Richard, prior of Dunstable, complained that Moses son of Brun had produced a charter for £24. The document was issued in the names of Thomas, a former prior, the convent of Dunstable and Brun, Moses’s father. It purported to date from the year following the death of King Henry II.

Richard maintained that the charter wasn’t valid and that he shouldn’t be required to answer the claim. He offered several reasons.

First, he said that Prior Thomas had been a good, prudent and highly accomplished cleric who wouldn’t have drawn up a charter containing such poor Latin. Second, both in Thomas’s time and at present, the convent’s seal was kept under five keys. No charter was written except by a canon of the house.

Richard produced a canon who had written all the convent’s charters for the past 40 years. The canon stated that the disputed document wasn’t in his handwriting.

Richard gave another reason for considering the charter false. After becoming prior, he had issued one of his tenants at Berkhamsted a charter confirming the tenant’s house and property. That charter bore the convent’s seal and Richard’s own seal as prior.

Because the tenant needed money, he pledged the charter and an outer garment to Moses as security for a loan of five shillings. At the appointed time, the tenant repaid the five shillings. Moses returned the garment but retained the charter.

The prior alleged that Moses used this document to manufacture the disputed charter. He said it appeared to have been washed and then whitened, since white chalk could be seen in its folds. The writing also appeared to have been darkened with grease to make it look old.

Richard added that both Christians and Jews could plainly see that the document was false. It claimed to have been issued in the name of Prior Thomas more than 30 years earlier, yet Richard’s seal appeared beside the convent’s seal. Richard had been prior for only 18 years.

The prior appointed William of Gloucester to appear on his behalf and hear the court’s judgment.

Moses appeared and denied the charges of forgery, felony, washing the document and every other fraudulent act alleged against him. When the justices asked how the charter had come into his possession, he answered:

“My father Brun was once a wealthy man and lost several charters. When permission was given for previously concealed charters to be presented and registered, he purchased this charter from a certain servant and had it enrolled. He didn’t obtain any other document authorizing collection of the debt.

“My father didn’t know of any fraud in the charter, and I still know of none. I’ve presented it as his heir.”

Moses was asked the servant’s name and identity. He replied that he didn’t know the man’s name or who he was. When asked whether he had called the servant to warrant the charter, Moses said that he didn’t know who the servant was or where he could be found.

A date was assigned for the prior to hear the judgment, 15 days after the day following the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul. Moses was sent to the Tower of London.