Menu
1
150
300
450
600
750

Essays and addresses

It is considered that it should be known whether he made the grant or not, by the wit- nesses named in the grant and by Williams grants to others Baldwin was in possession of certain land in Middleton in Essex: Gilbert claimed it; Baldwin defended: Gilbert asserting that he had a warranty deed from William, " vouched him to warranty," , called upon him to make good his warranty: William said that he never made the deed and rested his defence on the witnesses named in the deed itself.

Gilbert was not content with that but offered to prove the deed by his son Walter he knew, of course, that Walter could not be allowed to give evidence, " propter sanguinitatem," and the only way he could prove it was by a duel : Walter offered to prove it by Battel in his own person, or if any harm happened to him so that he could not himself fight he would find another champion: William was content with this and undertook to find a champion: the Court, however, decided to try the issue by the witnesses named in the deed and by comparing the seal with the seals on other deeds made by Yilliam.

So in Easter Term, 2 John, (1201), in a Canterbury case when Ralph, son of Hugo, (as " attornatus ") claimed certain lands from Phillip de Sumeri, Phillip said that Hugo sold him his interest by Fine levied in the land for ten shillings and a green cloak in the Court of Roger de Sumeri, and gave him a deed he said that if the deed was not sufficient he would produce witnesses who were present at the sale.

Ralph said that as to the sale and deed he would put himself upon the Court of Roger de Sumeri if he could see it: and, besides, he says that he has made divers deeds to divers men and he puts himself upon these deeds that the seal on this dee3 is not true, and if that is not sufficient he will defend himself by a certain person.

Ye do not know how this would have come out, for " Concordati sunt " they settle An interesting case is in Hilary Term, 10 Richard I, (1199), in Southampton when Samuel Mutun and Muriella, a Jewess, sue Her- bert, the son of Herbert, for 400 on a certain deed and produce " two Christians and two Jews " ready to prove it " Herebertus dicit quod carta ilia falsa est, et ideo falsa quia sigillum illud nunquam suum fuit nee cartam illam fecit nee pecuniam illam mutuo recepit, et producit sigillum suum eburneum et plures cartas sigillo illo sigillatas tam de abbaciis quam de confirmacione terrarum " Herbert says that this deed is false, and false in this that that seal never was his nor did he make the deed nor did he receive the said money as a loan, and he produces his ivory seal and several deeds sealed with this seal as well concerning abbacy matters as confirmation of title to lands (We are not told anything more of this case).