Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 448  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[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

2. Supra 445

3. Not in B.N.B.; no roll extant


Contact: specialc@law.harvard.edu
Page last reviewed April 2003.
© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College