of which church, in our court etc. B. recently acknowledged and granted to the  same A. in maritagium with such a one, his daughter, as appurtenant to such a  manor which the same B. gave to the same A. before B. had presented his clerk to  the same church, because1 of which presentation the same bishop delays admitting  the clerk of the same A. to the same church, as the said A. asserts. And have there the  summoners etc. Witness etc. The bishop when he has been summoned, either appears  or does not. If he essoins himself, the essoin lies.2 [If he does not appear] in  person and excuses himself neither by a messenger nor by an essoiner, let the matter  then proceed to default and let the bishop be attached, as below [in the portion on]  attachments.3 And let all the solemn order of attachments be observed, for delay,  though it may be costly, will not be dangerous to the presentee or the presentor,  since after judgment given in the court of the lord king the six months does not run.
When the bishop appears.
 When the bishop appears, he either offers a sufficient reason as to why he did not  admit the presentee, in which case he will remain unpunished, [or an insufficient one].  If it is insufficient, or one that is wholly bad, he will remain in the mercy of the lord  king. An insufficient reason, as where he says that he could not admit the presentee  because of an appeal sued by the clerk of him who lost. It is insufficient for this reason,  because it would be clear to the bishop from the letters of the lord king that he who  presented the appellant had no right in the presentation. It seems a sufficient reason,  however, if the bishop says that it was not his fault that he did not admit the clerk4  but that of the presentor, because he first presented A. and afterwards, having  changed his mind, presented B. against whom the same A. appealed and prosecuted  his appeal, and in the face of such an appeal he could not admit the aforesaid B.,  the second presentee. He may also say that the church is not vacant, [or] that it was  vacant for so long a time [that he filled it at his own presentation, or that it ought  not to be filled] on the presentation of such a one because if an assise was taken it  was taken by default and5 in the absence of the true patron, who [thus] could say  nothing against the assise. He could admit that it was vacant and that someone  presented publicly and that, after a long interval, an inquest having been held with  due ceremony, there was no one who opposed the presentation, by presenting or  appealing, either at the presentation, or at the inquest or at the institution. In that  case let the plaintiff show