Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 395  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] the ravishment.1 In enrolling the appeal mention must be made of the year in
[002] which the felony was supposed to be committed, because the appellee will thereby
[003] be furnished an exception should the coroners' rolls refer to one year and the count
[004] before the justices to another, as where ten years are mentioned in the coroners'
[005] rolls and five in the count before the justices; the appeal falls because of the
[006] variance.2 Mention is made of the day for the same reason, and also for another, for
[007] if the appellee can show by sure proofs, by the testimony of responsible men, that
[008] he was elsewhere on that day, so that the presumption that he could have been
[009] present at the commission of the act on that day cannot rise against him, because
[010] the remoteness of the place makes that impossible, the appellor's intentio then falls.
[011] Mention sometimes is made of the hour, but though there is a variance as to the
[012] hour that does not touch the substance of the action, because an appellor, finding
[013] himself in a tight corner, might well not know the hour, since fear provides an
[014] excuse for his lack of knowledge;3 if there is a variance as to the hour, whether an
[015] exception may be raised or not is left to the discretion of the justices. Mention is
[016] also made of the place, for the reason aforesaid, because of the variance. The county
[017] court is also mentioned, not because of the variance, for though there is disagreement
[018] between the sheriff and the coroners as to the county court that prejudices neither
[019] appellor nor appellee, but [because] if the appellor has not come to the first county
[020] court, in person when he could do so without difficulty, or if unable to come himself,
[021] by another, a kinsman, he then prejudices himself with respect to his appeal and
[022] gives4 an exception to the appellee, as in the cases aforesaid. [And so] if there is a
[023] variance between the appeal and the count, so that the appellor says one thing and
[024] the coroners' rolls bear witness to the contrary or to something different,5 as
[025] where the appellor names one person in his appeal before the justices and the
[026] coroners' rolls indicate that he named another, or if he there named a man as
[027] principal and before the justices names him as accessory,6 or conversely, [or] if there
[028] is a variance as to the kind of weapons so that there he spoke of a club and here of a
[029] sword. Speaking generally, no matter what the variance the appeal falls by an
[030] exception.7

If there is disagreement as to the record [before] the justices; what is then to be done.

[032] [There sometimes is disagreement between the coroners and the sheriff in making
[033] the record of an appeal, since each ought to have his roll, which


1. Glanvill, xiv, 6: ‘sanguinem si quis fuit effusus et vestium scissiones’; supra 345, infra 415

2. Infra 396

3. ‘iustam contineat [causam] ignorantiae,’ as D. 50.17.42: ‘iustam contineat causam ignorantiae’

4. ‘dat’ for ‘ad,’ as infra 398

5. Infra 415

6. Infra 398, 409

7. Continued infra 396, n. 2

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