Kings Bench Rolls for Huntingdonshire
Justices of Oyer and Terminer 10th November 1354

And the aforesaid bishop with Thomas Doravnt and Stephen came in person and denied force and tort. And they pray judgement of their writ. For they say that whereas the aforesaid Blanche (de Wake) supposes by her writ that the aforesaid trespass had been done to her in Colne near Somersham and so she supposes by the said writ that Colne is outside Somersham and a different place to Somersham, Colne is in fact a hamlet of the village of Somersham and hence within Somersham. And they are ready to prove this wherefore they pray judgement of the said writ containing such errors within it.

And the aforesaid Blanche protests that she does not acknowledge that Somersham is a village or that Colne is a hamlet of Somersham. She says that insomuch as in the said writ of trespass sued against the bishop aforesaid and others, there is no ground or free tenement to be claimed or recovered thereby but simply her damages for the aforesaid trespass done to her with force and arms and against the King’s peace, to which end it is only required that there be named in the writ a village or hamlet or other known place so that the justices can be informed from which neighbourhood they should arrange for a local jury. She prays judgement that the writ (of the bishop) ought to be quashed in this case. And she also says that the place where (these events took place) is known in the countryside as Colne beside Somersham in English and not by any other; and she is ready to prove this. She also says that the place in the said writ can be identified in the same way wherefore she prays judgement.
And the bishop and the others that inasmuch as they have alleged in the above said that Colne was within the village of Somersham and a hamlet of the same and they offered to prove it and still offer to do so. Blanche did not deny it but acknowledges what the aforesaid writ (of the bishop) explicitly affirms that Colne was outside Somersham and that therefore the said writ is erroneous in matter therefore as before they pray judgement of their writ.
Blanche prays judgement whether the bishop and others (did trespass against her) and whether it is right that her writ ought to be quashed in this case in opposition to her aforesaid arguments and allegations and whether damages ought not to be adjudicated to her for their failure to answer.
Thereupon the bishop and others were asked whether they wished to admit the proof offered above by Blanche or to reply to it, namely that Colne is called in the countryside by the name Colne beside Somersham and is known by such name and not by any other name without the said addition.
They (the bishop and his men) say that the court may decide as it sees fit in this matter and they pray judgement as before on the ground that Blanche explicitly supposes by her writ that Colne is outside Somersham and they are ready to prove the contrary whether her writ ought to be upheld. It seem to the court that the said writ is a writ of trespass by which freehold may not be recovered and nothing else is needed except that a known place be named whereby the justices can be informed from which neighbourhood they should seek a jury and the said writ can be indifferently enforced in a hamlet as well as in a village or any known place and the bishop and the others have not denied that the aforesaid Colne is known and called in the countryside by the name Colne beside Somersham and not simply by the name of Colne without the said addition “Beside Somersham” which has the same meaning as “Near Somersham” as stated in the writ the bishop and the others are told to answer further.