and day the deed was supposed to be done he was elsewhere, outside the realm,  or if in the county in so remote a part of it that it would be quite unlikely that he  could have done what is alleged against him.1 He may also except on the ground  of an omission made in the appeal, because she says no more than that he lay with  her, no mention made of her maidenhood. Many other matters may constitute  exceptions though I do not now call them to mind.
Where the appellee is convicted by the country; the punishment that follows.
 When there are no grounds for avoiding the appeal and if the appellee has been  convicted by the country, let him, without any [question of] ransom, lose his eyes  and his testicles for the reason aforesaid,2 unless, before judgment rendered, the  woman thus defiled claims him for her husband, for this lies wholly in her discretion,  not in that of the man, for if it lay in his discretion this unseemliness would result,  namely, that 3a villein or a common person might bring perpetual disgrace upon a  woman of nobility and good family by a single act of defilement4 and take her to  wife to the disgrace of her family. But suppose that the ravisher is a noble man and  the woman raped a common person; will it be for the defiled woman to exercise a  choice and decide whether she will marry the noble man or not, for apparently the  same unseemliness would result on the side of the noble man? I answer that whether  the man is noble or common, the woman noble or common, the choice and the  decision will always rest with the woman, for what is a voluntary act on her part  will be a necessary act on his, that he may redeem his members. Thus since she  has that choice, and [if], spurning a judgment, she claims him for her husband,  let him by grace of the king be granted5 to her, in furtherance of marriage. If she  chooses the judgment, execution of the judgment having been had against the  defiler let the appeal proceed against those appealed as accessories. Several may be  accessories, but only one shall be held for the defilement, though the several may be  liable for lying with her, 6for to defile a virgin and to lie with one defiled [are different  deeds].7 And since the deeds are different it is evident that the same punishment  ought not to follow in both cases. That the same punishment does not follow upon  both is true, that is,8 unless the accessory's act is so closely linked to the first act of  ravishment [that they cannot be separated].9 Let the appeal then be made against  those appealed as accessories in this way:
Of those appealed as accessories.
 The said A. appeals C. for that on the same day and the same year etc. on which  the aforesaid B. [etc.], and at the same hour that the said B. took her maidenhood,  the said C.