The Court of the Mayor of London heard diverse cases, including disputes over goods, faulty or substandard goods, adulteration, selling food unfit for human consumption, enhancing the price of goods, using unlawful weighing beams, debts, theft, distraints, forgery, tavern brawling, bullying, and gambling. Insulting or assaulting a city dignitary was a very serious crime; an attack on the mayor was once capitally punished. Sacrilege, rape, and burglary were punished by death. Apart from the death penalty, the punishment meted out the most was public exposure in the pillory, with some mark of ignominy slung round the neck. If the crime was selling bad food, it was burnt under the offender's nose. If it was sour wine, the offender was drenched in it. Standing in the pillory for even one hour was very humiliating, and by the end of the day, it was known throughout the city. The offender's reputation was ruined. Some men died in the pillory of shame and distress. A variation of the pillory was being dragged through the streets on a hurdle. Prostitutes were carted through the streets in coarse rough cloth hoods, with penitential crosses in their hands. Scolds were exposed in a "thewe" for women. In more serious cases, imprisonment for up to a year was added to the pillory. Mutilation was rare, but there are cases of men losing their right hands for rescuing prisoners. The death penalty was usually by hanging. The following four London cases pertain to customs, bad grain, surgery, and apprenticeship, respectively. "John le Paumer was summoned to answer Richer de Refham, Sheriff, in a plea that, whereas the defendant and his Society of Bermen [carriers] in the City were sworn not to carry any wine, by land or water, for the use of citizens or others, without the Sheriff's mark, nor lead nor cause it to be led, whereby the Sheriff might be defrauded of his customs, nevertheless he caused four casks of wine belonging to Ralph le Mazun of Westminster to be carried from the City of Westminster without the Sheriff's mark, thus defrauding the latter of his customs in contempt of the king etc. The defendant acknowledged the trespass. Judgment that he remain in the custody of the Sheriff till he satisfy the King and the Court for offense."