Effect of excom munica from the King. had, however, been made by the Court of Rome, in respect of the same church, to one Roger de Maners, who sued against Skarles in that Court. Skarles was thereupon cited to appear there to show cause why he had held the church, contrary to the provision. The Abbot of Ramsey, to whom the patronage of the church belonged, was also cited. The King sent a writ of Prohibition to Maners directing him not to intermeddle further in the matter. Maners disregarded the prohibition. A new citation came to Skarles. The Abbot also was again cited to appear at the Court of Rome to answer why he had acknowledged that the presentation on the particular voidance belonged to the King when (as was alleged on behalf of the Pope) it belonged to the Abbot, and had so nullified the papal provision. An Attachment on Prohibition was brought against Maners, who pleaded Not Guilty, and denied that the Prohibition had been delivered to him. A discussion then arose as to whether Maners could be allowed to be out on mainprise. After consideration he was let out until the time of trial, but the Court said that, if he in the meantime made any appeals or citations to Rome, the mainpernors would be held to ransom at the King's will, without being allowed to pay a fine as in respect of a common mainprise, and that, too, even though they brought in the defendant's body on the appointed day. In another case, in which no dignitary of the Church was concerned, and the struggle was between tion of a the Church and an ordinary layman, the result was layman who had very different. There it was shown that excommunino support cation might prove a fatal weapon. Thus an action was brought by a layman against a parson and a chaplain for prosecuting in Court Christian a plea touching chattels which did not concern either matrimony or testament, and against the Judge of the Court for holding the plea contrary to the King's Prohibition. After lengthy proceedings, wager of law was joined on certain matters, and issue to a jury on others. On the appearance of the parties on the day given the defendants alleged that the plaintiff had been excommunicated, and therefore ought not to be answered. The letters of the Bishop of Lincoln in witness of the fact were produced, and the case was put sine die.1 on a writ The manner of joining the wager of battle on a Mode of joining writ of Right, and all the details preceding the actual the wager combat on a given day are found in Trinity Term.2 of battle It seems that after the champion on each side had of Right. been brought into court he placed a penny in each finger of a glove or gauntlet, including the thumb. The gloves were thrown down and accepted by the Court. The demandant and the tenant had to find pledges that the battle would be carried out, and that neither of the champions would injure or molest the other either secretly or openly. The gloves were then returned to the champions-to each his own. The five pennies remained in each glove, and were to be afterwards offered in honour of the Saviour's five wounds, so that God might allow the victory to be given to the champion who had right on his side.3 Though all the preliminaries were completed in Trinity Term, the parties were not to appear again until the morrow of All Souls, or third of November. In the meantime the principals were to keep a strict watch over their respective champions. There appears to have been some slight difference in the arrangement of the details from time to time, but battle was the usual mode of trial on a writ of Right unless the parties put themselves on the Grand Assise. 1 Easter Term, No. 40, pp. 300306, and 307, note 2. 2 Trin., No. 5 (pp. 482-486). 3 See Y.B., Mich., 30 Edw. III., fo. 20. 4 There is a reference towards the end of the report to proceedings in the Northamptonshire Eyre (3 Edward III.) in relation to the Wager of battle where of London sued an A much more unusual case1 occurred when a citizen of London sued an Appeal of Robbery and a citizen said that if the defendant would deny the robbery he was ready to deraign (or prove) it by his body, Appeal of and the defendant thereupon waged battle. The Robbery. appellor, however, finding himself taken at his word, appears to have come to the conclusion that the better part of valour is discretion. He took refuge in the franchise or privilege enjoyed by the citizens of London that battle should never be waged against any one of them in relation to a felony, wheresoever it might have been supposed to be committed. The appellee, however, demanded judgment in his favour on the ground that the appellor had tendered deraignment by his body, and the appellee had accepted it, and the appellor now declined that issue of the plea. It was argued by counsel that the