Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 325  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] without day because the aforesaid B. had set out to parts beyond seas in our service
[002] by our order.’ From the instances that have been given example may be taken as to
[003] how resummonses ought to be made in similar cases.

If there ought to be a general resummons to the Bench.

[005] If there ought to be a general1 resummons to the Bench, because all pleas of the
[006] Bench were put without day because of an eyre of the justices in various counties, let
[007] the resummons in the various counties be made in this form.

Writ to the sheriff that he cause it to be proclaimed.

[009] ‘The king to the sheriff, greeting. We order you without delay to proclaim in your
[010] county and throughout your county, in the hundreds and markets and in all parts of
[011] your county, that all the pleas, which by our writ (or ‘the order of our justices of the
[012] Bench’) were adjourned at Westminster within the octaves of St. Hilary last past and
[013] Easter next following and which, by our order, were put without day on the occasion
[014] of such an eyre (or ‘on the occasion of our army in Wales’ or for some other reason)
[015] be before our justices at Westminster at2 such a term, in the same state in which they
[016] were when they remained without day by our order for the reason aforesaid, both
[017] with regard to the casting or the non-casting of essoins as well as all other matters
[018] connected with the same pleas. Let other pleas which by our order (or ‘the order of
[019] our aforesaid justices itinerant’) were put after a certain date, at such a term at such
[020] a place, be brought there and held as they were there put. And have there this writ
[021] and all the other writs which you have in your possession pertaining to the aforesaid
[022] pleas. Witness etc.’

Exception arising from the person of the demandant because of leprosy.

[024] A dilatory exception arising from the person of the demandant also lies for the tenant
[025] because he is separated from the communion of mankind, because of leprosy in his
[026] soul, as where he has been expressly excommunicated, because as one may have
[027] leprosy in his body, so may he in his soul.3 4<For a voice from the grave ought to be
[028] silenced rather than heard,5 nor is only their voice interdicted, but if anything is
[029] impetrated by them it will not be effectual.


1. ‘generalis’

2. ‘ad’

3. Supra ii

4. Supra i, 421

5. C. 9.1.20: ‘vocem enim funestam intercidi oportet potius quam audiri.’

Contact: specialc@law.harvard.edu
Page last reviewed April 2003.
© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College