[in the county] or perhaps outside it with intent to defraud, and [if] the distrainor has  lands and chattels within the county, let the king's serjeant take twice the number of  the taker's beasts and retain them until the beasts so driven away have been brought  back. But what if the taker has neither land nor chattels within the county? What  then? Since the authority of the sheriff does not extend to the other county and  [if] it is done fraudulently in order to escape his authority, let recourse then be  had to the king's authority; let this writ issue:
The writ of attachment
[to show] why a man seized beasts and drove them outside the county.  The king to the sheriff, greeting. Because A. has made us secure etc. (or If A.  has made you secure etc.) put B. by gage and safe pledges to be before our justices  at Westminster on such a day to show why he took the said A's beasts in such a  county and drove them from that county (where the same B. has neither lands  nor chattels,1 though he has fees) into your county, placing them fraudulently  beyond the power of our sheriff of such [a county],2 and there detains them against  our peace, as A. says. A writ will also issue if the lord has done this to aggrieve  his tenant, when [though] he has a fee and a chief court to which the tenant owes  suit within the county where the tenant lives, he drives them out of the county  arbitrarily and fraudulently, not of necessity because of the lack of a court. The  writ then runs as follows: to show why he seized the beasts of the said A. in such  a county where the same B. has lands and tenements and a chief court and drove  them etc. (as above). But if he does so of necessity, because he has no court in  the first county, fraud must not be imputed to him.3
When the sheriff or the king's serjeant has viewed the beasts without hindrance.
 When the sheriff or the king's serjeant has viewed the seized beasts without  hindrance and gainsaying, let him cause them]4to be released to the plaintiff at  once and give both parties a day at the next county court, that the seizor of the  beasts [whose seizure cannot be denied against the record of the sheriff or the  serjeant, whether it is lawful or unlawful] may show the reason why they were  lawfully seized and then the plaintiff, if he can, that they were seized unlawfully. At  which county court no essoin for the seizor should lie de jure, since a wrongful taking  and detainer against gage and pledges may be regarded as a kind of robbery in  breach of the king's peace, something more serious than a5 disseisin. When both  parties are present in the county court, let the seizor then declare that his seizure  was lawful and in accordance with the judgment of his court, for a service which  the said plaintiff,