Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/319

303 THE JURY AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 303 (Br. N. B. ii. case 51). The jury, it will be noticed, is said to be composed of the two ; and as the jury proper are often questioned by the court in giving their verdict, so the witnesses are sometimes thus questioned separately. A very interesting instance of this occurs in 1236, 1 where the whole combination answers that they never heard of the deed till it was brought and read publicly to the county court and the persons named in it were asked to give testimony. Then the witnesses are questioned separately, and all but three say this again and add that they never knew that they were named till in the county court. Three, differing some- what from the others in their account, say that they had seen the deed several years ago, and had been asked by the maker to be witnesses and furnish testimony. As to seisin, the three say that they know nothing more than what they have answered cum aliis juratoribus in comtnuni. Then all, tarn juratores quant testes, are questioned as to something else, and say they do not know, but rather think, {melius credunt) etc. Asked how they know that the said Abbot was not seised, . . . they say that they know this well and it is very clear because the same G. enfeoffed a certain R. of the site of a horse-mill at Michaelmas, etc. And more of the same sort. 2 In 1318, 8 on a question arising incidentally in an action of trespass as to an alleged release of the plaintiff, the parties put themselves on a jury and on the four witnesses named in the deed. The jury answer, that they have examined the witnesses, that these differ, and they cannot make out from this exami- nation what the fact is. But they give reasons for suspecting the credibility of the witnesses, and therefore make their definite answer (dicunt precise) that the release is not the plaintiff's deed. The justices then, ut rei Veritas . . . apercius et evidencius sciretur, immediately question the four witnesses separately, in curious detail ; they find them discordant, and give judgment on the verdict. 4 1 Bracton, N. B. iii. case 1189. 8 See also a good case in 1227 (Br. N. B. ii. case 249), where four witnesses and nine jurymen are summoned. Separate answers are recorded. 8 PI. Ab. 331, col. i. London; s. a MS. copy from the Record Office. of them separately as to the making, sealing, and place and time how and when, and other necessary circumstances touching the deed." They were discordant and untrust- worthy, " for [continues the record] three of the said witnesses. . . said before the justices that they were not present at the making, or sealing, nor ever saw the deed 01
 * " The justices immediately called the four witnesses before them and examined each