with the appurtenances in such a vill, which C. in our court etc. claims as his right  against the aforesaid B., and if the same B. had no other entry in that land with the  appurtenances other than by intruding himself in that land after the death of the  aforesaid A. his father, to whom the aforesaid C. demised it for a term that has passed,  as is said, because both the aforesaid C. etc. Let these suffice by way of example, because  entries are infinite and the forms of writs infinite, and the forms of inquests are  varied in many ways and very often, according to the differences in writs and answers,  of all of which, since they are infinite, mention cannot be made.
Writ: if by a wife who had nothing except dower etc.
 If a wife aliens her dower and it is said in the writ of entry in which such a one has no  entry except through such a one, who was the wife of such a one, who demised that  land to him, and who had nothing except dower therein by the gift of such a one her  husband, after whose death the land ought to revert to such a one as to the warrantor  of her dower,1 if the tenant denies the entry through the wife and says that he has no  entry through her but through such a one, the ancestor of the demandant, whose heir  he is, who gave him that land by his charter, which he produces and which so testifies,  if the replication is made by the other party that the charter ought not to be effective  since it was made while the donor was of unsound mind, let it then be done as above,2  because in a way he acknowledges the charter and gift, though it is invalid and to be  nullified by law. If the charter is denied completely, or it is said that it ought not to be  valid because he who is alleged to have given had no seisin of any kind, let the demandant  then prove his allegation, if he can. But credit is not to be given to his simple  assertion unless he has sufficient proof,3[unless [one says] that credit is to be given  him and his simple assertion with an examination of the reason.]4 If he has, let the  tenant put himself on a jury by these words.5 But we must see whether he who gave  was the heir and warrantor of the woman's dower or a stranger, for if he was not, the  gift would not be good, but if he was it may be. For the heir may give what is his, that  is, the proprietas, the right and the fee, and attorn the service to the donee so that the  wife-tenant may have a free tenement as long as she lives. If she withdraws during  her lifetime and renders her seisin to the donee, he does not therefore have his entry  through her, but through the heir, though it would be otherwise if the gift were made  only by the wife. For that reason let it be said