Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 4, Page 158  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    




[001] have provided1 for himself,] he is excused by virtue of such necessity. Necessity
[002] often is concomitant with the summons and precedes it, 2[These necessities excuse
[003] from default and punishment, if they are proved, and postpone judgment. And if
[004] they continue so that they cannot be put forward and proved within the fourth day
[005] after the default, and judgment is given against the tenant, if they are put forward
[006] and proved after judgment, the judgment and whatever has been done pursuant
[007] to it will be revoked.]3 4[as] where one has gone on a journey before the summons
[008] so that he could not provide5 for himself, as above. There is also a supervening
[009] necessity following after the summons, as where one summoned lawfully meets
[010] with accidents after the summons, which could not be foreseen,6 as was said a little
[011] above.7 In all these cases, if the demandant can show that the impediment is unlawful,
[012] and the necessity feigned or non-existent, or that it was otherwise than the
[013] demandant alleges, by such insinuation8 or denial the matter is made doubtful. It
[014] will then be necessary to inquire into the truth, and in accordance with that finding
[015] let judgment be given or not given on the default; if it has been given, it will be
[016] revoked or affirmed. [But what if before judgment on the default, or after, the
[017] tenant produces the king's writ warranting that he was9 in his service on such a day,
[018] in the form described above,10 so that he could not be in court before the justices
[019] on that day, when he was not in the king's service, because he was seen on that day
[020] before his justices who have record and contumaciously withdrew, so that judgment
[021] went against him by default, which the demandant is prepared to prove at once?
[022] Or that he was elsewhere, far from the place where he was alleged to be in service,11
[023] [or] though in service, he could have provided12 for himself before, or if in service
[024] [so that] he could neither have come nor provided,13 he could have sent, because he
[025] was with the king during that whole day.14 Quaere whether such testimony of the
[026] king himself admits of proof to the contrary, when the demandant excepts as above
[027] and is prepared to prove his exception. It appears that it does,15 though the testimony
[028] of the king raises the strongest presumption, true proof ought to overthrow
[029] it, which will be nothing other than to prove



Notes

1. ‘providisse,’ as V

2. Infra n. 7

3. Supra 148, infra 161

4. Om: ‘Eodem modo excusatur,’ a connective

5. ‘providere,’ as V

6. ‘praevideri,’ as V; C. 4.24.6: ‘Quae fortuitis casibus accidunt cum praevideri non potuerant’; Drogheda, 89

7. Supra 72, 148; portion supra n. 2 belongs here

8. ‘insinuatione’

9. ‘fuit’

10. Supra 155

11. ‘vel quod . . . servitio,’ from lines 22-23

12. ‘providisse,’ as V

13. ‘providisse,’ as V

14. Supra 71

15. Cf. supra 71, 78, 79


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