[001] Others lie against the person of the plaintiff and completely destroy the assise, as [002] where the plaintiff has no action.1 Some are peremptory as to one person and dilatory [003] to the judgment, but not peremptory as to another, [if] the action lies for another, [004] not for him. Just as [an exception] lies against the person, so it lies against the writ,2 [005] for if at the outset the writ is not good, the assise will not proceed further. If it is good, [006] we must then return to the person and see whether or not the plaint lies for him; then [007] to the assise, whether the tenant has wrongfully and without judgment disseised the [008] plaintiff of his free tenement in such a vill, and after such a time, as he says. We must [009] first confirm the writ, [jurisdiction having been confirmed, that is,3 if the justices [010] have the power to judge and the authority of a superior, by special writ or general [011] summons, as may clearly be seen above, at the beginning,]4 that the writ is appropriate [012] to the action, that the plaintiff may have the action, the tenant an exception, and [013] that a thing certain be brought before the court, as above.4 The person of the judge [014] having been confirmed and the writ heard, let the tenant then first except against [015] the writ, if he considers himself to have an exception. One may except against the [016] writ in many ways, as where it is defective in itself, if a counterfeit seal has been [017] appended,5 or even if there is an erasure in a critical place, where the names are [018] written not the legal matter, or6 if it contains some irregularity in its text,7 which [019] does not have the regular form of the chancery, neither the order of words nor a [020] style of hand writing8 which agrees with the hands of the clerks. In a critical place, as9 [021] in the names of tenements, places, and other things which are the principal matters [022] of judgment, which are certain and admit of no variation. In others, those which [023] contain the legal matter, not much attention need be given to an erasure, because [024] there it raises very little suspicion,10[For laws and constitutions and other things [025] which are common to all may be written in any way.]11 unless [there is] a difference [026] in handwriting or ink.12 If an erasure is found in a critical place, we must see, distinguishing [027] whether the writs directed to the sheriffs are close or patent, whether [028] what is suspect was emended in the chancery as where a name or some other thing, [029] first written carelessly, has been erased,13 or by another, as by the sheriff's clerk, [030] which may be strongly presumed if that writ, whether close or patent,14 has been [031] read and heard at another time in another's name. If this is truly declared, he who [032] on this charge has been judged and convicted (provided a complaint has first been [033] brought before the court and, after an inquest, he is found guilty) is punished as a [034] forger.15 We must also see whether at the time
Notes
1. ‘ut si . . . non habeat,’ from line 4; om: ‘sed alius’
Volume 3, Page 78
Next