² By Gundred, daughter of Warrenne, William de, Earl of Surrey: Complete Peerage, Vol. 9 (ed. 1936), 585.Google Scholar Contrast Richards, Glanville, Records of the Anglo-Norman House of Glanville, 151Google Scholar, where a pedigree is quoted which identifies her with this latter Gundred; also Burke, Extinct Peerages, 3rd ed., 60, which leaves her parentage blank.

³ Richards, Glanville, op. cit. 72, 178,Google Scholar describes Gundred the daughter of William, Earl of Surrey, who was semble our Gundred's mother (see previous note), as ‘granddaughter of William the Conqueror’. It would seem that Gundred the mother married, as her third husband, William de Glanvill (an elder brother of the Justiciar) and that their only daughter, Agnes, was his and Roger de Glanvill's heir: ibid. 56, 178.

⁴ Burke, , op. cit. 60;Google ScholarComplete Peerage, Vol. 9, 585.Google Scholar

⁵ ibid. 586; Richards, Glanville, op. cit. 26, 58.Google Scholar

⁶ See R.C.R. Vol 1; P.R.S. Vols 14, 17, 24; C.R.R. Vols. 1, 7.

⁷ 24 P.R.S. 232. See also her fine in 17 P.R.S. No. 187.

⁸ See post, p. 96.

⁹ Complete Peerage, Vol. 9, 58, gives her death as between 1200 and 1208. But it seems that she is already dead in 1206, if not before: see 20 P.R.S.N.S. 32 (Pipe Roll of 1206). She does not appear in the Pipe Rolls after 1199.

¹⁰ If her father was indeed Roger, Earl of Warwick, his son Waleran and his descendants (Richards, Glanville, op. cit. 72Google Scholar) would exclude her from any paternal inheritance.

^10a For the law of warranty in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 8, 274 et seq.; ibid. Vol. 9, 82–106, 192–209.

¹¹ These are printed in P.R.S. Some of the relevant fines are indexed in Walter Rye's Calendar of Fines for Suffolk, and others are summarised in his Pedes Finium for the County of Norfolk. Hunter's Fines are irrelevant, since they do not comprise these two counties.

¹² The table with which this section begins summarises the relevant Bigod pedigree as I see it. The name Bigod (or Bigot) was originally, perhaps, a nickname derived from the oath which was commonly used by the early Normans. See Dictionary of National Biography, s.t. ‘Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk’.

¹³ ibid.; Burke, Extinct Peerages, 3rd ed., 59.

¹⁴ ibid. 60; D.N.B., s.t. ‘Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk’.

¹⁵ See previous footnote. Earl Roger was one of the King's Justices before whom fines were levied in King Richard's reign: see P.R.S., Vols. 17, 20, 23, passim.

¹⁶ D.N.B., supra; Complete Peerage, Vol. 9, 585.

¹⁷ Rotuli de Dominabus, 35 P.R.S. 71. She was then a widow because meanwhile she had taken a second husband, Walchelin Maminot, who had since died: Complete Peerage, Vol. 9, 585 (contrast J. H. Round's erroneous footnote to 35 P.R.S. 71). He was a Kentish man: his heirs’ heir has his lands in 1199 (10 P.R.S. 61; 21 P.R.S.N.S. 21); with the Bishop of Ely he had witnessed a charter of the Empress Maud in 1141 (10 P.R.S. 41).

¹⁸ Burke, Extinct Peerages, 3rd ed., 60. Richards, Glanville, Anglo-Norman House of Glanville, 151Google Scholar, adopts an erroneous pedigree which makes Hugh the son of Juliana.

¹⁹ Gesta Henrici II, Vol. 1, 143–144.

²⁰ In the Pipe Rolls of 34 Hen. 2, Roger Bigod is not ‘Earl’ (38 P.R.S. 53) and the sheriff still has in custody lands of Earl Hugh (ibid. 65; see also Great Roll of the Pipe, 1 Ric. 1, p. 54). But in 1190 ‘Earl Roger le Bigot’ pays 1,000 marks to the King for having his county of Norfolk: 1 P.R.S.N.S. 101. Roger was ‘taken into favour’ when Richard came to the throne: D.N.B., s.t. ‘Roger Bigod, 2nd Earl of Norfolk’; and see footnote 15, ante.

