Person Page - 666

There is some doubt whether the vill of Wollascott was a member of Albrighton, but the balance of evidence favours such a supposition rather than say any other. The Abbot of Shrewsbury indeed never appears seized in demesne of Wollascott; but some of the Abbots feoffments were so very early and absolute that the Feofees, when they at length appear, are found in all but complete independence. Eyton supposes that the family of Le Poer were originally the Abbot's tenants there.
By 1259 we have a William de Wollascott whose name appears in a number of documents; he was still living in 1293 but by 1320 Roger de Wollascot, who attested a deed, represented this family. Eyton: Antiquities of Shropshire, Vol. 10, p. 110

A Patent Roll of 22 February 1441 mentions a William Wollascot of Weston who obviously knew Ralph Lee "Whereas by an inquisition taken virtute officii before Ralph Lee, late escheator in the county of Salop, it was found that John Hordeley, late of Shrewsbury, was seised of the manor of Hordelay and granted the same to William Walford and Thomas More, chaplains, and their heirs and assigns for over, by collusion between John Hampton, late abbot of the church of St. Peter, Shrewsbury, and the said William and Thomas, for the use of the said abbot and church, contrary to the statute of mortmain of Richard II; and afterwards at the suit of Richard, son of Richard Lakyn, knight, John Sainford, William Wollascot of Weston, John Walker, John Shanbery, clerk, and Thomas Walker the younger, complaining that whereas Matthew Hordeley was seised of the said manor and granted the same to John Howell, vicar of the church of Grysford, and John Houghton of Elesmere, chaplain, and their heirs and assigns for ever, and they were seised thereof until they died without heir; after whoso death the manor descended to Joan Fenymer, wife of William Fenymer, as kinswoman and heir of the said John Houghton, being daughter of Mabel, his sister, and William and Joan were seised and enfeoffed thereof the said Richard, son of Richard Lakyn, John Samford, William Wollascot, John Walker, John Shanbery and Thomas Walker,and their heirs and assigns for ever, and they were seised thereof, until by colour of the said inquisition and letters patent to Thomas Walker dated 10 February in the sixteenth year touching the keeping of the manor they were unjustly expelled, although the said John Hordeley had not granted the same to William Walford and Thomas More, as is supposed by the inquisition, nor ever had any title therein ; and beseeching the king to annul the said letters patent and to restore the petitioners to the manor:-
the king on 24 May in the sixteenth year commanded the sheriff of the county to cause Thomas Walker to appear before the king in Chancery in the quinzaine of Trinity following to show why the said letters patent should not be annulled and the petitioners restored, and the sheriff summoned the said Thomas by Richard Maffen and Roger Nonelay, and he appeared and said that the grant to William Walford and Thomas More had been made by collusion between them and the said abbot, as did also the said petitioners, by colour whereof the said record was delivered by the hands of John, bishop of Bath and Wells, the chancellor, to the justices of the Bench to try the issue and a writ was directed to the sheriff of Salop to cause to come before the king in the quinzaine of Martinmas in the eighteenth year twenty-four knights and legal men of the vicinage of Hordeley who had no knowledge of the petitioners and Thomas Walker, and there came the said Richard, son of Richard, John Samford, William Wallascot, John Walker, John Shanbury and Thomas Walker the younger by William Broun, his attorney, and Thomas Walker, but none of the twenty-four, wherefore the sheriff was directed to distrain on their goods and bring them before the king within fifteen days from Hilary following, on which day the petitioners and Thomas Walker appeared, but on the fourth day the latter came not, wherefore the case went against him by default, and the sheriff was commanded to distrain on the goods of the jurors and bring them before the king within fifteen days after Easter following to hold the assizes in the county, assigning Monday in St. Peter's Chair at Shrewsbury, the same day being given to the petitioners; and afterwards before William Westbury and John Hody, justices of assize in the county, the petitioners came (Thomas Parkhous appearing as the attorney of Thomas Walker the younger), and the jury said that John Hordeley never had the manor nor granted it to the petitioners and that the manor was worth 5 marks yearly; and now the petitioners have shewn that through their suit they have been reduced to poverty and that the jury was taken illegally through the default of the said Thomas Walker, and yet they cannot institute a new suit, because a decision valid in law cannot be revoked:-
the king grants to them and their heirs the restitution of the manor as fully as they had the same before their expulsion.
By p.s. and dated as above." Patent Rolls 19 Henry VI. Part 2. pp. 517-8.^2,3