at the first session when they come into those parts) to show why he has not done so.  And have there the summoners and this writ. Witness etc. To such summons a single  essoin will well lie, before the person summoned appears, if he so wishes.
If he does not come, let the order of attachments be observed.
 If he neither appears nor essoins himself, no land will be taken into the lord king's  hand because of his default, as in the warranties described above, but let him be  attached by gage and safe pledges to be present on a certain day to warrant or to show  why he ought not to do so, just as was said above. And let the order of attachments be  observed, as it is observed elsewhere [of attachments,]1 until he appears. When he  appears in court he may answer against the charter [or] that he is not bound to warrant  according to the form of the writ, either because the plaintiff does not hold the  land as to which he claims warranty, or because he does not show a charter or other  matter by which the person summoned ought to warrant, or because the plaintiff is  not the heir, near or remote, of him in whose name the warranty is claimed. And there  are many other answers, as may be seen above by an example [of vouching a  warrantor.]2
If the person summoned to warrant has harassed his tenant; according to some this writ does not lie against a lord-feoffor but the writ of right of services and customs.
 If it is he who is summoned to warrant [who] has vexed and oppressed his tenant  contrary to his charter, by exacting other or more services than he ought to do, there  are some who say that the writ of warranty of charter does not lie against [him] but  the writ of right of services and customs, by which the matter may be brought to the  duel or the grand assise,3 though it may be objected and maintained that he who is  bound to defend his tenant against others ought not himself, contrary to his own  charter, to oppress him or do him an injuria. Thus it seems that he is liable for the  injuria by this writ, because he who is bound to defend ought not to destroy, and  because what one has the duty to prevent others from doing he ought not to do  himself.4