he may not afterwards descend to lesser writs.1 But if he withdraws only from the writ,  where there is no judgment, he may well descend to others lower down.
2Where the tenant held nothing or lied by saying that he did not hold when he did.
 If one denies that he possesses, he may neither sue nor defend himself against the  demandant to whom he lied on the basis of any right or causa existing prior to the lie,  though he may well do so if the causa is subsequent. If he who said that he held  nothing when the other withdrew, afterwards begins to defend as tenant and prays  judgment against the demandant who says that he is in possession3 on the ground  that he then claimed, because by claiming he admitted that he was out of possession,  his answer will be no less effective because of the lie. 4 For example, suppose one  says that he has a right in an advowson, and when he claims by writ of right the  tenant answers that it is not he but another who holds the advowson and that he  claims no right in it, so that the demandant withdraws from the writ and does not  sue against the person said to be in seisin [to see] whether it is true or not, even for  the purpose of exposing the exceptor's lie. If the church afterwards falls vacant and  both present, he who withdrew and he who said he held nothing, [neither of them will  obtain anything, so it seems,] the demandant [will not obtain] because by claiming  he admitted that he was out of possession, and afterwards withdrew and sought  nothing further.5 As to the tenant, we must see whether he lied in excepting or told  the truth. If the truth, and he who in truth then held afterwards acknowledged and  remitted his right to him, or raised no objection to his presentation, his presentation  is good. If he lied, his presentation is still good and his lie without consequence,  since no one sued to refute it,5 and so let the demandant begin his action again if  he is confident of his right.]6 If, being present, he acknowledges the disseisin, he is to  be put in gaol since he confesses an injuria contrary to the peace. If the plaintiff and  all the recognitors are present, though the disseisor is not, appearing neither in his  own person nor by his bailiff, nor by another who may speak on his behalf, let the  assise proceed and the recognition be taken by default, because no one is to be  spared in this matter, whether he is of full age or a minor, nor is the assise to be  postponed for anyone; not even the king himself ought to be awaited should he  be coming in the door. But in such circumstances, the plaintiff must be carefully examined  and the jurors most carefully instructed so that they will speak the truth,  since he against whom the assise is directed, were he present, could except against