holds in service. It is here in the election of the demandant whether he wishes the  writ to stand or fall, according as he holds himself to claiming in demesne and in  service against the tenant,1 so that the writ stands, or claims the whole in demesne,  in which case the writ falls. The tenant can also say in answer, as above, that he holds  nothing at all, either in demesne or service, or in alms or advowson; if this is proved,  the writ falls.
If the tenant does not hold the whole because another holds
[so much] of the appurtenances.  If the tenant says that he does not hold the whole because another holds so much of  the appurtenances or of the body of the manor, as an advowson or so much land, the  demandant may replicate that he need not except that part, either because it in no  way belongs to the appurtenances but belongs and has always belonged to another  land and to another fee, of which he claims nothing,2 or if it at one time belonged to  the body or the appurtenances, that his chief lord who enfeoffed him thereof alienated  that part before he enfeoffed [him, or before] he enfeoffed the ancestor whose seisin  he claims, and that he claims nothing except what his ancestor held the year and day  on which he was enfeoffed, because after that feoffment nothing was alienated or  transferred.
That it was once among the appurtenances but afterwards ceased to be.
 The demandant may say that when the lord king gave that manor with the appurtenances  to such an abbot, enfeoffing him thereof by his charter, that land was not  part of the body of the manor nor of its appurtenances, because it had earlier been  given by the king, and the same abbot gave it to his ancestor by his charter in the  same state in which the abbot had it of the king's gift, as the king's charter testifies,  [and that he claims] in demesne what the abbot had in demesne before he made his  gift and in service what he had in service, in alms and advowsons. He may also say  that the abbot [held] that land from the conquest of England, [by the charters of all  kings] from king to king and always defended himself by saying that he held that  land with such appurtenances in alms of the kings, as [in the roll] of the eyre of Martin  of Pateshull, of pleas reserved for judgment from divers counties in the third year of  king Henry in the county of Kent, [the case] of William earl Marshal the elder and  Fawkes de Breaut‰.3 To the same intent [in the roll] of Trinity term in the fourth year  of king Henry in the county of Bedford, [the case] of William earl Marshal.4 Clearly  to the same intent