No one, including the lord of a manor, may take land from anyone else, for instance, by the customary process of distress, without a judgment from the Royal Court. This did not apply to London, where a landlord leasing or renting land could take distress in his fee.
No one, including the lord of a manor, shall deprive an heir of the land possessed by his father, i.e. his birthright.
A tenant may marry off a daughter unless his lord shows some just cause for refusing to consent to the marriage. A tenant had to pay an "aid" to his lord when the lord's daughter married, when the lord's son was knighted, or when the lord's person was ransomed.
A man [or woman] may not will away his land, but he may sell it during his lifetime.
The land of a knight or other tenant of a military fee is inherited by his eldest son. The socage land of a free sokeman goes by its ancient custom before the Norman Conquest.
If a man purchased land after his marriage, his wife's dower is still one-third of the land he had when they married, or less if he had endowed her with less. But he could then enlarge her dower to one-third of all of his lands. The same rule applied if the man had no land, but endowed his wife with chattel or money instead.
Dower law prevented a woman from selling her dower during the life of her husband. But he could sell it or give it away. On his death, its possessor had to give the widow the equivalent worth of the property.
A widower had all his wife's lands by curtesy of the nation for his lifetime to the exclusion of her heirs.
The Capital Messuage [Chief Manor] could not be given in dower or divided, but went in its entirety to its heir.
Heirs were firstly sons, then daughters, then grandsons per stirpes, then granddaughters per stirpes, then brothers, and then sisters of the decedent. [By taking "per stirpes" instead of "per capita", a person's share goes to that person's heirs if that person predeceases the ancestor-decedent.] Male heirs of land held by military service or sons of knights who were under the age of twenty-one were considered to be in custody of their lords. The lord had wardship over the heir's land, excluding the third that was the widow's dower for her life. He had to maintain the heir in a manner suitable to his dignity and restore to him when he came of age his inheritance in good condition discharged from debts. Male heirs of sokemen who were under the age of fifteen were in the custody of their nearest kindred. The son of a burgess came of age when he could count money, measure cloth, and manage his father's concerns.
Female heirs remained in the custody of their lords until they married. The lord was bound to find a marriage for his ward when she became fourteen years of age and then deliver her inheritance to her. She could not marry without her lord's consent, because her husband was expected to be the lord's ally and to do homage to him. But if a female heir lost her virginity, her inheritance escheated to her lord. A woman with property could not do homage because she could not perform military service, but she generally swore fealty. She could receive homage from men.
Bastards were not heirs, even if their father married their mother after birth.
Any adult inheriting land had to pay a "relief" to the lord of the land. For a knight's fee, this was 100s. For socage land, this was one year's value. The amount for a barony depended upon the King's pleasure.
Heirs (but not widows) were bound to pay the debts of their fathers and ancestors. A man who married a woman who had inherited land could not sell this land without the consent of its heirs.
When a man dies, his wife shall take one-third and his heirs shall take one-third of his chattels [movables or personal property]. The other third he may dispose of by will. If he had no heirs and no will [intestate], all his chattels would escheat to his lord. Any distribution of chattels would take place after all the decedent's debts were paid from the property.
A will required two witnesses. The testator could name an executor, but if he did not, the next of kin was the executor. A will could not be made by a man on his death bed because he may well have lost his memory and reason. Also, he could not give to a younger son if in so doing, he would deprive his lawful heir. But he could give a marriage gift to a daughter regardless of the lawful heir.
Usury was receiving back more than what was lent, such as interest on a loan of money. When a usurer died, all his movables went to the King.
A villein may not buy his own freedom (because all that he has is his lord's), but may be set free by his lord or by someone else who buys his freedom for him. He shall also be freed if the lord seduced his wife, drew his blood, or refused to bail him either in a civil or criminal action in which he was afterwards cleared. But a freed villein did not have status to plead in court, even if he had been knighted. If his free status were tried in court, only a freeman who was a witness to his being set free could avail himself of trial by combat to decide the issue. However, if the villein remained peacefully in a privileged town a year and a day and was received into its guild as a citizen, then he was freed from villeinage in every way.
A freeman who married a villein lost his freedom. If any parent of a child was a villein, then the child was also a villein.
All shipwrecked persons shall be treated with kindness and none of their goods or merchandise shall be taken from them.
If one kills another on a vessel, he shall be fastened to the dead body and thrown with it into the sea.