²¹ Cap. 70 (‘emptiones vel acquisitiones’). See also 1 Pollock and Maitland, 77; Beame's Glanville, 118 n.

²² Bk. 7, c. 1 (‘quaestus’); 2 P. & M. 306.

²³ Contrast Complete Peerage, Vol. 9, 586 n., which suggests that Gundred's claim was founded on the annulment of Earl Hugh's first marriage.

²⁴ 1 C.R.R. 93; Plac.Abr. 61. s.c. (wrongly dated Mich. 10 Joh.).

²⁵ Complete Peerage, Vol. 9, 586 n. See also 7 C.R.R. 110–111, where the Earldom of Essex is bound up with the ‘third penny’.

²⁶ See footnote 24. supra.

²⁷ 7 P.R.S.N.S. 138. These Suffolk lands are at Staverton, Hollesley, and Hemmigewrth (=Dunningworth).

²⁸ 21 P.R.S.N.S. (Originalia Roll) 86.

²⁹ 1 P.R.S.N.S. 101.

³⁰ Cf. footnote 20, ante. Conceivable alternatives might be that Roger is an infant and so (with his lands) is in the wardship of his lord the King; or that various debts and fines (e.g., ‘for his war’ against the King) which Earl Hugh owed the exchequer are still unpaid (Roger Glanvill's lands were taken in to the King's hand for this reason—post, p. 97); or that Roger could not find the money for the ‘relief’ which the King saw fit to impose—see Glanvill, Bk. 9, c. 4

³¹ ibid

³² Glanv., Bk. 9, c. 6. See Holdsworth, , History of English Law. Vol. 3, 57–61Google Scholar, as to relief and primer seisin.

³³ 1 P.R.S.N.S. 101; 7 P.R.S.N.S. 138; 21 P.R.S.N.S. 86. The first of these entries adds the words ‘made by his peers’.

³⁴ See 5 P.R.S.N.S. 66, where Yvo owes the King 20s. for having the writ against Gundred. The ultimate fine, in 1198, gives Earl Roger as co-defendant: Rye, Norfolk Fines, p. 52. Lopham, in which the land lay, is not listed among the vills comprised in Hugh's quitclaim (supra).

³⁵ 17 P.R.S., No. 187; Rye, Norfolk Fines, p. 10, s.c. The vill (Stratton) is not among those listed in Hugh's quitclaim (supra). That Gundred's action was founded on the last presentation may imply that she has held this dower for a considerable time.

³⁶ See preceding footnote. If Roger was then under age, the King as his lord and guardian would have assigned the dower on Roger's behalf: see Glanv., Bk. 6, c. 17.

³⁷ 1 C.R.R. 93.

³⁸ A short uninformative entry intervenes, de placito poncium et calcearum between Roger and Gundred: 1 C.R.R. 93. They are given a day to hear their judgment (concerning this plea, perhaps) nearly two years later: 1 C.R.R. 305.

³⁹ As to maritagium, see 9 Cambridge Law Journal, 92–96, 197.

⁴⁰ See Dugdale, , Monasticon Anglicanum, iv, 337Google Scholar. The Complete Peerage, Vol. 9, 586, suggests the year 1188, which is more likely the date of the King's charter of confirmation. That her first gifts to the nunnery came out of her maritagium may imply that Earl Hugh (died 1176) was dead and that she had not yet remarried. An Earl Hugh Bigod was one of its benefactors; but his gift is confirmed by a charter of King Henry III (Henry II's charter does not mention it); so he was evidently the third Earl (Earl Roger's son): contrast Richards, Glanville, Anglo-Norman House of Glanville, 58Google Scholar, which assumes him to be the first Earl Hugh.

⁴¹ Dugdale, op. cit. 338–339.

