If the plaintiff says that the captor seized his beasts wrongfully because they had  done no damage, nor did the seizor show him any damage when he offered to  satisfy him for it, [and produces suit], the distrainor must produce sufficient suit  to prove that he seized them damage fesant and therefore rightfully, or for an  acknowledged service wrongfully withheld, [If the plaintiff answers to the service  that though he acknowledges it the beasts were taken wrongfully because he had  performed the entire service, so that nothing remained in arrear, and has suit  sufficient for proof, the seizure will be wrongful, nor may the distrainor make his  defence by his law.]2 [or] because such a one complained against the plaintiff of  such a wrong, as of blows and the shedding of blood, or of a debt without writ,3  whereupon the plaintiff was summoned to appear on an appointed day to answer  thereon, on which day he neither came nor essoined himself and hence, by the  judgment of my court he was distrained to appear on another day. On that day  he did not come, and since4 at another time etc., by judgment of the court it was  ordered that the beasts previously seized be retained and that others be taken.5  Thus they were rightfully seized by judgment; nor were they wrongfully detained  against gage and pledges since they were never claimed. Or he may say that though  the beasts were first seized, after the [first] summons, for the plaintiff's default,  and were claimed by pledges, they were released to the plaintiff on condition that  he appear on another reasonable day to answer thereon and, unless he did so, the  beasts would be returned to the lord, [and since] he did not come on that day the  beasts were returned, because6 of his default, and thus were lawfully taken. To  this the plaintiff may answer that they were wrongfully taken, for such a reason,  7the reason being given because enquiry must always be made into the circumstances  of the seizure.8 Thus beasts may be seized rightfully or wrongfully, [but] whether  rightfully or wrongfully they ought not to be refused against gage and pledges,  provided that he who owns them is ready to do what of right he ought to do.9  And note that a wrongful taking may be amended by neighbours10 but a wrongful  detainer may not, because it is clearly against the king's peace and his crown.11
If a servant takes another's beasts in his lord's absence.
 But what if the servant of some [lord] takes a tenant's beasts, the tenant complains  against the servant, that he has taken his beasts wrongfully and detained them  against gage and pledges, the servant vouches his lord's court to warranty and the  court warrants him, on the basis of a service the tenant does not acknowledge?  The servant will be discharged and the court shall answer for what he has done.  But surely the court cannot answer without the lord since the service is the lord's  concern?