Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 241

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 241

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] and staff or by [door and] hasp,¹ and that the donee was put into vacant possession in
[002] such a way that no one remained there on behalf of the donor, the gift will be good, as
[003] above.² On this matter may be found [in the roll] of Hilary term in the fourteenth
[004] year of king Henry, [the case] of Roger de Daundens and Matilda his wife,³ who warranted
[005] by judgment in a like case. If they say they were present when the gift and
[006] charter were made and the homage taken, but know nothing of seisin, the charter
[007] will be proved genuine but the gift will be invalid, because they prove nothing as to
[008] seisin.⁴ Conversely, if they prove that the seisin was lawful, though nothing with
[009] respect to homage taken or the charter, the gift will be valid, but the charter invalid,
[010] as where the witnesses and jurors say that they never before saw that charter, nor
[011] was it ever heard in the county or hundred court, though they say they were asked to
[012] be witnesses,⁵ as [in the roll] of Easter term in the twelfth year of king Henry in the
[013] county of Huntingdon, [the case] of Giles de Mercke.⁶ And so if they say they were not
[014] present at the making of the charter nor at its reading; for this greatly detracts from
[015] the charter and its credibility, as [in the roll] of the last eyre of Martin of Pateshull in
[016] the county of Suffolk, an assise of novel disseisin [beginning] ‘if Mabel.’⁷ If all witnesses,
[017] or all save one or two, say that they know nothing of the charter and the
[018] making of it, and one or two say that they know nothing of the charter or of the gift,
[019] but that they were present when a confirmation of the charter was made, the charter
[020] will still be invalid, since they prove nothing as to the principal thing, namely, the
[021] making of the charter, as [in the roll] of Hilary term in the eighth year of king Henry
[022] in the county of Northampton [the case] of Ralph of Barking and the prior of Thetford
[023] concerning the advowson of the church of Rushton.⁸ But if the witnesses say that
[024] they were present at the making of the note to which both parties, donor and donee,
[025] agreed,⁹ this suffices for proof,¹⁰ though they were not present when the charter was
[026] written and sealed, as [in the roll] of the eyre of Martin of Pateshull for the taking
[027] assises of novel disseisin¹¹ and delivering gaols in the county of Norfolk, a jury by
[028] consent of the parties concerning John of Wantona in the eighth year of king Henry.¹²
[029] Thus a charter may be good and the gift void, and conversely.¹³ If no witness appears,
[030] because all are dead or outside the realm, recourse must of necessity be had to the
[031] country for

Notes

1. Supra ii, 125

2. Supra ii, 130

3. B.N.B., no. 375; C.R.R., xiii, no. 2285

4. Supra ii, 120

5. Cf. supra ii, 119

6. B.N.B., nos. 269, 286; C.R.R., xiii, no. 716

7. B.N.B., no. 1891

8. B.N.B., no. 222 (Northampton); no roll extant

9. ‘consensit’

10. Cf. supra ii, 120

11. ‘disseisinae’

12. Not in B.N.B.

13. Supra ii, 120