the writ is dated there was some reason for impetrating. For that reason the date  must be examined to see if it has been deleted or changed in any way.1 And that an  impetration is without effect and is void unless a true cause for impetrating exists,2  and that the writ ought to fall, is proved in [the roll of] the eyre of William of Ralegh  in the county of Warwick, an assise of novel disseisin [beginning] if Gerard3 son of  William.4 And so if he has withdrawn himself from a like writ and from the assise;  not if because of falsity and error.5 Also if he first began to sue on another's seisin  rather than on his own, [as] by an assise of mortdancestor, a writ of entry, a writ of  right, or by some other, no matter which, the order in which writs are to be sued not  being observed.6 Also if he has impetrated a similar writ, before the same judge or  another, from the prosecution of which he did not withdraw by license or in some  other [proper] way.7 Also if it has been impetrated contrary to the common law, so  that several plaintiffs are included in one writ where there are different complaints,  persons and disseisins, unless where there is a single right and several persons [are] as  a single heir, as those who are co-heirs and parceners and hold in common.
That error is manifold.
 8[Error destroys the writ, but not the judgment or the assise. [The writ falls]9[as  where he errs by impetrating against one who possesses in another's name, not in his  own, as a farmer, a prior, or a canon removable, as was said above and will be explained  below; nor does an exception or a plaint lie for such persons.]10 because of error  in the name, as where for Henry the name William is put in the writ, or conversely.  Similarly, if there is error in the surname, as where it reads Hubert Robert where  Hubert Walter ought to be said. And so if there is error in the name of the vill  whence one has his origin, as where for of London he names [him] in the writ of  Winchester. Also if there is error in a syllable, as where he names another Henry of  Brothton where he ought to name him11 of Bratton. And so of a letter, by naming  him Henry of Bretton when he ought to name him Henry of Bratton. All these  may be proved by examples. The result will still be the same if the person is clear and  [the name and] surname correct, but there is error in the name of his dignity, as where  it is said in a writ, Henry of Bratton, precentor, has complained to us when he is a  dean, and so the writ falls. And so if there is error