tender of deraignment by the body was merely a formal expression, and that the party could afterwards say that he would not join the wager of battle because he was a citizen of London. The appellor, however, went out to imparl, and, having apparently recovered his courage outside the Court, joined the wager of battle when he came back. Interven citizens of Then, it seems, the citizens of London as a body tion of the intervened, and urged that, although the plaintiff had London to put himself upon trial by battle, they did not ■ their understand that, as he was one of the citizens, the franchise. Court would admit him to do so to the prejudice preserve of their franchise. The Court appears to have been in doubt as to what ought to be done. It took time to consider, but its decision is not stated. 1 Easter, No. 4 (pp. 134-136). Lancas ing to toll right to exact it. We have a picture of a mediæval market-town and Market at its privileges in the two reports and record of a ter: discase of Replevin.' The plaintiff was one William pute relat Mirresone, a burgess of the town of Preston, and he and the alleged that the defendants had, at a certain place called the market-stead," in the town of Lancaster, taken two cloaks belonging to him. The defendants said that they had acted as burgesses and bailiffs of the town of Lancaster, that the plaintiff had come on a market-day (Saturday), which the Provost and Burgesses had by prescription, and exposed two bales of cloth for sale in the market-stead, that they had demanded the toll of a halfpenny for each bale, which the plaintiff refused to pay, and for that reason they took the cloaks. The plaintiff pleaded that on a Quo Waranto before Justices in Eyre, in the reign of Edward I., the bailiffs and community of the town of Lancaster had claimed certain franchises, including the market, as included in a charter from King John, who had granted them all the franchises which the burgesses of Northampton then had. The Justices had given judgment that as the franchises were not expressly granted by the charter, and no title of prescription could be affirmed, the franchises were to be seized into the King's hand. Therefore said the plaintiff the burgesses could not be admitted to say that they had the franchises by prescription, contrary to the tenour of the record. The replication was that the defendants had not now a day in Court to claim or try any franchises, and as the plaintiff had not denied that they had a market on Saturday, or that the taking had been for the cause alleged, they therefore prayed judgment and the return of the cloaks. The Court adjourned for consideration, but in the end gave judgment for the defendants almost in the terms of their replication. 9214 1 Easter, No. 62 (pp. 390 398) Responsibility of Sheriff outlaw rescued on The unpleasant responsibility of Sheriffs is shown in a case in which an outlaw escaped.1 In return where an to a writ of Capias utlagatum a Sheriff returned that had been he had taken the outlaw, and had sent him towards taken and the Court by two of his officers. On the way, howhis way to ever, a rescue was effected, and the outlaw was taken Court. from the Sheriff's officers by force. The unfortunate Sheriff was amerced because the Court held that it could not be understood that such a rescue could be effected in time of peace. The Sheriff was responsible for the body of the outlaw, and ought to have sent it to the Court in Court in sufficient custody at his peril. It was added, for the comfort of the Sheriff, that he could have an action against the Duties of knights in a person essoined de malo lecti. rescuers. to The functions which had sometimes to be perrelation to formed by knights were multifarious. If a party in an action cast an ession de malo lecti, that is say, to the effect that he was confined to his bed by sickness and for that reason could not appear, the Court sent four knights to view the person. They had to report whether he was sick or not, and, if he was sick, to diagnose and state the nature of the malady. If he was found to be not sick, the essoin was turned into a default, but, if he really was sick, he was allowed a year and a day from the day of the view by the knights before appearance in Court.2 Power of a Justice of Nisi prius to amend his record. It appears in one cases that the Postea, or verdict of a jury at Nisi prius, could be amended by the Justice before whom it was taken, after he had returned it into the Common Bench. It was, indeed, asserted by counsel that a Justice of Nisi prius could not amend his record in respect of matter which was of the substance of the verdict. But Willoughby, J., said:-"Certainly, if his return is 1 Easter, No. 78 (p. 448). 2 Easter, No. 42 (pp. 316-318). Easter, No. 65 (pp. 402-404). |