'And therefore the said R. and M. complain that, whereas the custody of the land and heir of the said Robert, viz. of _one messuage with its appurtenances in Ipswich_, until the full age of, &c., belonged, &c., ... because the said Robert held the said messuage in socage, and the said Mary _is nearer in relationship to the said Robert,_ viz. _mother of the said heir, and formerly_ _the wife of the said Robert_, and (whereas) the said R. and M. remained in full and peaceful seizin of _the said wardship_ for a long while, viz. _for one year_; they, the said Agnes, T., G., and L., on the _Monday_ [Dec. 3] _before the feast of St. Nicholas, in the eighteenth year of the present king_ [1324], ... stole and took away by force and arms ... the said John, _son and heir of the said Robert_, who was under age, viz. _under the age of fourteen years_, and then in the wardship of the said R. and M. _at London_, viz. _in the Ward of Cordwanerstrete_, and married him to one _Joan, the daughter of Walter de Esthale_ [error for _Westhale_], and committed other unlawful acts, &c. 'Wherefore they say they are injured, and have suffered damage to the extent of 300l.' The defence put in was-- 'That, _according to the customs of the borough of Ipswich_ ... any heir under age when his heirship shall descend to him shall remain in the charge of the nearest of his blood, but that his inheritance shall not descend to him _till he has completed the age of twelve years_ ... and they say that the said heir of the said Robert _completed the age of twelve years_ before the suing out of the said writ[16].' And it was further alleged that the said Agnes, T., G., and L. _did not cause the said heir to be married_. 'Most of the rest of the membrane,' adds Mr. Rye, 'is taken up with a long technical dispute as to jurisdiction, of which the mayor and citizens of London apparently got the best; for the trial came on before R. Baynard and Hamo de Chikewell [Chigwell] and Nicholas de Farndon (the two latter sitting on behalf of the City) at St. Martin's the Great (le Grand), London, on the Sunday [Sept. 7, 1326] next before the Nativity of the B.V.M. [Sept. 8]; when, the defendants making default, a verdict was entered for the plaintiffs for 250l. damages.'