Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/491

 454

Br. Chr. 30, v. 362.) Craftiness in plead ing was the order of the day, like the subtle ties of the schoolmen. Indeed, Durand, a thirteenth century writer, recommends advo cates to adopt what he calls " a vulpine sim plicity." " You have admitted this, God help you," says the Court on one occasion. On another, counsel had made a slip in vouching the wrong person. Robert (on the other side). " We pray judgment of this bad voucher." Warwick (who had made the slip). "Leave to imparl for God's sake, Sir." (Mem. by Reporter.) " He obtained it with difficulty." (21 & 22 Ed. I. Br. Chr. 31, iv. 492.) This excited state of counsel was not al together professional keenness. Amerce ment was the common consequence of an unsuccessful suit. People are always being amerced for false, that is, unfounded claims, sometimes sent to prison. Witness the fol lowing sad tale of an attorney. It was a case of a claim to land, and alleged default in attending on a given day. B.'s attorney held to the default. The Justice asked on what day the default was made. The attor ney answered that it was on the first day, and it was found that it was on the second day, and afterwards (one or two or three days afterwards) the attorney came and said that it was on the second day, and he held to the default as before. Metingham J. " My fine friend (bel amy), the other day when the worthy man was ready to make his law you said that the default was made on the first day, and after wards you came and said that the default was made on the second day, and thus you vary in your words and deeds : this Court doth adjudge that you take nothing by your writ, but be in mercy for your false plaint." (21 & 22 Ed. I. Br. Chr. 31, iv. 460.) A prior had hung a thief (who had con fessed), and got himself into hot water about it. Spigournel J. "Call the Prior."

The Prior came. Spigournel J. " Do you claim infangthef and utfangthef?" Hunt (counsel). "Sir, he claims to have infangthef." Spigournel J. " Was the felony com mitted within the limits of your franchise?" Hunt. " No, Sir." Spigournel J. "Where then?" Hunt. " Sir, we do not know." Spigournel J. " Now, Sir Prior, do you mean to hold a plea in your Court of a fel ony committed out of the limits of your franchise, when you claim only infangthef?" (Counsel for the Prior turned and doubled, but to no purpose.) Spigournel J. (to the Prior). " You have well heard how it is recorded that you went to judgment on him who acknowledged himself a felon without presentment by the Coroner who can bear record, whereas your Court is not a Court of record, and this you cannot deny : attend judgment on Monday." (30 & 31 Ed. I. Br. Chr. 30, i. 500.) What befell the unlucky Prior does not appear. The Crown was getting very strict, and rightly, about these franchises. Default of appearance was a common in cident then as now, perhaps commoner, ow ing to the difficulties of travelling, as the following illustrates. It was a case of a Writ of Right between Roger de Pengerskeke, demandant, and John de Leicester and Joan his wife, tenants. On the day of the return of the writ to cause the four knights to come and choose the Assize, John did not turn up and the default was recorded. On the next day John came to the bar and answered for his wife as attorney, and for himself in his own person, and said that the default ought not to hurt him because he was hindered by the rising of the waters. The demandant's Attorney. "Where were you hindered?" The Tenant. " At Cesham." Mallore, J. " At what hour of the day?" The Tenant. "At noon."