Bracton: Thorne Edition: English. Volume 4, Page 278

Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Volume 4, Page 278

Next

Go to Volume: Page:

[001] because of his deceit in acting contrary to his own deed. And let the judges be punished
[002] because they held the plea to the prejudice of the king,¹ ²<and in the same way the
[003] creditor, because he drew the debtor into a forbidden forum.>³ ⁴<Just as there is a
[004] rule that a layman cannot renounce the secular forum to the prejudice of the royal
[005] dignity, so it is evident that a clerk, if he wishes to [renounce the ecclesiastical forum]
[006] cannot do so, in a criminal action or any other whose cognisance belongs to the
[007] ecclesiastical dignity and the clerical order; the reason is almost the same in both
[008] cases.> <An ecclesiastical judge, if he gives judgment concerning a lay fee, cannot
[009] order execution of his judgment, for if he entrusts it to the sheriff for execution he is
[010] not to be obeyed. If he executes it by himself or by his people, novel disseisin will lie.
[011] Similarly it is evident that if a layman takes cognisance in a criminal case concerning
[012] a clerk, where degradation follows, if he gives judgment against the clerk (whether
[013] he has put himself on the inquest of his own free will or not) what is done will not
[014] be valid, because a bishop will never proceed to degrade a clerk at the order of a
[015] secular judge,⁵ or the king,⁶ [and] therefore another conviction will be necessary,
[016] in the ecclesiastical forum, that he take cognisance and judge who may order the
[017] execution of his judgment.⁷ For that reason, whenever in an action of this kind a
[018] clerk is claimed by the bishop, he must be delivered to him, because the king has no
[019] prison for one whom he cannot judge.⁸ In civil causes, however, where there is no
[020] question of degredation, it seems that clerks may not save themselves from answering
[021] in the secular forum in pleas which belong to the crown and dignity of the king,
[022] because the king can order execution of the judgment without prejudice to the
[023] ecclesiastical dignity,⁹ especially if it is his will that answers be made to clerks in civil
[024] actions of this kind in the secular forum, because¹⁰ such pleas belong to the royal
[025] crown and dignity by reason of the thing and by reason of the delict.>

How an exception is to be raised against the jurisdiction of a superior justice.

[027] We have explained above how jurisdiction is revoked, by an exception raised against
[028] it, when one has been drawn to a forbidden court and an improper judge, that is, to
[029] the ecclesiastical forum in pleas and actions the cognisance of which belongs to the
[030] royal crown and dignity. Now we must see how an exception is to be raised against
[031] the jurisdiction of a justice who bears himself as judge in pleas and actions which
[032] belong to the royal crown and dignity, when one has been drawn into plea before
[033] him. It is clear that first of all, in order that

Notes

1. Supra 251

2. Supra i, 417

3. Supra 251

4. Supra i, 417

5. Supra ii, 378

6. ‘sive regis’

7. Supra 250, infra 283, 373, 375; cf. 250, 266

8. Supra ii, 349

9. Supra 250, 265, infra 283

10. ‘quia’