Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 172  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] a port, they, the burgesses as to whom complaint is made, had their vill, borough,
[002] city or port at fee-farm of the ancestors of the lord king, to themselves and their
[003] heirs, with all the liberties and free customs belonging to their vill, of the gift of
[004] such a king, to hold of him and his heirs rendering thence so much each year, who
[005] granted it by his charter as freely as he ever most freely had it in his hand on the
[006] day upon which he made them that grant. And then let them tender the older
[007] charters, if they have such, and the confirmations of succeeding kings. And then
[008] they may say that since their charter is of earlier date and [their] liberty earlier in
[009] time, no king could grant such liberty to others to their prejudice and injuria, and ask
[010] judgment. To which the plaintiffs may replicate that if those of whom they complain
[011] have an earlier charter, neither they nor their ancestors ever used such liberty before
[012] their liberty was granted to the plaintiffs or their ancestors, namely, that they may
[013] take toll in their vill and be quit of toll and of paying customary dues throughout the
[014] whole of the king's realm, because no burgess of their vill ever before went to the
[015] vill of the said defendants and bought or sold anything or did anything because
[016] of which he was required to pay toll or customary dues. To which the defendants
[017] may reply that if none of the aforesaid burgesses1 came into their vill to buy or
[018] sell anything, nevertheless they have not lost their liberty by non-use, because they
[019] took toll and customary dues as soon as they did come and buy, whether this
[020] happened before or after the liberty granted to the plaintiffs, for they could not
[021] use it earlier. [Or] that before the liberty granted to the plaintiffs they had by
[022] reason of their priority used their liberty, in as much as they took toll and
[023] customary dues from such a one, who bought or sold such a thing and who gave
[024] so much by way of customary due, and from another who [bought] such a thing
[025] and gave so much, and so of several, and let them ask that this be enquired into
[026] by the country. They can also say that although they had not used, as aforesaid,
[027] nevertheless, since their charter is of earlier date and their liberty is the earlier in
[028] time, they have not been deprived by non-use since no case had earlier arisen in
[029] which they could use, whether that was before the grant of the liberty later made
[030] to the plaintiffs or after. They may also say that if they have lost their liberties by
[031] non-use they were restored by the lord king, by force of the words in his charter
[032] of confirmation which are such, that if by chance they have not used the liberties
[033] previously granted them at all, or though they have used them have lost them by
[034] non-use, that nevertheless,



Notes

1. Om: ‘de quibus queritur’


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