⁴² Contrast Dugdale, op. cit. 337, who gives the foundation date as 1160 (when she was in fact married to Earl Hugh and yet deduces from the form of King Henry's charter that Roger Glanvill and Gundred were co-founders. He then weakens (in view of an authority to the contrary) on the ground that King Henry's charter shows that most of the endowment was Gundred's dower (sic) at her marriage. Richards, Glanville, op. cit. 58Google Scholar, similarly speaks of Roger and Gundred as ‘the founders’, and yet lists Earl Hugh (her previous husband) among the nunnery's benefactors: cf. footnote 40, supra.

⁴³ In 1199, Hugh Bigod (Gundred's son) owes the King 40 marks (which he seems never to pay) for extending by two days his fair at Bungay: Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus, 70; 12 P.R.S.N.S. 147. In 1206, Earl Roger Bigod alleges that Gundred had held the land of Bungay of his inheritance (i.e., in dower from Earl Hugh—this allegation must be false) and pays the King 100 marks lest he be disseised of it without a judgment of the King's court: 20 P.R.S.N.S. 32.

⁴⁴ In the year 1200, some years after Roger Glanvill's death, Gundred was sued by a neighbouring landowner for nuisance, in raising the mill pool at Bungay. She pleaded, inter alia, that the sheriff (by the view of lawful knights) had caused her by order of the King's Justices to have the ancient site [veterem sedem] of the mill. The sheriff came to court and warranted this. 1 C.R.R. 305; Plac.Abr. 28, s.c.

⁴⁵ See 5 C.R.R. 272 (1208), where the Prioress of Bungay sues de warrantia cartae against Gundred's heir in respect of other lands she had given to the convent. Apparently the Prioress won, for these lands are included in a subsequent charter of confirmation made to the convent by King Henry III: Dugdale, , Monasticon Anglicanum, IV, 338–339Google Scholar. See further, p. 92, post.

⁴⁶ See 9 Cambridge Law Journal, 87–105, 198–201; also preceding footnote.

⁴⁷ See footnote 10, ante.

⁴⁸ 24 P.R.S. 232; Plac.Abr. 96, s.c. The land is in ‘Langhale’.

⁴⁹ 23 P.R.S., No. 52.

⁵⁰ It cannot be, I think, that this was part of her maritagium and William Brom the settlor; for King Henry's charter about her other maritagium. (supra) had described it as ‘free’, which implied, inter alia, that no homage would be taken until the third heir: see 9 Cambridge Law Journal, 93–96. Presumably, the defendant was persuaded to take the homage (in advance) of Gundred's heir apparent in order to bar him from subsequently questioning the latter's title:, see ibid. 88–90.

⁵¹ 5 C.R.R. 207. Doubtless the defendant, as lord of the fee, had seized the land on Gundred's death, pending the appearance of her lawful heir; see footnote 54, post.

⁵² 5 C.R.R. 272.

⁵³ Dugdale, , Monasticon Anglicanum, IV, 337–339.Google Scholar These lands are ‘all her land of Weston and of Weynesford and 24 acres in Cove’. She had also given them the site of a windmill at Northales. Other endowments at Waineford include Earl Roger Bigod's mill there, and William Bardulf's meadow adjoining.

⁵⁴ Another indication that Hugh predeceased her is William's allegation against the Prioress (5 C.R.R. 272) that his previous action for that land (5 C.R.R. 207) was ‘an assize concerning the death and seisin of his mother’. This the Prioress did not deny.

⁵⁵ Such homage ‘in advance’, however, would probably not divest her fee: see 9 Cambridge Law Journal, 90, note 18.

⁵⁶ Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus, p. 70; 12 P.R.S.N.S. 147; 14 P.R.S.N.S. 138; 15 P.R.S.N.S. 111. The debt was 40 marks for extending his fair at Bungay. There is no mention of this Hugh in Bracton's Note Book.

⁵⁷ Plac.Abr. 64. I have not found any further contemporary records of this plaintiff or his curious ‘free tenement’. But one Rannulf de Sid'ing was among the witnesses to one of Gundred's charters of gift to Bungay Nunnery: 5 C.R.R. 272.

