Page:VCH Suffolk 1.djvu/463

 DOMESDAY SURVEY instance the warrantor is called by the somewhat unusual name of tutor}" In the last resort there was an appeal to the customary methods of proof, battle, ordeal, or compurgation. The men of the vill of Mendlesham had no other witness than their own to the fact that Burchard had soke over both freemen and villeins, yet they were willing to prove their contention in any way.^'* The hundred testified that Stanwin, a freeman, had been commended to Harold in the time of King Edward, but he himself asserted that he had been the ' man ' of Edric, the antecessor of Robert Malet, and he ' offered proof * {juditium), probably by battle."' A 'man' of Godric Dapifer was willing to prove his claim and the truth of his words ' against the whole hundred, by every kind of law.'"" In a dispute with Roger Bigot, Roger de Ramis contradicted the testimony against him ' by all kinds of law.' ^" In the half- hundred of Ipswich Roger the Sheriff claimed i oo acres, 5 villeins, and a mill which were in the possession of the church of St. Peter, as belonging to the king's manor of Bramford. A regular trial followed. Five villeins from the Bramford manor bore witness for Roger, and offered ' such law as should be adjudged to them' {legem qualem quis judicaverit). But the half-hundred of Ipswich witnessed that the property in dispute had belonged to the church {jacebat ad ecclesiam) in the time of King Edward, and that it was held by Wisgar, who held the church also, and this they offered to prove by process of law {pfferunt derationare) }''^ Unfortunately, of the further proceedings we hear nothing, but enough has been recorded to show that formal ' pleading,' leading to legal 'proof by ordeal or other customary methods, could take place before the Domesday Commissioners. This is borne out by the em- ployment of technical judicial phrases, respondere, in misericordia regis, placitum, and by the use of essoins or excuses for non-appearance in court. Thus Hugh de Hosdenc could neither answer a charge against him, nor reply when he was vouched to warranty, because he was a prisoner in the king's hands [in captione regis)^"^^ and Berenger could not 'come to the plea' because he was ' infirm.' "* Sometimes, no doubt, the Commissioners actually gave de- cisions,"' but in Suffolk they seem rather to have confirmed decisions already given. At Ashfield, on the lands of the Bishop of Bayeux, Suarinus, a priest and freeman, of whom Walter of Dol was seised when he forfeited his land, was afterwards held, as the hundred witnessed, by Earl Hugh."' A certain "' Dom. Bk. 388. 'Sed dominum suum G. de Magnavilla revocat ad tutorem;' VinogradofF, op. cit. 224. '" Dom. Bk. 285^. 'Non habent aliquid testimonium praeter se, et tamen volunt probare omni modo.' "' Ibid. 332. 'Ipse solus ofFert juditium, dicens se fuisse hominem Edrici.' "" Ibid. 371. ' Et hoc vult probare contra totum hundredum, omnibus legibus.* '"Ibid. 3383. 'Hoc contradicit omnibus legibus;' VinogradofF, op. cit. 233. Cf. the striking case, Dom. Bk. 287^, quoted by Professor VinogradofF, op. cit. 379, where the sherifF Aluric quarrels with his predecessor Roger Bigot over the 'farm' of Bergholt, and Roger wishes to make proof ('vult probare') by the men who had been present at his agreements (' conventiones '), while Aluric vouches the king to warranty. "' Dom. Bk. 392^, 393. The use of the present tense may be noted. "' Ibid. 4^5. 'Ideo non potuit dare responsum ; ' 448^. ' Revocat Hugonem de Hosdenc ad warant, sed ipse est in cap lone regis, et non potest respondere.' Both passages refer to the same case. For Hugh de Hosdenc cf. Dom. Bk. 284, 337^ ; V.C.H. Essex, i, 356. For 'essoins,' cf. Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Engl. Law, ii, 560-66. "* Dom. Bk. 449 ; cf. 424, where the men of the hundred give judgement, and one of the parties objects that he was not summoned to the plea ; cf Round in Dom. Studies, ii, 549. "' Cf VinogradofF, op. cit. 228. A case of disseisin 'per barones Regis' in Devonshire ; cf Round in Dom. Studies, ii, 547-9- "' Dom. Bk. 377. This case is quoted at length by Professor VinogradofF, op. cit. 427-8. I 38s 49