Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 251

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 251

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

A layman is not to be brought before an ecclesiastical judge with respect to things pertaining to the crown and dignity of the lord king.

[002] Conversely, a layman is not to be brought before an ecclesiastical judge with respect
[003] to anything which belongs to the crown, the royal dignity and the realm, which can
[004] and ought to be determined in the secular forum, that is,¹ not with respect to a lay fee,
[005] or its appurtenances, as where rights belong [to it], as an advowson, a right of pasturing,
[006] a jus eundi et agendi and the like, or with respect to debts or chattels, unless they
[007] are testamentary or matrimonial, and the like, because as to such the king has the jus
[008] revocandi domum² because of his privilege, though he who is brought before the ecclesiastical
[009] judge with respect to pleas which belong to the crown and the royal
[010] dignity was made subject to the other's forum by consent,³

One may renounce things introduced for his own benefit but not to the prejudice of another.

[012] for one may renounce matters introduced for his own benefit⁴ but not to the prejudice
[013] of others, as to the prejudice of the royal dignity,⁵ for he is not brought before
[014] another's forum wrongfully, since by renouncing his privilege he wished to be, but
[015] wrongfully with respect to the king's privilege. Thus if one binds himself by a writing
[016] to answer in a forbidden forum despite his privilege, that is, a royal prohibition, he
[017] binds himself, not the king. And hence if he afterwards impetrates a prohibition
[018] forbidding the judges to proceed, contrary to his own deed, he offends in several
[019] ways, because he draws into another court pleas which belong to the crown and
[020] dignity of the king [and] because he acts contrary to his own deed. And hence when
[021] the judges and parties appear, [the judges are punished,⁶ because they proceeded
[022] after the prohibition and contrary to it,] if he is convicted,⁷ let him be committed to
[023] gaol and punished by a heavy pecuniary penalty, and similarly he against whom
[024] complaint is made, who led him to agree,⁸ not because of the complaint of the plaintiff
[025] [the impetrator of the prohibition] and any wrong done him, but because of the injuria
[026] done the king. For no injuria is done him because of his consent, because he wished to
[027] be drawn to the other forum, and because he so wished let him be punished as [above],
[028] and because he acts contrary to his own deed, and by his impetration [of a prohibition]
[029] has now returned to the proper forum, let him there answer to the principal
[030] plea without another writ,⁹ and let the judges and he against whom complaint is
[031] made, so far as

Notes

1. ‘scilicet’

2. ‘domum,’ supra 250

3. Supra 249, infra 269, 277, 282

4. C. 2.3.39.1; supra ii, 67, 70, 140, infra 283

5. Supra ii, 117

6. Infra 276, 277, 278

7. ‘convincatur’

8. Infra 278

9. Infra 277