where he who says that he was robbed, imprisoned and1 chained never was robbed  etc.2 And so though there is a cause it is insufficient, as where men have been  drowned or crushed and the like, dead through misadventure,3
Where the wound was not dangerous.
 [or] if the wound of which one is appealed is not dangerous, and does not involve  mayhem.4 Nevertheless, because of the presumption raised by flight and the  appellor's suit, the matter must proceed to outlawry, and if suit has been properly  made according to the law of the land the outlawry will be good, despite the fact  that there is no cause or an insufficient cause, because of the flight and the suit.  And so before the justices, without suit of any kind, because of the flight and the  indictment and inquest made before them.
Where one has been outlawed without cause or for an inadequate cause let more grace be shown in inlawing him.
 Nevertheless more grace ought to be shown by the prince to persons so outlawed  than to those outlawed for a true cause, as will be explained below.5 When one has  been outlawed without true cause, as where the man alleged to be slain is produced  alive, such outlawry is not to be pronounced void when the king shows grace to  the outlaw, since it has been properly made according to the law of the land.
An outlawry may be pronounced void and a royal writ issued thereon; an outlawry may be declared void for many reasons.
 [But] under proper circumstances an outlawry may sometimes be pronounced void  though there is a causa, and6 if it is true, not presumptive, as where it has been  promulgated contrary to the law of the land,7 which may happen in many ways,8  [When it is pronounced void, since promulgated contrary to the law of the land,  the outlaw ought to be restored of right and not of grace.9 It ought not then to  be stated in the royal letters that the king has remitted or pardoned the said  outlawry, which is void, because what does not exist he cannot pardon, but he may  announce in counties, cities, boroughs, vills and other public places that the said  outlawry is void.10 There is then no need for the outlaw to have the king's writ of  peace,11 unless he desires it out of excessive caution, and when he has been restored  he ought to be restored to all his property, as12 he may be without prejudice to  anyone, since an outlawry done contrary to the law of the land ought to be undone  and is not binding.][An outlawry promulgated according to the law of the land is  binding, though there is no cause or an inadequate cause, and thus it may be remitted  or pardoned, [but]
10. Infra 369, 373, 375; see the revocation of the outlawry against Hubert de Burgh, Gilbert Basset and the others in Cal. Cl. Rolls 1231-34, 567 (1234): utlageria promulgata ... nulla est et quod pro nulla habetur, eo quod injuste et contra legem terre in eos fuit promulgata ... et ideo tibi precipimus quod per totum comitatum tuum et per totam balliam tuam sine dilatione clamari facias quod utlagatio illa nulla est et quod illam habemus pro nulla