English Economic History: Select Documents. Various

was attached to make answer as to a certain false wastel[203] loaf of his. And the same Richard said that he was not a baker, and that he did not have that wastel bread baked; but that, as a regrator, he bought it of a certain baker who lives in Southwark. And upon this he was charged by the Mayor and Aldermen with being in partnership with the baker aforesaid, in baking such bread, and sharing with him in the gain thereby, or loss, if such should happen: whereupon, being asked how he would acquit himself thereof, he said that he was not the partner of the said baker, nor had he any share with him; and he put himself upon the country as to the same. Therefore the country was summoned for the Tuesday next ensuing, and he was delivered into the custody of the sheriffs, etc.

      On which day the said Richard came, and the jury came by John de Estwode and others in the panel named. Which jurors said upon their oath, that the aforesaid Richard is a partner of the said baker for gain in baking the bread aforesaid. Therefore it was adjudged that he should have the punishment of the hurdle. And he was so punished now for the first time, because his loaf was wanting to the amount of 2s. 9d. in the proper weight of half a mark for the halfpenny wastel loaf.

      Also Alan de Lyndeseye, baker, was sentenced to the pillory, because he had been convicted of baking pain demaign that was found to be of bad dough within, and good dough without. And because such falsity redounds much to the deception of the people who buy such bread, he was committed for punishment, etc.