he does not acknowledge.] for when one has denied the service claimed, whether it  is due and has been rendered or not, [seizure will be wrongful.1 The lord must sue  by the king's writ]2 since in this plea the matter may be brought to the duel or the  grand assise,3 [and since] it is perfectly clear that without the king's writ a free  man is no more bound to answer for such service than for his free tenement.4 But  what if the lord has recently been seised of the disputed service? May the tenant  deny it? He may well do so, it is submitted, even though it has been performed,  whether it is owed or not.5
If the plaintiff complains of both seizure and detainer.
 If the tenant complains of an unlawful taking and of an unlawful detainer at one  and the same time and wishes to sue for both wrongs he may well do so, by the  same witnesses and the same suit, and if they are in agreement and are competent  and adequate persons, he may put the seizor and detainor to his law. That having  been waged, [the lord] will have a day for making his law at the next county court,  at which both parties may essoin themselves if they wish. If any one of the twelve  oath-helpers is absent on the day given for making the law, or if it may be excepted  against them that they are incompetent to make it, because they are villeins or  otherwise inadequate, the lord will then be amerciable and will restore damages  as above.6 It often happens that the lord can safely deny the detainer against gage  and pledges but not the unlawful taking; in that case both will fall into the sheriff's  mercy, the lord for the unlawful taking and the tenant for his false claim of unlawful  detainer.
If the lord defaults after the wager of law.
 If the lord defaults after waging his law he must be distrained to appear at the  next county court to hear his judgment on the default, at which, whether he appears  or not the tenant ought to have his released beasts, since the lord fails to make his  law. After such distraint, the defendant will have no essoin, because of the  odium connected with his default, nor may he contradict the county court by one  who heard and understood, [that is, allege] that he has not waged his law, [since  in this matter as in many others the county court has record,] for if he could do so,  by the same reasoning anyone could deny against the county court a view claimed,  a warrantor vouched, acknowledgements and attachments [made] and the like,  and it would thus follow that no plea could be determined there. [This seems to  contradict those who say that the county court has no record which cannot be contradicted  by one who heard and understood.]
One cannot deny anything in his opponent's record.
 And here note that no one, in the county court or elsewhere,
1. Apparently deleted: seizure is lawful if there is seisin of the services: infra 444, 445