much difference whether it was before impetration or after. But if she does not name  him in the writ and, an exception being raised, says that the exception ought not to  hurt her because she has nothing in that vill, though she has in such other, her  replication will not be effective because what is said [in the writ], whereof she has  nothing, must be taken to refer not to vills but to dower.1 Hence if she says that she  has nothing in such a vill her replication is valueless, unless she can show that she  has nothing in the name of dower anywhere. And when the woman by replicating  denies that she has anything, a denial by wager of law will not lie, but let the truth  be inquired into by the country.2
Of the woman's replication.
 She may also replicate that if she has something, she has nothing in the name of  dower, but in another way, as by reason of wardship and the like. And if need be  let an inquest thereon be held in the county court, whether she, as3 is said, has  received anything in the name of dower, in these words, namely, if she holds anything  in the name of dower of the tenement which was her husband's, and if she had  some part and now does not have it, what she did therewith, and let the sheriff send  the inquest, as [in the roll] of Trinity term in the fourth year of king Henry in the  county of Norfolk, [the case] of Isolda the wife of William.4
If the land from which she claims dower had been granted at farm and for a term.
 If the land from which the woman claims dower has been given at farm and for a  term of years, when she has recovered the third part in the name of dower the judge  acting ex officio will permit the farmer to retain the two parts beyond his term, until  he has taken therefrom to the value of the lost third part, as [in the roll] of Michaelmas  term of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth years of king Henry in  the counties of Suffolk and Essex, [the case] of Emma the wife of Roger the son of  Swayn.5 And to the same intent [in the roll] of Michaelmas term of the ninth and the  beginning of the tenth years of king Henry in the county of Northampton, [the case]  of Margery the wife of Henry of Norton.6 Here it is always necessary to ascertain  the value of the third part by a reasonable extent. Let it be done thus unless she was  endowed specifically of the whole, for then she will recover the whole as her specified  dower and the farmer, if the charter for the term cannot be denied, will recover  land to the value of that claimed from the land of the warrantor, by direction of the  judge acting ex officio, [to be held] until the completion of his term, or7 until the full  age of the warrantor, if he is within age, or if of full age, until he can deliver the land  which the woman
1. Supra 360; B.N.B., no. 101 (margin): Exceptio contra dotem unde nichil habet etc. et responsio quod nichil habet in tali villa, non valet, quia haberi debet respectus ad dotem et non ad villam.