comes and denies force and wrong and ravishment when etc., and whatever etc., against the peace etc., and against the form of the statute etc. And he says that he is in no wise guilty of the ravishment and abduction aforesaid. And of this he puts himself on the country; and the aforesaid Hamon does likewise. Therefore let a jury herein come before the king on the morrow of All Souls whereever etc., and who neither etc., to recognise etc., because both etc.

Afterwards Richard de Stratford of the county of Huntingdon, John Silvester of the same county, Nicholas de Eton of the county of Bedford, John de Hulcott of the same county, John de Deene of the same county, and William Ganet of the county of Huntingdon, came here in court before the king and mainprised the aforesaid Steven de Beck for having his body before the king on the aforesaid morrow of All Souls wherever etc.

On which day the aforesaid Hamon comes in his proper person. And the aforesaid Stephen by his aforesaid mainprise comes; and likewise the jurors come, who say on their oath that on the day and year aforesaid there was a dispute between the aforesaid Hamon and Joan his wife because of a rumour that the same Hamon had heard concerning the aforesaid Stephen and Joan his wife, so that the same Joan, fearing that her aforesaid husband would have done her evil on the aforesaid account, left her husband's house and went to the house of one William Mustell in the same vill. And when the same Joan was there the aforesaid Stephen was told that she had hone to the aforesaid house and had fled from the aforesaid Hamon her husband for the aforesaid cause the which Stephen immediately ordered two of his servants to go at once to the house of the aforesaid William Mustell and to take the aforesaid Joan away with them because she had frequently suffered so many injuries because of him; who, when they came to the aforesaid house and found the aforesaid Joan, told her that she should go with them to the house of the said Stephen, and they took her with them there. And they say that the same Stephen detained the same Joan with him there for two days and one night. Being asked whether the same Joan went with the aforesaid servants to the house of the same Stephen of her own free will or at their aforesaid order, the jurors say she did not; for they say that she told the aforesaid servants that she would rather return to her husband and take the punishment which he would inflict on her than go with them. Being asked whether the aforesaid Hamon could have had the aforesaid Joan if he had asked or sent for her, the jurors say he could not; for they say the same Hamon in the first instance sent for her and the same Stephen would not permit her to leave him. Being asked with what goods the aforesaid Joan was abducted, the jurors say only a simple robe of hers worth one mark, the which robe the same Joan took with her upon leaving etc. Being asked the names of those who sought out and abducted the aforesaid Joan etc., the jurors say that they are wholly ignorant of this since they were unknown and immediately thereafter left the service of the said Stephen and the country and never thereafter to this day returned etc. Being asked also what damages the same Hamon sustained, they say to the value of one hundred pounds.

Afterwards, on Wednesday the vigil of the Ascension of the Lord in the tenth year of the reign of the present king, the aforesaid Stephen comes before the king, being brought by the marshal. And thereupon William de Chalk, archdeacon of the Abbot of Westminster, comes and proffers the same abbot's letters patent of authority etc. to pray clerks etc., which are enrolled before the king in the Easter rolls for the aforesaid year on roll 92 etc. And he prays that the said Stephen as a beneficed clerk etc. be delivered to him in the condition in which he now is etc. 

...And the aforesaid John le Ward and all others come and deny force and wrong and all ravishment and whatever is against the form of the statute etc. And all of them except the aforesaid John le Ward say that they are in no wise guilty of the ravishment, abduction, or trespass aforesaid. And of this they put themselves on the country etc. And the aforesaid John le Ward says thay he dod not ravish the aforesaid Isabel with the goods etc. as is imputed to him, but he says that the aforesaid Isabel is his daughter and was wed to the aforesaid Robert Bull; and it was agreed between them that the same Isabel would live with the same John le Ward her father for three years. Nevertheless, the same Robert Bull within the said term sent for the same Isabel his wife and retained her in his company; and the same Robert Bull at that time was misbehaving with other women, for which offences he was summoned by the aforesaid Thomas, the vicar of the church of Hacheston, to be before the aforesaid Master John de Badingham the local official who had jurisdiction over such crimes to answer to these offences. And the same Isabel, perceiving this, returned of her own free will to the house of the same John her father. And thus he received the same Isabel his daughter according to the agreement etc.; without this, that the same John in any way offended against the form of the statute or against the peace of the king. And of this he puts himself on the country; and the aforesaid Robert Bull does likewise. Therefore let a jury come herein before the king on the octave of Michaelmas wherever etc., and who neither etc., to recognise etc., because both etc.

[The defendant find mainprise and the entry then ends.]

...And John comes and denies force and wrong when etc., and whatever is against the peace of the lord king etc. and against the form of the statute etc. And he entirely denies that he ever ravished the aforesaid Agnes the wife of the aforesaid Richard or abducted her with the goods and chattels of the same Richard as the same Richard complains. He says moreover that the same Agnes is the neif of the same Richard as of the right of his church or Newbold Pacey; and because the same Agnes would not justice herself to the same Richard her lord in doing what he admonished her to do by reason of her servitude, he took the same Agnes as his neif in the sixth year of the reign of the present king while she was single and took and carried away the goods and chattels found then in the possession of the same Agnes as his own goods and chattels, as well he might; without this, that he on the aforesaid day and year on which the aforesaid Richard complains etc. ravished the aforesaid Agnes or abducted her with the goods and chattels of the same Richard as the same Richard complains. And he is ready to prove this etc.

