This suit, in which Ferret made use of the terms of the treaty of Troyes, concerned part of the revenues which came to Edward Russell, captain of Gisors, from certain confiscated lands granted to him in the bailliages of Gisors, Vernon and Senlis. Russell claimed that his grant included no obligation on his part to pay rent-charges upon the lands he had received, a point of view challenged by Ferret, a priest, who retorted that, if this were admitted, the church would be the loser, something which Henry V had never intended to happen. The court ruled in favour of Ferret, while moderating the value of the arrears which he claimed were due to him.

This important suit, the fast of a number involving Sir John Faslolf, concerned the complexities surrounding the compensation claimed by Fastolf for the release, without obligation to pay any ransom, ordered by the duke of Bedford, of Guillaume Remon, a prisoner taken by Fastolf at Passy-en- Valois in 1423. The case was made doubly difficult by the fact that some of Remon's own prisoners had been freed under the same circumstances in order to enable the regent to recover Compigène; late in 1423. By this act, Fastolf claimed to have lost ‘grosses finances’ which he had reasonably expected to obtain from them.

This suit, really three in one, concerned primarily the attempt by Jean de Gaucourt, archdeacon of Joinville at Châlons, to obtain seisin (‘dominium rei’) of the lordship of Maisons-sur-Seine which straddled the river a few miles below Paris, and which had been granted to the Cheshire knight, John Handford, probably (but not certainly, for the point was disputed) by Henry V who had confiscated it from Raoul de Gaucourt. The secondary suits were those brought by a religious community of Senlis first against Jean de Gaucourt, then against Handford, and by the chapter of the Sainte Chapelle in Paris against Handford, to secure the payment of rent-charges with which the lordship was burdened.

This suit, concerning the estate formerly enjoyed by Simon Rose and his wife, turned on the question whether Rose, who died at Meaux during the siege by Henry V (October 1421–May 1422), came to be at Meaux as a prisoner of the Dauphinist defenders or as an active supporter of the Dauphinist cause. Guillaume Rose maintained the first, Richard Handford the second, explanation. The question was material, for it is almost certain that on the fall of Meaux Simon suffered posthumous confiscation; but if it could be proved that he died a prisoner of war, his forfeiture might be reversed to the advantage of his four grandchildren, whose legal guardian Guillaume Rose was. There is no doubt that Simon's son, Michel, taken at Meaux and sent as a prisoner to England, forfeited everything.

William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, was concerned in some three suits before the Parlement, of which this was by far the longest and the most important. Like so many others, it stemmed from a grant, in this case of a house in Paris, made to Suffolk by Henry VI. Seeking to obtain possession, Suffolk was opposed by Jeanne de Sens, widow of the former owner, who claimed that the house belonged to her, since a half share was hers and the other had come to her by virtue of a ‘don mutuel’ arranged between herself and her husband before he suffered confiscation.

Caries Carbonnel claimed to have been appointed verderer of the forest of Valognes by Henry V as regent of France, and to have been confirmed in that office by Henry VI. More recently he had served the English in their wars, and had been knighted at Verneuil. But Henry Tilleman, an English esquire, had seized possession of the office, only to be taken by Carbonnel, in June 1425, before the ‘Requêtes de l'Hôtel du Roi’ who, however, had found in Tilleman's favour. The suit thus came before the Parlement on appeal.

This is one of a number of suits involving English clergy who sought to obtain, or to defend, ecclesiastical benefices in France. Thomas Key claimed a canonry and prebend at Chartres, but was opposed by Guillaume des Brosses, who counter-claimed by virtue of a provision obtained from Pope Martin V in 1422. This counter-claim, as Brosses implicitly recognized, was weakened by the ‘Gallican’ ordinances of the early years of the century, ordinances which had the strong support of the Parlement itself, but whose efficacity he tried to nullify by claiming full papal authority in all matters. Further, as Brosses argued, his nomination had been accepted by the king, so that a possible objection that he had not been accepted in the correct month of the ‘alternative’—the system according to which the pope and the local patrons nominated to benefices on alternate months—could not be held against him.

