The king's travelling justices came to any given locality infrequently. In the case of London, there had not been an eyre held there since 1226, and before that in 1221. The next session after that of 1244 (which lasted about two months, although some business was deferred until the beginning of 1246) was not until 1251, and there was another large gap until the next one, in 1276. These gaps meant that there was likely to be a large backlog of cases to hear, and litigants, witnesses, guarantors, or city officers had often died in the interim, or accused persons had found opportunity to escape without trace.

London was exempt from the general eyres, which dealt with both crown and civil pleas; only the former were entertained by the sessions held in the Tower, since the city claimed jurisdiction over most civil pleas for its own courts. The mayor and leading citizens – probably largely the aldermen – acted as the presenting jury. Note the principle of representation expressed in the preamble to the articles: the presenters, particularly the mayor, acted on behalf of the community; if crimes came to light that had not been presented, the community itself was accountable.

When an eyre was convened the delivery to the mayor of the list of articles of inquiry – that is, the types of offences to be reported – was necessarily a first step (after the reading out of the writ authorizing the justices to hold the eyre), since it guided the presenting jury. Criminal proceedings of homicide, assault and felony received attention first, and formed the bulk of the cases (for some examples from this eyre, see "Cases perceived as precedents or illustrating points of law"). Death by misadventure was a common presentment, while there are several instances of abjurations of the realm by murderers or thieves. There were a number of escheats to deal with, while the list of those who had contravened the assizes of wine or cloth were so numerous as not to be recorded individually (they would have been identified on the list of estreats – i.e. fines to be levied); in the case of the vintners it was simply stated that all were guilty. A number of purprestures were addressed, including erection of buildings on London Bridge and the extension of wharves into the Thames. But the justices were not satisfied and conducted a perambulation necessitating a second session in January 1246 just to deal with well over a hundred infringements that had come to light.

The scope of the list of articles enquired into by the justices in eyre grew over time, as the king defined more and more offences as within the jurisdiction of his courts. The list of 1244 was customized to the particular circumstances of London, omitting some of the articles applied during the shire circuits, and adding some articles believed particularly pertinent to the period since the last eyre: the malicious destruction of houses (reflecting disturbances in the city), and Christian usurers. Overall, however, the list of articles used in this eyre is very similar to, although less extensive than, that presented in Bracton's compilation of about the same period; Bracton himself notes that the articles could vary from eyre to eyre.

Despite the possibility that the list was tailored to London, the mayor nonetheless indicated "nothing to report" with regard to a number of the articles:

• those awaiting amercement (the mayor declared that he needed to see the records of the last eyre before he could say, but the justices were refusing access to that court roll)
• destruction of houses
• king's wards (the justices, however, knowing of a case, condemned the mayor and citizens to judgement)
• treasure trove
• sheriffs and bailiffs holding pleas (the justices, however, considered that the assize of weights and measures was a case in hand, and condemned the mayor and citizens etc.)
• moveables of dead Jews
• harbourers of wrongdoers
• counterfeiters and clippers
• mints and exchanges
• bribes related to the administration of weights and measures
• bribes for protecting goods from requisitioning
• new customs
• imprisonments without cause (the initial answer subsequently being amended to admit the case of one sheriff which came to light during the eyre)
• escaped thieves
• Christian usurers, living or dead (although it was intimated that Italians merchants in the city might be practitioners)
• damages and prises taken from outsiders

After working through most of the list, the city authorities then presented a number of new city ordinances – possibly those necessitated by judicial decisions from the previous eyre – for the justices' review, along with changes or elaborations related to tolls collected or the application of standard measures.

There was a single case of a fugitive having returned to the city, but a most damaging one. He had obtained a licence for returning, but the justices ruled that this had been obtained during Henry III's minority, and should have been renewed after the king had come of age. As this had not been done, the city was judged guilty of harbouring a criminal, and had to throw itself on the king's mercy and surrender its liberties, returned when the city agreed to pay the king £1,000. This kind of thing, together with fines laid on numerous city officials, past and present, for various failures in their duty (despite a wall of silence on articles related to abuses of office), must have made the proclamation of an eyre a matter for dread.