the assise and show why it should remain, [for that reason the plaintiff must be  carefully examined, that he may show how it is his free tenement and what sort1 of  entry he has in it, as will be explained more fully below [in the portion] on the questions  to be put by the justices.] [and] the jurors, if they swear falsely are to be convicted  of perjury, whether they swear falsely as to the articles of the assise or to  matters which do not touch the assise, because it is taken in the manner of an assise,  not in that of a jury by consent of the parties.
On the questions to be put when the parties appear in court
 After the parties have appeared in court, and the writ by force of which the judge  has cognisance has been heard and the judge confirmed,2 the writ and complaint  having been heard, we must first ascertain from the plaintiff whether he has a cause  of action, that he may be party to the suit. For that reason we must look to the duty of  the judge. His duty is to examine the case diligently, not only diligently but most  diligently, according to the saying of the blessed Job, who said the cause of which I  was ignorant I have examined most diligently.3 He ought to question both sides,  both the actor and reus, the actor, that is, the demandant or plaintiff, with respect to  his right or plaint, in order to ascertain whether he has an action or plaint, and also  to ascertain whether the recognition ought to proceed in the manner of an assise or  of a jury, and the defendant, to see whether an exception is available to him and of  what sort. If it is a real action, the demandant must show that he has a right to claim,  as more fully below [in the portion] on proprietary actions.4 In the same way, the  plaintiff must show that he has an interest enabling him to sue, for it is not enough  for one to say that another has disseised him of his free tenement, thus putting forward  his intentio, unless he supports it by some probable or presumptively true  explanation, as where he says that such a one has disseised him of such a tenement  which descended to him by the causa of succession, or gift, or dower, or by virtue  of some other justa causa of acquiring, of which he was in seisin for so long a time  until the defendant wrongfully disseised5 him thereof, or that he held that tenement,  regardless of the kind of entry he had, for so long a time that he could not be disseised  without judgment, 6<because when one sues to obtain possession of another's  property, he ought to show his right, by which he may prove the thing to be his,  otherwise he will fail, despite the fact that the thing does not belong to him who holds  it, as C. 2.1.4 and C. 3.32.27  and C. 2, qu.5, ca.1,> [or] regardless of how he was in  seisin and no matter for how long, whether for a long or a short time, that it was not  for that plaintiff to disseise [him], since he had no right or spark7 of right to eject nor  any action in a suit on the property.8<Because no matter how one is in seisin, whether  by disseisin or