This, the first of two suits involving Sir Alan Buxhill, was brought against Thomas Lound whom Buxhill had appointed as his lieutenant of the castle of Clinchamp in Maine, but was later to dismiss for causing ‘oppressions’ among the local population. Lound, according to Buxhill, determined to avenge this dismissal and one day, with the help of a number oj soldiers, attacked Buxhill in the lower ward of the castle, an attack which Buxhill claimed he was lucky to have survived and for which he strove to seek compensation Jar goods which Lound was alleged to have stolen.

The earl of Salisbury was concerned, both directly and indirectly, in several suits before the Parlement. This one, which records an attempt to regain certain legitimate profits of war which he was being denied, involved him in a dispute with the duke of Burgundy. Salisbury claimed that the king had granted him the lands of La Rivière in the county of Nevers, but the countess of Nevers had denied him possession. Since she had been married to Philip, duke of Burgundy, the duke, as the survivor of the marriage, was brought into the case which was extended to include the custody and wardship of her children by her first marriage to the duke's uncle, Philippe, count of Nevers. The count of Joigny and Sir Claude Chastellux who, likewise, refused to hand over land, were also involved.

Among a number of suits arising from grants, this one between Jean de Paris and the Englishman, John Huytin (or Whiting?) went back to a grant of 20 ‘livres’ to be raised from the lordship of Tessancourt, near Mantes, uihich Huytin said had been made to him by the regent. The suit came before the Parlement on appeal by Jean de Pans who claimed that the ‘bailli’ of Mantes, an Englishman, had favoured Huytin ‘quia compatriota’. Paris was to claim the lordship of Tessancourt through his wife, sister and heir to the wife of Jean de Bantalu, the last undisputed lord of Tessancourt. The point at issue (not dissimilar to that raised in the suit between Rose and Handford (no IV) was whether Bantalu had been with the enemy when he died, thereby meriting confiscation, as Huytin argued, or whether he had been loyal, as Jean de Paris, furthering his own claim to Tessancourt, was. to make out.

The interest of this suit, between a leading member of the English nobility and the regent himself, lies in the attempt of the earl of Salisbury, as count of Perche, to whom the king had granted the lordship of Châteauneuf-en-Thymerais, to free himself from the jurisdiction of the duke of Bedford, as duke of Alençon. Both sides agreed that a commission of enquiry should be set up to establish the facts, and to collect the revenues which might be lost while the suit was being settled.

The case was conducted chiefly through an appeal to precedent in an attempt to establish the historical accuracy of the claims which Bedford was making and which Salisbury was seeking to deny him. The court finally decided that the contentious lands should be taken into the hands of the crown until further information could be found to assist the court in making a decision. Shortly afterwards, however, Salisbury was to die of wounds received at the siege of Orléans, and the suit remained unresolved.

This suit, incomplete after a year and a half, is evidence of the attempts by the earl of Salisbury, governor of Champagne and Brie, to seek legal redress from Pierre le Verrat for the escape of five hostages given by the Bastard de la Baume, who had been captured by Matthew Gough and handed over to Salisbury. To secure his freedom, Baume had promised to deliver the fortresses of Chateaurenard and Charny and to pay a large ransom, but the hostages whom he delivered into English hands managed to escape, while Baume, freed of all obligations, was able to keep Charny. In the suit which followed, it was alleged that the hostages had been placed in the care of le Verrat, as captain of Sens, who had handed them over into the custody of Jean Labé. It was during one of Verrat's absences in Paris that the hostages were able to escape. Salisbury now sued le Verrat for negligence in allowing this to happen.

John Chepstowe was not the only member of the English clergy to be taken up by litigation before the Parlement. Indeed, he himself had been involved earlier in a suit over the cure of Hérouville, near Caen, and other clergy disputed cures and prebends in Norman cathedrals, in Paris and elsewhere.

