Certainly it can, so that the judgment may be emended. If beasts are taken by a  servant without the court's judgment and they are afterwards claimed from the  lord, in his presence, who forbids their release by gage and pledges, both will be  held liable, as is evident, the one for the taking, the other for the refusal. Though  the lord avows the taking he does not free the servant but burdens himself, and  both are then liable for the servant's deed, the servant because he took, and the  lord doubly, because he avows his servant's act and refuses to release the beasts.  There are some who say that no one is bound to answer for a refusal until the  seizure is proved wrongful. To this [it may be replied] that whether the seizure is  lawful or unlawful, refusal to release will always be unlawful.1 It will be otherwise  if no seizure is proved,2 for where nothing at all is taken there will be nothing to  be refused. And so if though there was a seizure nothing was claimed;3 if nothing is  claimed, nothing is denied. Suppose that nothing was done by the court or the  lord of the court but only by the servant, as where, without leave of lord or court,  he tallages the free tenants as villeins, or those who allege that they are free though  they are villeins, and afterwards on his own authority levies a distress therefor  and the beasts are released by the sheriff on gage and pledges, on the tenants'  complaint, directed against the servant only and not the lord. Quaere whether the  servant may or ought to answer without his lord and allow the matter to go to  judgment without him. In this case the lord must be asked whether he avows his  servant's act or not. If not, then the lord may emend it; if he avows or does not  emend he makes the wrong his own, if wrong it be. When he has avowed it he  can proceed to an inquest on the tallage, whether it is claimed lawfully or unlawfully,  especially if the suit has been removed to the king's court. 4<See the case of  Peter of Savoy and his tenants before the king's council at the exchequer at  Westminster in the forty-sixth year of king Henry, [in the roll] of Easter term a  little before Ascension Day.>5
When one's beasts have once been released by judgment and seized a second time.
 When beasts have been once released they ought not to be seized a second time,  for the same reason, before the [first] plea has been determined by judgment of the  county court.6 If they have been seized a second time let the sheriff cause them to  be released again, with damages against the seizor, by this writ:7
The writ that beasts are to be released.
 The king to the sheriff, greeting. A. has shown us that though he recently brought  you our writ