FENNINGHAM, William

More can be added to the earlier biography. The Commons 1386-1422, iii. 67.

There is ample evidence to show that Fenningham regularly appeared as an attorney in the court of common pleas between 1419 and 1450, acting on behalf of many different clients from Sussex. These included the abbot of Battle, the prior of Michelham, the dean and chapter of Chichester, members of the local gentry, such as the Etchinghams and Ralph Rademylde†, and several parliamentary burgesses, including John Gosselyn* and William Wodefold* of Lewes, John Exton*, William Hore I* and Henry Wyndover* of Chichester, John Wryther* of New Shoreham and Thomas Lucas† and Michael Maunser* of Midhurst. CP40/652, rot. 114; 657, rots. 29, 52, 74, 139, 169; 658, rot. 149; 667, rot. 49; 686, rots. 258, 305; 691, rots. 325, 447; 687, rot. 13; 699, rots. 25, 186; 715, rot. 338; 724, rot. 149. In the same period he was similarly active in the King’s bench, where his clients included the bishop of Chichester. KB27/662, rot. 55d; 667, rot. 7; 688, rots. 16d, 63d; 704, rot. 35; 710, rot. 38d; 725, rot. 86; 741, rot. 39d. In addition, he brought pleas in both courts on his own account, or to assist his wife as executor of her former husband. For instance, in the early 1420s he alleged that certain men had broken into his closes at Waldron and stolen ten cattle worth £10. The defendants claimed they had been carrying out the instructions of Sir John Pelham* to make distraint on a tenant for rental arrears. A suit of 1435 against several men of Laughton for assaulting Fenningham’s servants at Waldron may mark a new phase in the same dispute. Other of Fenningham’s lawsuits were set in motion to recover relatively small sums of money, usually £2, which were perhaps owing to him as legal fees. CP40/651, rot. 35; 657, rot. 29d; 661, rots. 47, 311; 680, rot. 66; 699, rot. 507d; KB27/662, rot. 52; 677, rot. 4; 742, rot. 93d. On a few occasions he himself was a defendant. In Easter term 1425 he was summoned to respond to Thomas Bodell of Chiddingly to render up an obligation in £50 which he had been given for safekeeping; and in 1427 he was sued by Henry Exton for a debt of £10. CP40/657, rot. 148; 667, rot. 150d. Fenningham clearly took advantage of his elections to Parliaments at Westminster to pursue his private business as a lawyer in the central courts while the Commons were in session. CP40/635, rot. 48d; 686, rot. 76; 699, rot. 25.

Fenningham’s parliamentary career may have ended in 1437, but his work as an attorney continued, as too did his own litigation. In the 1440s he sued a husbandman from Waldron for illegally entering the manor of ‘Herynggondes’ (which Robert, Lord Poynings, had demised to him for 15 years), preventing him from receiving the revenues, and stealing goods worth £30. Another plea listed him among the defendants in a dispute over the wardship of the son and heir of John Alfray I* of East Grinstead. Add. 39376, ff. 24, 31. Fenningham continued to attract clients of note, such as the prior of Hastings and the important Sussex landowner Sir Thomas Lewknor*. CP40/738, rots. 512, att. 5d; 753, rots. 96d, 221d. For at least five years he pursued an action against the prior of Michelham for the sum of £5, and in 1449 he joined the former shire knight Adam Iwode* in bringing another suit against him for £40. CP40/740, rot. 49d; 754, rot. 13d. Fenningham’s last recorded appearances in court similarly concerned his own affairs, as when in Easter term 1450 he continued his attempts to bring the prior to book and to finish his onerous duties as an executor of John Halle†. CP40/754, rot. 37; 757, rots. 65, 84. Finally, on 16 Nov. that year he came to the King’s bench to present a bill against two men from Kent, William Grybel of Tenterden and William Curtynden of Lamberhurst, then both prisoners in the Marshalsea, for having broken into his house at Waldron three weeks earlier and stolen various items of plate and jewelry valued at as much as £50, as well as £7 in cash. Perhaps Grybel died a prisoner, for when the suit came before the court again a year later, in Michaelmas term 1451, only Curtynden was called to answer. However, on this occasion Fenningham himself now failed to appear to make his plea, so the defendant was required only to respond to the King’s prosecution, for breach of the peace. He was eventually discharged after presenting a pardon dated 16 Feb. 1452. Why Fenningham had failed to pursue the case does not appear. Perhaps he was ill, or had died. In Hilary term 1452 the sheriff was ordered to put him in exigent for failing to sue his bill of appeal, KB27/758, rot. 68; 763, rex rot. 11d. and process continued against him until the spring of 1453, even though by then he was certainly dead. KB27/768, rot. 13, rex rot. 13.