Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 2, Page 370

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 2, Page 370

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] promulgated against him for such a criminal charge¹ (as for homicide, mayhem,
[002] robbery and the like) of which such a one appealed him.² And we will and order
[003] that the said A. have our steadfast peace therein, provided that he stand his trial
[004] if anyone wishes to sue against him. And in witness thereof we have caused these
[005] our letters patent to be made for him.’

Another writ: that the king pardons, as far as it lies in his power, an outlawry made in the time of his father.

[007] Another writ on the same matter: ‘Know that as far as it lies within our power we
[008] have pardoned A. the flight he made because of the death of B., slain in the time of
[009] the lord king John our father, of which A. was accused. We therefore will and order
[010] that the said A. have our steadfast peace therein, provided he makes his peace
[011] with the kinsmen of the said B. and stands his trial etc. (as above).’³ Let the inlawed
[012] man carry these letters with him wherever he goes and have them ready to hand,
[013] lest anyone who does not know that he has acquired the king's grace slay him as an
[014] outlaw, [for] immediately after the grace acquired one might not know of it unless
[015] the inlawed man had the king's letter at hand and ready. There are also other forms
[016] of letters of inlawry⁴ but they are magistral,⁵ drawn according to the circumstances.
[017] ⁶Where one has been appealed of one deed by two [in two counties] and has made
[018] his defence according to the law of the land or surrendered himself to prison [in
[019] one] and been outlawed in the other, the form of writ is as follows:

[A writ to the effect] that the king pardons an outlawry because the appeal was made when the appellee had been appealed in another county of the same robbery. The king remits the outlawry.

[021] ‘The king to the sheriff, greeting. Know that when A. appealed B. in our county
[022] court of York of having robbed C., the lord of A. and of the same B.,⁷ of charters,
[023] arms and horses while they were in A's custody, the said C. (at the same time that
[024] this appeal was pending in the county court of York) appealed the same B. of the
[025] same robbery in the county court of Essex. The appeal between the aforesaid A.
[026] and B. was put at our order before our justices at Westminster, where, after A's
[027] appeal and the answer of the said B. had been heard in our court, it was decided
[028] in our same court that the appeal was void and that the said B. should depart quit.
[029] And whereas, as we have heard, when the same B. was appealed of the same deed
[030] by the said C. in the county of Essex, B. was outlawed at C's suit and appeal and
[031] publicly proclaimed an outlaw in the same county court of Essex, and since error
[032] ought not prejudice the truth and the aforesaid outlawry promulgated in the

Notes

1. ‘retto’

2. ‘appellavit’

3. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1225-32, 456

4. ‘inlagationis’

5. Infra iv, 285

6. New paragraph

7. ‘B’ for ‘C’