Martin, prior of Bentley, summoned Moses Crespin and his brother Isaac to answer his complaint that they had unlawfully caused his property to be seized for a debt that he said he didn’t owe. The prior claimed that he had suffered damages amounting to ten marks.

Moses and Isaac appeared and denied acting unlawfully. They maintained that the seizure was justified and produced two chirographs, or divided loan documents, as evidence.

The first chirograph stated that the prior of Bentley and the convent owed two and a half marks to Moses, son of Jacob Crespin. The debt was to be repaid on the Feast of Saint Michael in the twenty-fourth year of King Henry III’s reign. The document had been drawn up on December 8 of the preceding year.

The second chirograph stated that the prior and convent owed Isaac Crespin 60 shillings. Ten shillings were to be paid on the Feast of All Saints in the twenty-sixth year of Henry III’s reign, with the remaining 50 shillings due at the following Easter. This document had been drawn up on February 8 in the twenty-fifth year of the king’s reign.

The prior answered that he shouldn’t be required to respond to the claim for 60 shillings because he had never borrowed that sum from Isaac. He also said that no counterpart of the chirograph could be found in the London chirograph chest.

The prior agreed to have the truth determined by examining the London chest. Isaac likewise agreed, so the court ordered that the chest be searched.

Regarding the debt of two and a half marks, the prior claimed that Moses had caused his property to be seized unlawfully. According to the prior, both parties had agreed to postpone the proceedings until one month after Easter. He asked the court to verify this claim by consulting its rolls.

Moses replied that the agreed postponement concerned only the disputed debt of 60 shillings. It hadn’t applied to the debt of two and a half marks.

The parties were ordered to return one month after Easter to hear the court’s judgment. In the meantime, the prior’s seized property was to be returned to him.

The parties later reached a settlement with the justices’ permission. The prior paid half a mark for permission to settle the dispute.