If one steals from another on a vessel, he shall be shaven, tarred and feathered, and turned ashore at the first land.
Passage on the Thames River may not be obstructed by damming up the river on each side leaving a narrow outlet to net fish. All such weirs shall be removed.
Henry II wanted all freemen to be equally protected by one system of law and government. So he opened his court, the Royal Court, to all people of free tenure. A court of five justices professionally expert in the law, traveled with the King, and on points of difficulty consulted with him. Justices began to be more than presiding officers; they, instead of those attending, rendered the judgments. The chief court was in Westminster, where the weightiest decisions were made. Other professional itinerant justices appeared periodically in all counties of the nation to hear certain criminal and civil cases and to hear citizens' private civil suits [common pleas]. They came to perform many other tasks, including promulgating and enforcing new legislation, seeking out encroachments on royal rights, reviewing the local communities' and officials' performance of their public duties, imposing penalties for failure to do them or for corruption, gathering information about outlaws and nonperformance of homage, and assessing feudal escheats to the crown, wardships to which the king was entitled, royal advowsons, feudal aids owed to the King, tallages of the burgesses, and debts owed to the Jews. The decision-making of itinerant justices on circuits begins the process which makes the custom of the Royal Court the common law of the nation. The county courts, where the traveling justices heard all manner of business in the counties, adopted the doctrines of the Royal Court, which then acquired an appellate jurisdiction. The itinerant justices came from the same small group of royal justices who were on the Royal Court and the Exchequer, which was headed by the justiciar. Difficult cases were decided by the king and wise men of his council.
Tenants of manors and of escheats in royal hands, who had been excused from the monthly county court, were required to appear. Side by side with the reeve and four men of the rural townships appeared the twelve legal men of each of the chartered boroughs which owed no suit to the ordinary county court. In the formation of the jury of presentment for criminal cases, each hundred sent twelve legal men and each township four to make report to the justices. Women did not serve on juries. Compurgation was not used; accused persons were sent directly to the ordeal. In 1194, twelve knights or legal men from each hundred answer before any itinerant justice for their hundred in all criminal, civil, and fiscal cases. All who are bound to attend before the itinerant justices are, in the forest counties, compelled to attend the forest courts.
The Royal Court was chiefly concerned with 1) the due regulation and supervision of the conduct of local government, 2) the ownership and possession of land held by free tenure ("free tenement" was decided by justices to be one held for life or one held heritably [a fee]), 3) the repression of serious crime, and 4) the relations between the lay and the ecclesiastical courts.
The doctrine of tenure applied universally to the land law formed the basis for judicial procedure in determining land rights. Those who held lands "in fee" from the king in turn subinfeudated their land to men of lesser rank. The concept of tenure covered the earl, the knight (knight's service), the church (frank-almoin [free alms]), the tenant who performed labor services, and the tenant who paid a rent (socage). Other tenures were: serjeanty [providing an implement of war or performing a nonmilitary office] and burgage. All hold the land of some lord and ultimately of the King.
Henry was determined to protect lawful seisin of land and issued assizes giving the Royal Court authority to decide land law issues which had not been given justice in the county or lord's court. But he did not ordain that all litigation respecting free tenements, e.g. right of seisin, should take place in the king's court. Rather he gave protection to mere possession of land, which could be justified because possession was intimately associated with the maintenance of the king's peace. These assizes included issues of novel disseisin [recent ejectment] of a person's free tenement or of his common of pasture which belonged to his freehold. Though the petty assize of disseisin only provided a swift preliminary action to protect possession pending the lengthy and involved grand assize on the issue of which party had the more just claim or ultimate right of seisin, the latter action was only infrequently invoked. The temptation of a strong man to seize a neighbor's land to reap its profits for a long time until the neighbor could prove and enforce his right was deterred. Any such claim of recent dispossession [novel disseisin] had to be made within three years of the disseisin.
An example of a writ of novel disseisin is: The king to the sheriff, greeting. N has complained to me that R unjustly and without a judgment has disseised him of his free tenement in [Houndsditch] since my last voyage to Normandy. Therefore I command you that, if N gives you security for prosecuting his claim, you are to see that the chattels which were taken from the tenement are restored to it, and that the tenement and the chattels remain in peace until Sunday after Easter. And meanwhile you are to see that the tenement is viewed by twelve free and lawful men of the neighborhood, and their names endorsed on this writ. And summon them by good summoners to be before me or my justices on the Sunday after Easter, ready to make the recognition. And summon R. or his bailiff if he himself cannot be found, on the security of gage and reliable securities to be there then to hear the recognition. And have there the summoners, and this writ and the names of the sureties. Witness etc.
