of a father who enjoined his son to be a witness if he should hear it disputed.1 Hence  if one should speak of the time of king Henry the elder he could lose because of lack  of proof. Mention is also made of the time of a certain king because if the ancestor  was never in seisin in his time, though he was in the time of another, the demandant  could lose because of the error, as though such ancestor had never been in seisin,  [Hence when one puts himself on the grand assise after such error, he sometimes  gives the tenant his property, for having made mention of a time.] or2 because such  ancestor was not in existence in the time of such king, either because he had died  earlier or was not yet born.
That the demandant may change his intentio in part.
 When mention is made of an improper time by error, the demandant who has  erred may sometime change his intentio, correct the error, and speak of the time  of another king, up to the litis contestatio, that is, until there has been a definite  answer to his intentio and the tenant has put himself on the grand assise or made  his defence by the duel; after that he may not.3 On this there is matter among the  pleas that follow the king in the twenty-fourth year, [the case] of the lord king and  William of St. John in the county of Southampton.4 It is not of much importance  if a change in the intentio is made with respect to the amount of the esplees. [Nor if]  mention is made of a time of peace for a time of war,5 as of the time of king John,  because of the seisin of an ancestor acquired at such time it is not appropriate to speak,  because after the war those who were6 disseised by the war, when they were disseised  by force and wrongfully, recovered such seisin as they had at the beginning of the  war,[By force and wrongfully, I say, because many are captured by the enemy in war  and give their lands for their ransom: aid is not given such persons except by the  action quod metus causa, if duress was present.] and there are many in war time who  make gifts freely, without force or fear.7
That it is not enough to put forward his intentio and support it unless he offers to prove it.
 It does not suffice if the demandant puts forward his intentio and supports it unless  he proves it.8 Thus let it be said at the conclusion of the supported intentio: And