And Richard says that the aforesaid John on the aforesaid Friday next after the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the seventh year of the reign of the present lord king ravished the aforesaid Agnes his wife with force and arms at Newbold Pacey and abducted her with his aforesaid goods and chattelsas he complains. And he prays that this be inquired of by the country; and John does likewise.

[A venire facias issues and the defendants find mainprise.]

On which day the aforesaid John comes. And the aforesaid Richard, although solemnly called on the fourth day of the plea, does not come. Therefore it is considered that the aforesaid John go herein without day and that the aforesaid Richard and his pledges for prosecuting be in mercy. And let the names of the pledges be sought for etc.

...And the aforesaid Robert Eyryk and others, by William de Hulton and John de Whatton their attorneys, come and deny force and wrong when etc., and whatever etc. And the aforesaid Edmund Giffard, John Crouch, and John Heyward say that they are in no wise guilty thereof. And of this they put themselves on the country; and the aforesaid Thomas does likewise. Therefore let a jury herein come before the lord king on the octave of St Hilary wherever etc. The same day is given to the parties etc. And the aforesaid Robert Eyryk, while not admitting that the aforesaid Elizabeth is the wife of the aforesaid Thomas in the way in which he supposes by his writ, says that Simon de Hondesacre, knight, father of the same Elizabeth, of whom she is and heir, held on the day he died of Robert, bishop of Coventry and Lichfiels, the third part of the manor of Hondesacre by homage, fealty, and military service etc. as of the right of his church of St Cedd, Lichfield, after whose death the same bishop seized the same Elizabeth as his ward by reason of his aforesaid tenure etc. Afterwards he sold and granted the wardship and marriage of the same Elizabeth to the same Robert Eyryk, by virtue of which grant the same Robert was seised thereof until the aforesaid Thomas with force and arms ravished the aforesaid Elizabeth at Great Glen in the county of Leicester when she was under the age of eight years, namely on the Saturday next after the close of Easter last past; and the same Robert Eyryk in seeking the same Elizabeth freshly followed her and found her at Thame in the county of Oxford where the aforesaid Thomas complains etc. and he took and abducted her while she was under the age of eight years, as will he might. Wherefore he prays judgment whether the aforesaid Thomas ought to have an action against him in this case etc. And the aforesaid William de Hampton and all the others say that they came in aid of the aforesaid Robert Eyryk to do the premises. And they pray judgment in form aforesaid.

And thereupon a day is given to the parties aforesaid before the lord king on the octave of St Hilary etc., in the same condition as now etc., saving to the parties their reasons and answers etc.

[The case is continued for six terms and the entry then ends.]

John Wyatt v. Henry, Vicar of Swalcliffe. (KB 27/509, m.26. Coram Rege roll, Trinity 1388. Oxfordshire. A writ and count in common form for abducting the plaintiff's wife along with goods of his.) SS 100, pp.87-88.

...And the aforesaid Henry the vicar of the church of Swalcliffe comes and denies force and wrong when etc. And as for coming with force and arms and whatever is against the peace etc., and as for ravishing the aforesaid Alice and the aforesaid goods and chattels, except the linen and woolen cloth, the kerchiefs, and the rings, he says that he is in no wise guilty thereof. And of this he puts himself on the country; and the aforesaid John does likewise. And as for abducting the aforesaid Alice and the linen and woolen cloth, kerchiefs, and rings, he says that a long time before the aforesaid Monday the aforesaid Alice then wife of the aforesaid John sued to have a divorce of the marriage between them on account of the impotence of the same John before Master John Dimmock the official of Master Thomas Southam, archdeacon of Oxford; whereupon the aforesaid parties appeared before the said official at Chipping Norton on the Tuesday next after the feast of Michaelmas in the ninth year of the reign of the present king. And there, by the counsel of the aforesaid Henry her uncle as well as others of her friends, because the said John Wyatt threatened the same Alice in life and limb because of her aforesiad suit not only before the said official there but also elsewhere before various law-worthy persons, the aforesaid Alice therefore sought permission from the aforesaid official, in order to be secure in life and limb, to live outside the company of the aforesaid John with some friend of hers under safe and secure custody until her said suit for obtaining the aforesaid divorce between them was terminated; the which aforesaid official then and there ordained and decreed that the same Alice be under the safe and decent custody of some decent friend whom she would choose until her aforesaid suit was entirely determined as the ecclesiastical law requires in this case. Wherefore the same Alice by virtue of the decree and by the counsel of her aforesaid uncle left the company of the said John on the year aforesaid, as well she might, and lived in the company of the said Henry her uncle with his permission until a divorce between the same alice and the aforesaid John was obtained. And he says moreover that the aforesaid linen and woollen cloth and kerchiefs were the clothes of the body of the aforesaid alice which she then had on her, and the ring of which the same John complains was then on the finger of the aforesaid Alice; and the same Henry took and abducted her in form aforesaid. And he prays judgment whether the aforesaid John Wyatt ought to maintain his aforesaid action against him etc.

And the aforesaid John Wyatt says that the aforesaid Henry took and abducted the aforesaid Alice of his own wrong and without the cause alleged above by the aforesaid Henry at Over Norton on the day and year aforesaid as he above supposes by his writ and count. And he prays that this be inquired of by the country; and the aforesaid Henry does likewise.

[A venire facias issues, the case is once continued, and the entry then ends.]