Then an assize panel of recognition summoned concurrently with the defendant and before he had pleaded, viewed the land in question and answered, from their knowledge, these questions of fact: 1) Was the plaintiff disseised of the freehold in question, unjustly and without judgment? 2) Did the defendant commit the disseisin? Testimony of a warrantor (or an attorney sent by him in his place) or a charter of warranty served to prove seisin by gift, sale, or exchange. No pleadings were necessary and the action could proceed and judgment given even without the presence of the defendant. The justices amerced the losing party with a monetary penalty. A successful plaintiff might be awarded damages to compensate for the loss of revenue.
There was also a writ for issues of inheritance of land called "mort d'ancestor". By law the tenure of a person who died seised of a tenure in a lord's demesne which was hereditary [seisin of fee] returned to the lord, who had to give it to the heir of the decedent. If the lord refused and kept it for himself or gave it to someone else, the heir could sue in the Royal Court, which used an similar assize panel of twelve men to decide whether the ancestor was seised as of fee in his demesne, if the plaintiff was the nearest heir, and whether the ancestor had died, gone on a crusade but not returned, or had become a monk. Then it could give possession to the heir. Since about 1150, heiresses divided the land of their father if there was no son. The widow, of course, retained her dower rights. As of 1176, the widow held her dower from the heir instead of from the husband's lord. If the heir was a minor, the guardian lord would be in actual control of the land. A national policy was implemented that in the case of the death of a freeholder, the rights of the family, his will, and his debts were to be provided for before relief was paid to his lord.
Eventually royal justices acquired authority to decide the ultimate question of right to land using the grand assize as an alternative to the traditional procedures which ended in trial by combat. Issues of the ultimate right of seisin were brought to the Royal Court by a contestant in a local court who "put himself [or herself] upon the King's grand assize". The assize consisted of twelve knights from the county or neighborhood who were elected by four knights of the same county or neighborhood (selected by the sheriff or the suitors) and who were known as truthful men and were likely to possess knowledge of the facts, either from personal seeing or hearing, or from statements which their fathers had made to them from their personal knowledge. The avenue by which a person who felt he had not had justice in the manor court on his claim for certain freehold land appealed to the king was by writ of right after the manor court's decision or by a writ praecipe during the manor court's proceeding. An example of a writ praecipe is: "The king to the sheriff greeting. Command [praecipe] N. to render to R. justly and without delay one hide of land in a certain vill, which the said R. complains that the aforesaid N. is withholding from him. If he does not do so, summon him by good summoners to be before me or my justices on the day after the octaves of Easter, to show why he has not done so. And have the summoners and this writ. Witness." When the parties appeared in court, the claimant states his suit such as: "I claim against this N. the fee of half a knight and two carucates of land in a certain vill as my right and my inheritance, of which my father (or grandfather) was seized in his demesne as of fee in the time of King Henry the First, and from which he took the profits to the value of five shillings at least, in grain and hay and other profits; and this I am ready to prove by this freeman of mine, H., and if any evil befalls him them by this other man or by this third man, who saw and heard it". Then the defendant chose to deny the claim word for word with proof by combat or to put himself upon the grand assize of the king. If he chose trial by combat, the parties or their champions fought. The party losing, usually by crying craven, had to pay a fine of 60s. If the grand assize was chosen, the action was removed to the Royal Court. A writ of grand assize was issued as follows: "The king to the sheriff, greeting. Summon by good summoners the following twelve, namely, A. B. ..., to be before me or my justices at a certain place on a certain day, ready to declare on oath whether N. or R. has the greater right in one hide of land (or other things claimed) which the aforesaid R. claims against the aforesaid N., who is tenant, and in respect of which the aforesaid N., who is tenant, has put himself upon my assize and has sought a recognition to determine which of them has the greater right in the things claimed. And meanwhile the twelve shall view the land (or tenements from which the services are demanded). And summon by good summoners N., who is tenant, to be there to hear the recognition. Witness..." The claimant could object to any of the twelve knights for just cause as determined by the court. Each of the twelve gave an oath as to whether the plaintiff's or the defendant's position was correct. This oath was not to speak falsehood nor conceal truth according to knowledge gained by eyewitness or "by the words of their fathers and by such words as they are bound to have such confidence in as if they were their own". If any did not know the truth of the matter, others were found until twelve agreed [the recognitors] on which party had the greater right. Perjury was punished by forfeiture of all one's goods and chattels to the king and at least one year's imprisonment. If the tenant in court vouched another to warranty, such as the lord to whom he paid homage, that warrantor would stand in his place in the proceedings. If the warrantor lost, he would have to give to his vassal equivalent land in exchange. Burgage tenure was not usually decided by assize. Also, if the parties were relatives, neither the assize nor the combat was available to them, but the matter had to be decided by the law of inheritance.
