of Nassendon.>1 To this the woman may replicate that her husband committed no  felony, or if he did, that he was not outlawed properly and according to the law of  the land, and afterwards, that being proved, he was restored by the king to everything,  the outlawry being, so to speak, void.2 Thus the inheritance was restored to  him. [Or] that he was outlawed by the king's will and not in the accustomed way.3  [Or] that he was never [so] outlawed or convicted that his inheritance could be the  escheat of the lords. [Or] if he was convicted, that by the king's leave, after the  conviction, he entered into religion.4[But this replication is insufficient since the  judgment is complete, though not put into execution, because it is by the king's  grace that those so convicted may have their lives, provided they enter religion, as  happened [in the case] of John of Herlezim of London who by the king's grace became  a Hospitaller,5 or abjure the realm, because they cannot remain in the kingdom  after conviction.]
If a man's son and heir commits felony before the assignment of dower.
 Suppose that the heir and warrantor of a woman's dower commits a felony after the  death of his ancestor and before the assignment of dower; quaere whether she ought  to lose her dower on that account. At first sight it seems that she should, [because]  she lacks a warrantor of her dower, so to speak, and, so it seems, things properly  done before the felony are valid, but those to be done after it cannot be brought to  completion.6 But in truth she does not lose her dower on that account, because  though he ceases to be her warrantor, he to whom the inheritance comes by reason of  escheat begins to stand in the place of the heir and warrantor, because her husband  did not commit felony. It is otherwise of the wife of a felon.7
Against a woman
[who says] whereof she has nothing.  With respect to what the woman says in her intentio, and whereof she has nothing,  if she has some part of her dower, however small, and cannot deny it, or if it is proved,  the writ falls,8 nor can she sue for the portion she lacks except by a writ of right of  dower, which will be expounded below in its proper place.9 Let her, therefore, accept  no part of her dower before impetration, so that the writ may include all the deforciants,  wherever they are, in one county or in several. When they are all included,  let her then first accept it, even without judgment, nor will the exception that she  has some part bar her, because she can answer that she was satisfied before judgment.  If she has received part of her dower from someone before impetration, let her have  him named in the writ, like the others, to appear like the others. Then she may first  say, if the exception is raised, that he satisfied her, nor will it make