⁵⁸ See 5 C.R.R. 309–310 (1208). It had been the same in 1199: see 1 R.C.R. 448. This fills a gap left by 2 Pollock and Maitland, p. 51; King John was crowned, in May, 1199: 1 R.C.R. 1xxxiii.

⁵⁹ 2 P. & M. 55, 64.

⁶⁰ B.N.B., No. 336: ‘The assize has come to recognise whether Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury and others unjustly, etc., disseised Hugh …. And the Arch bishop has died …. and Hugh acknowledges this. Therefore it is adjudged that all be without day thereof. And let Hugh proceed, if he wish, against the Archbishop who now is’. This final sentence of the judgment alludes, no doubt to a possible writ of entry or writ of right.

⁶¹ The assize would have failed, I think, had Hugh (being dead) been named in the original writ. See 1 C.R.R. 196 (1200); also 4 C.R.R. 286 (1206); in each of which an assize (probably mortdancester) failed because one of several co-defendants ‘of whom the writ speaks’ (or ‘who was put in the writ’) has died.

⁶² Plac.Abr. 61; cf. 1 C.R.R. 93. Many like errors might be cited: e.g., Dionisia de Biausfeld's action for her maritagium in Kent is wrongly assigned (Plac.Abr. 65) to 11 John, but was in fact 2 John (see 1 C.R.R. 254).

⁶³ In the year 1206, this William and Earl Roger (his stepbrother) compromise an action and a chirograph is to be made thereof: 4 C.R.R. 229. Some years later, they litigate about the advowson of the church in Esse (Suffolk) and Earl Roger admits that he gave William the vill of Clakestorp, by charter, but denies that the church is situate therein: Plac.Abr. 91 (1213); also Rye, Calendar of Suffolk Fines, p. 21. Perhaps, on Hugh's death without issue, William replaced him as Earl Roger's tenant of some of the 30 librates of land (ante, p. 87). William married Margaret, daughter of Robert de Sutton, who provided them with maritagium in Essex: 6 C.R.R. 78, 146; B.N.B., Nos. 89, 1279; Rye, Norfolk Fines, p. 136.

⁶⁴ The table with which this section begins summarises the relevant Glanvill pedigree as I see it; but perhaps Robert was third or youngest son.

⁶⁵ Richards, Glanville, Anglo-Norman House of Glanville, 22, 26.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Red Book of the Exchequer, p. 349.

⁶⁷ There is no evidence that Christiana bore him any children: his tenure of this land would therefore cease at her death. See Richards, Glanville, op. cit. 40Google Scholar, for a charter whereby Roger gave a church to Leiston Abbey (founded by Rannulf his brother) ‘for the health of my soul and the souls of Countess Gundred my wife and of … my wife Christiana’.

⁶⁸ See post, footnote 107.

⁶⁹ Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 395–397.

⁷⁰ These entries continue each year from 25 P.R.S. 137 to the Great Roll of the Pipe for 1 Ric. 1, p. 240, inclusive. See also Red Book of the Exchequer, p. 796.

⁷¹ This entry begins with 36 P.R.S. 123, and continues to the Great Roll of the Pipe for 1 Ric. 1, p. 240.

⁷² 1 P.R.S.N.S. 101.

⁷³ In each succeeding year until 1197 the rolls record that he ‘owes’ this 100 marks. Then follow three years (1197–1199) in which the entry appears with a blank space where the word ‘debet’ should be—a hint, perhaps, that Roger is dead. In the last of these three, the scribe has added ‘but Robert de Cree answers thereof below’; and a subsequent entry tells that this Robert (who, as we shall see, has married Agnes, Roger's niece and heir) owes only 50 marks on Roger's behalf, because King Richard has pardoned him the other 50: 10 P.R.S.N.S. 265, 290; Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus, p. 12. Robert pays it off in annual driblets until, in 1203, all is paid: 16 P.R.S.N.S. 240.

⁷⁴ In the Pipe Rolls of 1195, one Robert Pesehal owes 1 mark in order to have a certain messuage in Northumberland si possit inquiri what Roger Glanvill gave him: 6 P.R.S.N.S. 25. In 1196 this same Robert is sued by Roger Glanvill's heir, Agnes (as yet the wife of Thomas Bigod) for two mills and certain lands in and around the vill of New Castle: they concord by a fine which recognises that Robert's title is sound: 20 P.R.S., No. 1.

