Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 243  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] of which church, in our court etc. B. recently acknowledged and granted to the
[002] same A. in maritagium with such a one, his daughter, as appurtenant to such a
[003] manor which the same B. gave to the same A. before B. had presented his clerk to
[004] the same church, because1 of which presentation the same bishop delays admitting
[005] the clerk of the same A. to the same church, as the said A. asserts. And have there the
[006] summoners etc. Witness etc.’ The bishop when he has been summoned, either appears
[007] or does not. If he essoins himself, the essoin lies.2 [If he does not appear] in
[008] person and excuses himself neither by a messenger nor by an essoiner, let the matter
[009] then proceed to default and let the bishop be attached, as below [in the portion on]
[010] attachments.3 And let all the solemn order of attachments be observed, for delay,
[011] though it may be costly, will not be dangerous to the presentee or the presentor,
[012] since after judgment given in the court of the lord king the six months does not run.

When the bishop appears.

[014] When the bishop appears, he either offers a sufficient reason as to why he did not
[015] admit the presentee, in which case he will remain unpunished, [or an insufficient one].
[016] If it is insufficient, or one that is wholly bad, he will remain in the mercy of the lord
[017] king. An insufficient reason, as where he says that he could not admit the presentee
[018] because of an appeal sued by the clerk of him who lost. It is insufficient for this reason,
[019] because it would be clear to the bishop from the letters of the lord king that he who
[020] presented the appellant had no right in the presentation. It seems a sufficient reason,
[021] however, if the bishop says that it was not his fault that he did not admit the clerk4
[022] but that of the presentor, because he first presented A. and afterwards, having
[023] changed his mind, presented B. against whom the same A. appealed and prosecuted
[024] his appeal, and in the face of such an appeal he could not admit the aforesaid B.,
[025] the second presentee. He may also say that the church is not vacant, [or] that it was
[026] vacant for so long a time [that he filled it at his own presentation, or that it ought
[027] not to be filled] on the presentation of such a one because if an assise was taken it
[028] was taken by default and5 in the absence of the true patron, who [thus] could say
[029] nothing against the assise. He could admit that it was vacant and that someone
[030] presented publicly and that, after a long interval, an inquest having been held with
[031] due ceremony, there was no one who opposed the presentation, by presenting or
[032] appealing, either at the presentation, or at the inquest or at the institution. In that
[033] case let the plaintiff show


1. ‘propter’

2. ‘Si autem . . . bene iacet,’ from line 13

3. Infra iv, 272-3

4. ‘clericum,’ all MSS

5. ‘et’

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