Itinerant justices could conduct these assizes: petty and grand. In 1198, the hundred is empowered to act on all the business of the session, including all recognitions and petty assizes ordered by the king's writ, where the property in dispute was worth no more than 200s. [ten pounds] a year. The four knights came to be selected by the suitors of the county court rather than by the sheriff.
This assize procedure extended in time to all other types of civil actions.
Also removable to the Royal Court from the county courts were issues of a lord's claim to a person as his villein (combat not available), service or relief due to a lord, dower rights, a creditor's refusal to restore a gage [something given as security] to a debtor who offered payment or a deposit, money due to a lender, a seller, or a person to whom one had an obligation under a charter, fish or harvest or cattle taken from lands unjustly occupied, cattle taken from pasture, rights to enjoy a common, to stop troubling someone's transport, to make restitution of land wrongfully occupied, to make a lord's bailiff account to him for the profits of the manor.
The Royal Court also decided disputes regarding baronies, nuisance or encroachments on royal land or public ways or public waterways, such as diverting waters from their right course and issues of nuisance by the making or destroying of a ditch or the destruction of a pond by a mill to the injury of a person's freehold. Other pleas of the Crown were: insult to the royal dignity, treason, breaches of safe-conducts, and injury to the King's servants.
Henry involved the Royal Court in many criminal issues, using the agencies of the county and hundred courts. To detect crimes, he required royal justices to routinely ask selected representatives: knights or other landholders, of every neighborhood if any person were suspected of any murder, robbery, theft, etc. A traveling royal justice or a sheriff would then hold an inquest, in which the representatives answered by oath what people were reputed to have done certain crimes. They made such inquiries through assizes of presentment, usually composed of twelve men from each hundred and the four best men of each township. (These later evolved into grand juries). These assizes were an ancient institution in many parts of the country. They consisted of representatives of the hundreds, usually knights, and villages who testified under oath to all crimes committed in their neighborhood, and indicted those they suspected as responsible and those harboring them. What Henry's assize did was to insist upon the adoption of a standard procedure everywhere systematically. The procedure was made more regular instead of depending on crime waves. If indicted, the suspected persons were then sent to the ordeal. There was no trial by compurgation in the Royal Courts, which was abolished by Henry. If determined guilty, he forfeited his chattels to the king and his land reverted to his landlord. If he passed the ordeal but was ill-famed in the community, he could be banished from the community. The ordeal was abolished by the Lateran Council of 1215.
As before, a person could also be brought to trial by the accusation of the person wronged. If the accused still denied the charge after the accuser testified and the matter investigated by inquiries and interrogation and then analyzed, trial by combat was held, unless the accuser was over the age of sixty or maimed, in which case the accused went to the ordeal.
If a man failed at the ordeal, the penalty prescribed by the assize of Clarendon of 1166 was loss of a foot and abjuring the realm. The assize of Northhampton of 1176 added loss of the right hand. Under the former assize, a man who had a bad reputation had to abjure the realm even if he had successfully undergone the ordeal.
Criminal matters such as killing the king or sedition or betraying the nation or the army, fraudulent concealment of treasure trove [finding a hoard of coins which had been buried when danger approached], breach of the King's peace, homicide, murder (homicide for which there were no eyewitnesses), burning (a town, house, men, animals or other chattel for hatred or revenge), robbery, rape and falsifying (e.g. false charters or false measures or false money) were punishable by death or loss of limb. All murders were now punished alike because the applicability of the murdrum couldn't be determined since it was impossible to prove that the slain man had been English.
Trespass was a serious and forcible breach of the peace onto land that developed from the criminal law of felony. One found guilty of it could be fined and imprisoned as well as amerced.
