« AnteriorContinuar »
the eighth year may safely be taken as the actual date of the obligation, as the deed appears in full upon the record. In that year (1333-4) the fourth of February was not either a Sunday or a Wednesday, but a Friday, so that the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant were both wrong. The case was adjourned, and the result does not appear, either in the record or in the report.
False An instance in which a party suffered through no
parties fault of his own, but simply through the error of some sufferers clerk, occurs in No. 22 of Trinity Term. There was a the°errors writ of Formedon in the Reverter, in which it was of clerks, stated that the donor gave, in frank-marriage, to one William, son of Stephen de Tyuhemershe and Anastasia his wife, and of which the subsequent words were "et "quae post mortem pnedictorum Willelmi filii Stephani "et Anstanciw1 [reverti debent]," &c. The tenants pleaded in abatement of the writ on the ground that "verbum Anstancia non habet aliquam significationem "alicujus nominis." For that reason the writ was abated, notwithstanding the fact that the name had been given correctly in the previous part of the writ. Misdescrip- ^ still more curious illustration of the trouble arising from mistakes made by clerks or others who had to write in a language with which they were but imperfectly acquainted, presents itself in the case in which the errors occur with regard to the calendar (No. 56 of Easter Term). A writ of Debt was brought by Thomas de Braynford, of London, "Fisshemonger," against Margaret, Countess of Kent. According to the record2 the plaintiff was in his writ thus described in English
1 Placita de Banco, Trinity, s Placita de Banco, Easter, 14 Ed. III., IV. 122. 14 Ed. III., H°. 290.
as " Fisshemonger." According to one of the reports he was in his writ described as "Piscarius" (which may be taken as the Latin equivalent of Fishmonger), according to the other as " Pessenare," which may, perhaps, be taken as the French equivalent of Fishmonger, and of the modern French poissonnier. In a bond, however, produced in support of the plaintiffs case he was, according to the record, described as "Piscenar[ius]," according to one report as "Pesshoner," or " Pessoner," and according to the other as " E'isshemonger." According to both reports exception was taken on the ground of variance between the writ and the bond. It does not, however, appear in the record that any such exception was taken, and, if taken, it must certainly have been overruled. There is nothing to show that the word Piscarius did really occur either in the writ or elsewhere, and the word Piscenar[ius]1 may well have been a Low Latin word equivalent to the modern French poissonnier, and not bearing the same signification as the Ciceronian word piscinarius. In this respect the only difference between the writ and the bond seems to have been that the description was in the one in English and in the other in some sort of Latin.
So far as False Latin was concerned, however, a far Bad grainmore serious objection was raised against certain other marwords in the bond :—" Pateat universis per praesentes "me Margareta Comitissa Canciae teneri et per prae"sentes obligatwm esse." As there are no less than three mistakes in the writing of but very few words there is no doubt that, if bad grammar in a bond could take away a ground of action, there would be quite sufficient in this instance. Here, however, there was not any question of error in writ or process, nor any question of variance, but simply a question whether
1 Ducauge gives one instance of the use of this word in the sense of fishmonger.
False Latin in an obligation would preclude recovery in any action brought upon it. Counsel for the plaintiff said it was immaterial, and prayed judgment. No decision on the point appears either in the reports or in the record. The parties were adjourned, and there the matter ends.
A curious As an illustration of the mistakes which sometimes TMnameeiD tne reports in the process of multiplying
explained, copies for the use of the profession, before the invention of printing, may be noticed the case No. 10 in Trinity Term. There are two reports of it, and of these two, one is found in the Lincoln's Inn MS. and the Additional MS., No. 25,184', the other in the Temple MS. alone. From the report in the Temple MS. a name which should be "de Neuport" has been altogether omitted. It appears twice in the Lincoln's Inn MS., both times as "Destenpart." It appears also twice in the MS. No. 25,184 as "De Stenpart," but it also occurs twice in the latter correctly, as "de Neuport." Two deeds, however, were in question, and in relation to one (a deed of confirmation) the name is incorrectly given in both MSS., in one as "J. Waryn Destenpart," and in the other as Johan Fitz Waryn de Stenpart. It is only in relation to the original deed which was confirmed that the true name "Waryn de Neuport" is stated, and that only in one MS. From this it might of course have been conjectured what was the right reading of the other passages, though the conjecture would still have been open to doubt.
In this, as in many other instances, the record, which was fortunately discovered, set the question at rest beyond the possibility of mistake. It also incidentally threw some light upon the subject of surnames. The person who in the reports as corrected is called Waryn de Neuport is in the record called "Warinus "Quyntyn de Neuport." According to later ideas the words "de Neuport" might be regarded as simply an addition of place of residence, the true surname being Quyntyn. It is, however, by no means certain that this interpretation would be correct as applied to the designation of a person in the year 1340, when, as has already been explained,1 surnames had not become by any means universally fixed. The discrepancy between the report and the record is indeed only an illustration of the fact.
If it be asked how " de Neuport could have become transformed into Destenpart and De Stenpart, the answer is very simple. The capital N of the period
was formed thusV . The small initial a was formed
thus I , and the small initial s followed by t thus
The words "de Neuport" must have been written in some MS. without any clear division between them, and a transcriber must have inserted the cross stroke which constitutes the sole difference between De Neuport and Destcuport. The distinction between Desteuport and Destenport is scarcely perceptible even in a well written MS., and so we arrive at Destenport. But some scribe wrote the last syllable in an abbreviated form as pt, and so made the word Destenpart or Destenpart. Some other scribe however recognising the fact that De constituted one word and the other letters another, produced the name De Stenpart. This error was more easily corrected than some others, for similar causes have produced similar effects in passages where points of greater importance are involved than the spelling of a name.
Social con- In the first case in Trinity Term in the fourteenth "bondes" year there are some expressions1 which ought not, perand haps, to be left unnoticed. One Mabel "enfeoffed" her bondage, daughter Margery of certain land and rent. She also granted to Margery the reversion of certain land expectant on the death of one Juliana, who held of her, and who attorned to Margery. Afterwards Margery went into a foreign country, and Juliana died, and it was supposed that Margery was also dead. Margery's nephew entered upon the land previously held by Juliana and the rest, and enfeoffed one Henry Wiriot. Margery, however, returned to England and brought an action of Novel Disseisin against Wiriot. Sharshulle, J., asked the jurors of the assise whether Margery had after her return to England made any contention with regard to certain land. They replied:—Yes, it is held "en bon"dage," and some "des bondes" wished to attorn to Margery when she demanded her rent, and some did not.
It might be inferred from this passage that persons described as " bondes " were sometimes of free condition (for otherwise no question of attornment need have arisen), and further that their tenure in "bondage" differed from the copyhold tenure of a later period, of which attornment was not a necessary incident.2 The expressions, however, occur only in one of two reports, and it would be imprudent to argue from them without some kind of support. It is certain that the persons called " boundes " in a previous case3 were " villani" and that their condition was unfree. It is possible that the words '• bondes" or "boundes" and "bondage" may each have had more meanings than one, but it appears necessary to have more instances of their use before forming an opinion.