This suit was unusual in that, although it concerned a priest, it centred around the possession of secular property. John Chepstowe, who had been given houses in Caen by Henry V when he had come to work there in the Norman ‘Chambre des Comptes’, had earlier found himself opposed by Raoul le Houdin who took him before the council at Rouen which condemned Chepstowe. Forced to pay heavy expenses, Chepstowe was obliged to dispose of part of his newly-acquired property, some of which was sold to a Frenchman.

This long drawn-out suit originated in the grant made to Thomas Dring by the king in January 1424 of lands confiscated from Jean de Lignières and his wife, Catherine de Chambelly, and others. Valued at 337 ‘livres’, it was said to be free of all obligations. Jean de Ruiz, called Dynadam, none the less claimed a rent-charge of 200 livres upon it, and summoned Dring to appear before the ‘prévôt’ of Paris to answer the claim. Called away on military service Dring was prevented from appearing on four occasions, and the land was accordingly sold by ‘criée’, a rare sanction. Dring, therefore, produced a ‘requête civile’ ordering the case to be heard in the Parlement, where it was argued that since his gift was for life only, the real owner of the land was the crown, to whom Dynadam should make petition. Dynadam, however, persevered with his case, attempting to prove his properly in the land from which he claimed his rent-charge should come, and demanding payment of arrears for good measure. Dring denied all knowledge of such an obligation, and tried to show that Dynadam's wife had forfeited her share of the claim by supporting the party of the Dauphin. Dring was also to maintain that improper advantage had been taken by his opponent of his absences ‘pour la chose publique’. Pursuing his case further, Dring claimed that not only the facts but local custom, too, were in his favour, and in this he was supported by the ‘procureur du roi’.

This suit was concerned with two issues, the patronage of the church of Boisney, and the claim of a member of the University of Paris to exemption from pleading in a case elsewhere than at the Châtelet in Paris. The suit had already been heard by the ‘prévôt’ of Paris who had ruled it should be heard before his court. In the present suit, an appeal from that decision, the ‘procureur du roi’ claimed that cases involving the king should be heard and decided in the localities, in this case, more specifically, in Rouen. The University, on the other hand, insisted that its members should not be disturbed in their studies by the necessity to plead outside Paris, arguing that the king's rights would in no way be threatened by having the suit heard in the capital. To this point of view the answer of the ‘procureur du roi’ was that in a case of patronage such as this, claims should be pursued by the patron (in this instance, the earl of Salisbury) and not by the University seeking to defend the rights of the person presented to the cure.

This short suit, the second involving Sir Alan Buxhill, concerned an attempt by Buxhill to compel Brancaster to lend him money and, when he refused to meet Buxhill's request, to get Brancaster into trouble for allegedly allowing the escape of two prisoners. Buxhill, it was said, stole the money which he could not otherwise obtain from Brancaster.

Buxhill was to claim that the two escaped prisoners ‘devoient grant raencon’ and that Brancaster, who had given caution for them, was responsible for their escape. After the events described, Brancaster having been dismissed, undertook to pay compensation, but had then refused to pay it. Brancaster denied that the prisoners had any real monetary value, and that he was in any sense responsible for their escape. The blame, he said, must be placed on Buxhill's concubine and on the wife of one of the prisoners who, together, had organized the escape. All such arguments were rejected by Buxhill. The court, unable to establish the facts, provisionally freed Brancaster from the prison into which Buxhill had cast him. There is no indication how the dispute was finally resolved.

This short but interesting suit about rights over prisoners of war was founded on events surrounding the dramatic recapture of Le Mans by a force under John, Lord Talbot, on 28 May 1428.

Some of those concerned had sworn brotherhood in arms and a share in all profits of war. When, therefore, a dispute arose between John Winter and Roger Pelerin over a prisoner named Rohan, and William Glasdale had intervened to claim his share both as Pelerin's captain and as Winter's ‘compagnon à butin’, Glasdale's own ‘compagnons’ who had taken part in the recovery of Le Mans, joined in to seek their share of Glasdale's own portion. Winter, for his part, was supported by his captain, Talbot, who likewise sought a share, as did two of Winter's ‘compagnons’.