Housebreaking, harboring outlaws, and interference with the royal perquisites of shipwreck and the beasts of the sea which were stranded on the coast [such as whales and sturgeon] were also punishable in the Royal Court.
The Royal Court had grown substantially and was not always presided over by the King. To avoid court agents from having too much discretionary power, there was a systematic procedure for bringing cases to the Royal Court. First, a plaintiff had to apply to the King's Chancery for a standardized writ into which the cause had to fit. The plaintiff had to pay a fee and provide a surety that the plea was brought in good faith. The progress of the suit was controlled at crucial points by precisely formulated writs to the sheriff, instructing him for instance, to put the disputed property under royal protection pending a decision, to impanel an assize and have it view the property in advance of the justices' arrival, to ascertain a point of fact material to the plea, or to summon a 'warrantor' to support a claim by the defendant.
The Royal Court kept a record on its cases on parchment kept rolled up: its "rolls". The oldest roll of 1194 is almost completely comprised of land cases.
Anyone could appoint an agent, an "attorney", to appear in court on his behalf, it being assumed that the principal could not be present and royal authorization given. A wife could represent her husband. The principal was then bound by the actions of his agent. Gradually men appeared who made a business of representing whoever would employ them. The common law system became committed to the "adversary system" with the parties struggling judicially against each other.
The Royal Court took jurisdiction over issues of whether certain land was civil or ecclesiastical [assize utrum], and therefore whether the land owed services or payment to the Crown or not. It also heard issues of disturbance of advowson, a complex of rights to income from a church and to the selection of a parson for the church [assize of darrein [last] presentment]. Many churches had been built by a lord on his manor for his villeins. The lord had then appointed a parson and provided for his upkeep out of the income of the church. In later times, the lord's chosen parson was formally appointed by the bishop. By the 1100s, many lords had given their advowsons to abbeys. This procedure used twelve recognitors selected by the sheriff.
As before, the land of any person who had been outlawed or convicted of a felony escheated to his lord. His moveable goods and chattels became the King's. If he was executed, his heirs received nothing because they were of the same blood as the felon, which was corrupt: "corruption of the blood". The loss of civil rights and capacities after a sentence of death for felony or treason, which resulted in forfeiture of property and corruption of the blood, was called "attainder".
The manor court heard cases arising out of the unfree tenures of the lord's vassals. It also heard distraint, also called "distress", issues. Distraint was a landlord's method of forcing a tenant to perform the services of his fief. To distrain by the fief, a lord first obtained a judgment of his court. Otherwise, he distrained only by goods and chattels without judgment of his court. A distraint was merely a security to secure a person's services, if he agreed he owed them, or his attendance in court, if he did not agree that he owed them. Law and custom restricted the type of goods and chattels distrainable, and the time and manner of distraint. For instance, neither clothes, household utensils, nor a riding horse was distrainable. The lord could not use the chattels taken while they were in his custody. If cattle in custody were not accessible to the tenant, the lord had to feed them at his expense. The lord, if he were not the King, could not sell the chattel. This court also determined inheritance and dower issues.
The court of the vill enforced the village ordinances. The hundred court met twice a month and dealt with the petty crimes of lowly men in the neighborhood of a few vills. The county and borough courts heard cases of felonies, accusations against freemen, tort, and debts. The knights make the county courts work as legal and administrative agencies of the Crown.
The peace of the sheriff still exists for his county. The King's peace may still be specially given, but it will cease upon the death of the King. Law required every good and lawful man to be bound to follow the hue and cry when it was raised against an offender who was fleeing. The village reeve was expected to lead the chase to the boundary of the next jurisdiction, which would then take the responsibility to catch the man.
Admiralty issues (since no assize could be summoned on the high seas), and tenement issues of land held in frankalmoin ["free alms" for the poor to relieve the king of this burden], where the tenant was a cleric were heard in the ecclesiastical courts.
