Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 3, Page 378  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] dissolved in the lifetime of her husband nor was a divorce ever solemnized, or that,
[002] if the validity of the marriage was once decided against her, there was an appeal
[003] from that decision and the judgment in the appeal was in her favour, so that she
[004] was in possession of her husband on the day he died, or she may say that her husband
[005] [sued an appeal and] died before the appeal had been concluded.

He may say that she was endowed in another way, as where she says that it was specifically he can reply that it was of a third part or the like.


[007] The tenant, whether he is the heir or another, may acknowledge that the woman was
[008] married, and endowed at the church door, but in a way other than that she alleges in
[009] her intentio, as where she says that a specified dower was constituted her, in a certain
[010] place, he may except that it was constituted her throughout and in the third part,
[011] whereupon the woman must prove her claim and allegation by those who heard and
[012] saw, who were present at the marriage, and who, now being present, are ready to
[013] confirm this by oath. If upon examination they are found to be in accord, such proof
[014] will stand, unless the tenant, the heir or another, has more valid proof to the contrary.
[015] But if the woman has no proof in her favour, neither sufficient suit nor even an
[016] instrument, judgment will then be given for the tenant if he has sufficient proof,
[017] full or semi-full, because of the presumption. If no proof whatever, judgment will
[018] be in his favor because of the advantage of possession. If the woman has sufficient
[019] suit and the tenant nothing but his bare word, though he is prepared to put himself
[020] on the country he will not be heard, but the woman will recover, as [in the roll] of
[021] Hilary term in the ninth year of king Henry in the county of Devon, [the case] of
[022] Avice the wife of William of Torrington, and Matthew of Torrington.1 If witnesses are
[023] produced on both sides, and one group says that it does not know whether it is so or
[024] not, and the other says unequivocally that it is exactly as claimed by the party on
[025] whose behalf it is produced, judgment will be given for the side which knows the truth,
[026] as [in the roll] of the same Hilary term in the same year of the same king in the county
[027] of Northampton, [the case] of William of Davintry.2 If the witnesses produced prove
[028] nothing or admit that they were not present at the marriage, or say that they know
[029] nothing of the dower or its constitution the action then fails, the woman's proof
[030] being lacking, so to speak, and let the tenant withdraw quit, as may be seen in the
[031] eyre of Martin of Pateshull in the tenth year of king Henry in the county of York,
[032] [the case] of Emma the wife of Ranulf le Franceis.3 If the witnesses produced for the
[033] woman's side fully prove her statement, [as where they say] that



Notes

1. B.N.B., no. 1065; C.R.R., xii, no. 353; also B.N.B., no. 518 (margin)

2. B.N.B., no. 1067; C.R.R., xii, no. 354; om: ‘Quia semper . . . petitio sua’

3. B.N.B., no. 1848; no roll extant


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