Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 274  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] again begin to be tithes.> <These things are true according to R. and others. But to
[002] the contrary [the roll] of Michaelmas term in the second and the beginning of the
[003] third years of king Henry son of king John, in the county of Kent, [the case] of
[004] Matilda daughter of Simon, who was attached because she sued a plea, as were the
[005] abbot of St. Augustine, the prior of Holy Trinity, Canterbury and the prior of St.
[006] Gregory, the judges, because they held the plea, touching a certain house which
[007] Matilda claimed by virtue of a testamentary causa in London,1 as to which Simon
[008] the son of Simon complained that [she wrongfully sued him in court christian with
[009] respect to] his lay fee. There all defended [themselves] and [damages] were adjudged
[010] but remitted with the amercements at the petition of the legatee,2 and the judges
[011] gave security that they would proceed no further. But what remedy will the legatee
[012] have in the lay forum?>3 <It is clear that the prohibition will always lie until it has
[013] been decided in the king's court whether the thing has been so bequeathed or not.
[014] Only then may the judges have leave to proceed, because they cannot decide whether
[015] they have cognisance at the outset.>4

When the parties have appeared in court.

[017] When the parties have appeared in court, the plaintiff and he of whom he complains
[018] and the judges, or some of these, let the plaintiff put forward his intentio against them
[019] in this way. ‘I, A., complain of B. that he has wrongfully troubled and oppressed me
[020] by drawing me into plea in court christian with respect to my lay fee, that is, such.’
[021] And let him describe the kind of land or other tenement, or if it concerns debts and
[022] chattels which are not etc., let him then make clear the kind of debts and chattels of
[023] which he is impleaded, and that B. has done this contrary to the prohibition, and
[024] that he has thereby incurred damage to the value etc.

Of proving his intentio.

[026] In order to support and strengthen his intentio, let him put forward the complaint
[027] made to them5 in court, reduced to writing, if possible, and say that he produced the
[028] prohibition of the lord king to them at such place and on such a day in a full assembly,6
[029] and that they nevertheless proceeded at the suit of him against whom he complains,
[030] in such a way that they admitted the proofs of witnesses and the like, or that because
[031] he, the plaintiff, refused to obey their judgments, they excommunicated him


1. B.N.B., no. 11 (Trin 2: an earlier stage); no roll extant

2. ‘legatarii’

3. Infra 282

4. Ibid.

5. ‘eis,’ as below

6. Flahiff in Mediaeval Studies, vii, 236, n. 34

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