Before Henry's reign, the church, with the pope's backing, had become more powerful and asserted more authority. Henry tried to return to the concept of the king being appointed by God and as the head of the church as well as of the state, as in Henry I's time, and to include the church in his reform of the legal system, which would make the spiritual jurisdiction and temporal jurisdiction conform to a common justice. Toward this end, he published the Constitutions of Clarendon. But the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, refused to agree to them, although as Chancellor he had seen the beneficial effects on the kingdom of Henry's legal measures. The disagreement came to a head in Henry's attempt to establish the principle of "one law to all" by having church clerics punished by the civil courts as before, instead of having "benefit of clergy" to be tried and punished only in ecclesiastical courts, even for secular crimes. Clerics composed about one-sixth the population. The church courts had characteristically punished with spiritual penalties of a fine or a penance, and at most defrocking. It could not impose a death penalty, even for murder. When Archbishop Becket was murdered and became a martyr, "benefit of clergy" became a standard right, except for offenses in the king's forests. Appeals could be made to the pope without the king's permission. The king could take a criminal cleric's chattels, but not his life. However, though theoretically bishops were elected by the body of bishops with the approval of the king, as a practical matter, the king chose the bishops and the abbots. It was a constant matter of dispute, in which the pope would sometimes involve himself. Selection of archbishops was also a frequent matter of contention between king and pope.
The church copied the assize procedure developed by the Royal Court to detect ecclesiastical offenses. Trial was still by compurgation. Bishops could request the Chancery to imprison an offender who had remained excommunicant for forty days, until he made amends. Chancery complied as a matter of course. This went on for six centuries.
The delineations of jurisdiction among these courts were confused and there was much competing and overlapping of jurisdictions. However, the court could appoint arbitrators or suggest to the parties to compromise to avoid the harshness of a decisive judgment which might drive the losing party to violent self-help.
The office of coroner was established about 1194 to supplement the judicial investigations of crimes with local officers prior to the arrival of the itinerant justices. Four knights who were residents of the county and possessed sufficient land were elected by the county court for life. Sometimes they had county and royal connections instead. They received no pay. They determined if sudden deaths were accidental or due to murder and the cause of death of prisoners. They also held inquests on other crime such as bodily injury, rape, and prison break. They attached [arrested] the accused and evaluated and guarded his chattels until after the trial. If the accused was found guilty, his possessions went to the King. The coroner sat with the sheriff at every county court and went with him on his turns. This office and the forbidding of sheriffs to act as justices in their own counties reduced the power of the sheriffs. The responsibility of receiving the oath of the peace is changed from the sheriff to knights, the duty of the sheriffs being only to receive and keep the criminals taken by these knights until the justices came to try them.
Also, at this time, the constitution of the grand jury of the county was defined. First, four knights were to be chosen in the county court. These were to select on oath two knights from each hundred. These two, also on oath, are to add by co-optation ten more for the jury of the hundred.
In London, if one of two witnesses for the defense died while an action was pending, the survivor, after offering his oath, could proceed to the grave of the dead witness, and there offer oath as to what the dead man would have sworn if he had been alive. If a foreigner was bound to make oath for debt or any misdeed, he could make it with six others, his own oath being the seventh; but if could not find six supporters, he alone could make the oath and take it in the six nearest churches.
In London, the method of capital punishment was being confined to hanging, instead of also being in the form of beheading, burning, drowning, stoning, or hurling from a rock. In cases of drowning, the offender was first sewn up in a sack with a snake, a dog, an ape, and a cock.
Chief Justiciar Ranulph Glanvill wrote a treatise on the writs which could be brought in the Royal Court and the way they could be used. It was a practical manual of procedure and of the law administered in the Royal Court.
There are personal actions such as "debt" for specific chattel or specific sum of money. This splits into two actions. The detinue award is for the specific chattel or its value. The action of "replevin" is available to the tenant to recover personal property which had been wrongly distrained, usually cattle; the goods are "repledged" pending action. Also, but rarely used, are "covenant" to protect termors for leases of land for terms of years, and "trespass": a semi-criminal action brought by a private party for an offense punishable by death (or in the 1100s by mutilation) such as murder, rape, robbery, or mayhem, that is done with force of arms and against the peace of the king. The use of trespass grew as private actions for felony were supplanted by public indictment. It occasioned outlawry in default of appearance. These personal actions were initiated in common law courts by their respective writs.
These are some of the cases of novel disseisin brought to the king's court:
Woodbridge v. Bardolf (1194, king's court): Ralf of Woodbridge seeks before the justices his free tenement in Hebston by the assize of novel disseisin against Hugh Bardolf. Against which assize Hugh said that he had that seisin by judgment of his court for the default of the same Ralf. And the court has recorded the summons and distraints reasonably made on the same Ralf. And Ralf himself has acknowledged the summons and distraints and said that he ought not hold anything from him in that land; rather, it is of another's fee. And because neither he nor anyone for him has complained to the justices that Hugh unjustly drew him into a plea concerning a tenement which Ralf himself held of the fee of another lord, it is considered that Hugh hold in peace. And let Ralf plead by writ of right if he want and be in mercy for his false claim.
