Item 1
And through the same writ the king commanded the same Abbot (i.e. of Ramsey) and his bailiffs in the aforesaid Hundred (i.e. Hurstingstone)to make returns of the King's writ and the summons of the Exchequer aforesaid excepting for the Soke of Somersham where the Bishop of Ely claims the right to make returns of the King's writ and summons of this kind for himself and his predecessors through the liberty of the Kings charter that he has.

From the Cartularium Monasterii Rameseia
Dec 21 1285


Item 2
Hundred Rolls Page 197 Volume 1
County of Huntingdon
Hurstingstone Hundred

Who other than the King claims to have the return of writs

It is declared that the Abbot of Ramsey has the return of writs and estreats in the place referred to below and has the right to hear please and do justice at that place. And the Bishop of Ely has a writ of returns for the Soke of Somersham and does not permit the Kings bailiffs to act on his mandate in that Soke but forestalls them from making any recovery of goods there. And the said Abbot of Ramsey, the Bishop of Ely, Rudolf of Camoys, Robert of Kerneyle and Simon of Lincoln have cropping rights, the power of assize for the weight and measure of bread, the right of frankpledge and it is not knownwhose warrant is established in the community.

Transcribed from the Latin entries which are a nineteenth century transcription from the original scrolls.

Item 3
In the fifth year of (the reign of) the same Abbot, John of Hotham bishop (of Ely) unjustly started to take possession and profits by his writ in the Soke of Somersham in the Hundred of Hurstingstone in spite of the fact that the Abbot and Convent (of Ramsey) hold it as feoff og the Lord King, whence the same Abbot prosecuted the Lord Bishop in the Exchequer of the Lord King. Though the pleading was determined by the death of the same Bishop.

from the Chronicle of Ramsey dated 1321