[001] for replevying his beasts which B. seized and unlawfully detained, as A. says, [002] and you replevied the said beasts to the same A. and gave him a day at your next [003] county court and attached B. to answer A. on this matter, the aforesaid B. after [004] the said attachment seized A.'s beasts a second time for the same reason for which [005] he had previously seized them (or for some other reason touching the principal [006] plea) and detains them as before. Since this clearly is a breach of our peace we [007] order you to cause A.'s beasts to be released without delay until the principal plea [008] between them is determined. And if you find that the aforesaid B. has seized A.'s [009] beasts a second time for the same reason that he first seized them and A. has made [010] you secure with respect to prosecuting his plaint, then have B. in person before our [011] justices at the first session etc. to answer the aforesaid A. with respect to the second [012] seizure. And have there this writ. Witness etc. Hence whether the first seizure is [013] lawful or unlawful the second will be altogether unlawful. Or and if you find that [014] the aforesaid B. has seized A.'s beasts a second time for the same reason for which [015] he first seized them, then bring B. in person before yourself and the keepers of the [016] pleas of our crown at your next county court. And if he can be convicted of a [017] second taking for one and the same reason by your bailiffs, by whom A.'s beasts [018] were replevied a second time, and by other law-abiding men, then punish B. by [019] so heavy an amercement that his punishment will make others dread offending in [020] like circumstances. Witness etc.1 The accused must always make his defence [021] against the second taking, and the detainer and the damage and everything, in [022] accordance with the accusation, against the plaintiff and against his suit, if he has [023] produced sufficient suit, since his bare word is not to be believed. If he simply [024] defends by wager of law he defends himself against the suit. The accused, however, [025] may so except and answer that both parties will be forced to produce suit,2 and [026] when these have been carefully examined judgment will be given for the suit whose [027] statements are shown to have the greater probability and are more likely to be [028] true. That the suit ought to be examined is proved [in the roll] of the eyre of William [029] of Ralegh in the county of Leicester, at the beginning of the roll, [the case] of Roger [030] de la Zouche,3 where it is said that if suit is produced on the plaintiff's behalf, to the [031] effect that his beasts have been wrongfully seized and wrongfully detained against [032] gage and pledges, and his adversary answers that they were rightfully seized, [033] because they were seized damage fesant and were not detained against gage and [034] pledges,
Notes
1. Drafted by Ralegh: Maitland, Coll. Pap., ii, 147