Turroc v. fitz Walter (1194, king's court): The assize came to recognize if Clement son of Walter unjustly and without judgment disseised Matilda of Turroc of her free tenement within the assize. Clement comes and says that he disseised her by judgment of his court. The court is present and records that she occupied more of her lord's land than she had in dower by the sheriff and by order of the lord king, so that she was summoned and distrained to come in to court, and she so responded that she remained in mercy of 10s. by judgment, so that for that amercement and for other complaints she made fine with her lord for 1/2 mark [7s.] and put her land in pledge in his court and did not want to render the 1/2 mark [7s.]. And therefore by judgment of his court he seised it. Matilda denies all word for word. And the same Clement only produces two men from his court; and it is considered that it was no court. Judgment: let Matilda have her seisin and let Clement be in mercy for disseisin.
Fitz Hereward v. Prior of Lecton (1195, king's court): The assize came to recognize if the prior of Lecton unjustly and without judgment disseised Reginald son of Hereward and Essolda his wife of his free tenement in Clapston after the first coronation of the lord king. The prior says that the assize ought not be taken thereof, because he seised that land by judgment of his court for default of his service and his rent, whereof he has his court present, which asserts the same thing. It is considered that the prior replevy [give back] to them their land and give them a day in his court concerning the arrears of rents and services. And let him treat them justly by judgment of his court.
Stanfeld v. Brewes (1199, king's court): The assize comes to recognize if Simon of Brewes and Luke cleric and Peter of Brewes unjustly and without a judgment disseised Odo of Stanfeld and Juliana his wife of her free tenement in Michehey within the assize. Simon says that the assize ought not be taken thereof, because he took that land into his hand by judgment of his court — which he produced and which attests to this — for default of his service. And it was testified that Odo holds that land from the same Simon. Simon was ordered to replevy that land to Odo as well as the chattels and to treat him rightfully in his court.
fitz William v. Amice et al. (1200, king's court): The assize comes to recognize if Amice who was the wife of Richard earl of Clare and Hugh of Ceriton, John of Cornherd, William of Wattevill, Alexander son of Gilbert, Alexander son of Matthew, Bartholomew son of Alexander, Robert of Cornherd, and Geoffrey son of Leveric unjustly and without judgment disseised Richard son of William of Sudbury of his free tenement in Sudbury after the feast of St Michael next before the coronation of the lord king. The countess says that, when she was separated by papal order from the earl of Clare her husband by reason of consanguinity, to which husband the vill of Sudbury had been given with her as marriage portion, she came to Sudbury and convoked her court and made the same Richard to be summoned to come to show by what warrant he held her land. He willingly entered into the plea and vouched the earl of Clare her former husband to warrant and at the day given him to have [his warrantor] he did not have him. And thus by consideration of her court she seised her land and holds it. Which court she produced and which attests this. Richard comes and denies that he was ever summoned or came into her court by summons or vouched to warranty or so lost seisin by consideration of the court of the countess. And this he offers [to prove]. It is considered that he defend himself 12-handed that he did not willingly enter into the plea and vouch to warranty. Let him wage his law [prove by the 12-handed oath, thus, by compurgation]. Pledges of the law: Hugh son of Hugh, Wido of Sudbury. Day is given them at the quindene of St. John.
This is the suit of Richard of Sudbury: [there follow the names, but only of 10 men] against the countess Amice who was the countess of Clare, concerning whom he had complained concerning a novel disseisin of his free tenement in Sudbury. She said that by judgment of her court for default of warranty which he had vouched did she make the [dis]seisin and thereof did she produce suit. And he denied against her and against the suit, and law was adjudged. And he comes with his law and makes it with the abovesaid suit. Therefore it is considered that he recover thereof his seisin; let the countess be in mercy for unjust disseisin and also her men, of whom the same Richard has complained. And let the same countess return to him the damages done thereof by a jury of law-worthy men of the vicinity. The names of the men of the countess are in the writ.
A sample of crown pleas in several hundreds or wapentakes [Danish name for a hundred] from 1201 to 1203 are: