that the assise be taken and if the jurors should say that Eudo died seised as of fee  and if Walter recovered his seisin, that Ranulf should await Roger's full age and then  have his recovery against Roger on the warranty.> The writ also says, in such a  vill. To which answer may be made,1[as above [in the portion] on novel disseisin,  if error is found in the writ.]2
On the day he died.
 3With respect to the clause on the day he died, the exception and answer may be  made that though the ancestor was in seisin at some hour of the day, he did not die  seised, because, though in seisin in the morning or at some other time, he gave that  land on that same day to such a one at tierce and died at noon. [He may say that] long  before his death he withdrew himself and gave that land to the tenant who now  holds, by his charter, which he produces, so that a fine was made in the court of the  lord king and a chirograph by a writ of warrantia cartae, so that the aforesaid ancestor  acknowledged the gift in the king's court and warranted that land to him as  that which he held and had of his gift. To which the demandant may replicate and  say that whatever the tenant may say of a gift and4 charter, he never had seisin by  the gift nor by that charter, but he who is alleged to have made the gift always  remained in seisin, after the charter as before, and never changed his status5 but  died seised as of fee, and as to that put himself on the assise. He may also say that  the fine and chirograph ought not to harm him since they depend on the gift, which  ought to be the principal thing, which is void, and since the principal does not exist,  things consequent upon it ought not to be valid.67He may say, in order to support  his allegation, that the writ of warrantia cartae was impetrated under a suggestio  falsi, in that he led the lord king's court to believe that he was in seisin when he was  not, and hence that the chirograph based upon that falsehood and deception ought  not to be valid. Nor ought an acknowledgement, made by him who is alleged to have  made the gift, that he was in seisin when he was not, to be valid, since the admission  agrees neither with the facts nor with the truth, and that he died so seised let him  put himself on the assise.8 If the tenant relies on the fine and is unwilling to put  himself on the assise with respect to the demandant's replication, he will remain  undefended and will thus lose by judgment, without jury or assise. For a demandant  may be undefended against a tenant with respect to an exception, just as a tenant  may be against a demandant with respect to an action, if he is unwilling to answer the  demandant's action or intentio. And the same may be said of a replication and  triplication and others beyond. When the tenant freely puts himself on the assise or