⁷⁵ Perhaps Roger's fine relates to monies he had collected as the King's official, or was a payment for the privilege of having held lucrative office. Cf. 10 P.R.S.N.S. 264 and 21 P.R.S.N.S. 77, where one William Glanvill owes in respect of his or his late father's custodia (of Oreford Castle?) 35 marks, which in one entry is described as de fino suo; he also owes for his father's ‘old farm’ of the county, ibid. This William was the son of Roger Glanvill's first cousin Bartholomew: see Richards, Glanville, op. cit. 12, 176–177.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Itinerary of Richard I, 13 P.R.S.N.S. 14.

⁷⁷ ibid., 16; Richards, Glanville, op. cit. 54.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ 9 P.R.S.N.S. 94, She pays 100 marks at once, and the balance the following year: 10 P.R.S.N.S. 274.

⁷⁹ E.g., 7 C.R.R. 331, where she is suing for her dower in the Hilary Term of 1196. See also footnotes, 73, 74, ante.

⁸⁰ 7 C.R.R. 331 (Hil. 1196).

⁸¹ 1 C.R.R. 83 (Hil. 1199); 1 R.C.R. 220; 2 R.C.R. 135 (Nov. 1199); 1 C.R.R. 326 (Mich. 1200).

⁸² They are Middleton and Jokeford (Yoxford?) in Suffolk, and Ruhton or Rushiton (Roughton?) in Norfolk.

⁸³ 24 P.R.S. 224 (Hil. 1196).

⁸⁴ 1 C.R.R. 83.

⁸⁵ 1 C.R.R. 155 (Hil. 1200): a writ of right, moved by pone from the shire court, against Geoffrey de Lodnes for land in Rattlesden (Suffolk). His defence is that he got it with his wife Alice, daughter of Hervey de Glanvill (and so our Roger's sister) in maritagium, and that consequently Robert de Cree, who has the daughter of William de Glanvill, ought to be their warrantor. This clearly implies (1) that William was our Roger's eldest brother (or at least was the eldest of those brothers who or whose issue were still surviving), (2) that Agnes is this William's sole heir. Meanwhile, Geoffrey and wife are suing a plea of warranty against Robert de Cree as to this very land: 2 R.C.R. 100. Ultimately a final concord is reached: Rye, Calendar of Suffolk Fines, p. 8 (1202).

⁸⁶ Thomas Bigod, like Earl Roger Bigod, is listed among the benefactors of Bungay Nunnery: Richards, Glanville, Anglo-Norman House of Glanville, 58.Google Scholar He is presumably Earl Roger's son: see Burke, Extinct Peerages, s.t. ‘Roger Bigod’, whose son Thomas is mentioned but is given no wife. There is no trace of him after 1196: evidently he died and his widow remarried, before Gundred's second action of 1199. Richards, Glanville, op. cit. 56–57, 178Google Scholar, wrongly assumes that Robert de Cree was Agnes's only husband.

⁸⁷ ‘The whole vill of Walton … and more than a third part in Ruston’.

⁸⁸ 2 R.C.R. 135. Robert is speaking here as attorney of Agnes, his wife, as well as on his own behalf: see 1 R.C.R. 229.

⁸⁹ 1 C.R.R. 83. This 100 marks is the unpaid balance of Roger de Glanvill's fine: see ante, p. 95.

⁹⁰ 2 R.C.R. 135.

⁹¹ If as yet she has no part of her dower, the widow may use the writ which says ‘unde nihil habet, ut dicit’; otherwise she must use the more dilatory writ of right of dower: Glanvill, Bk. 6, cc. 4, 5, 14, 15. The former writ says ‘quod ipse injuste ei deforciat’ (ibid. c. 15): but the writ of right says ‘quam ei deforciat’ (ibid. c. 5).

⁹² ibid., Bk. 6, c. 1.

⁹³ 1 C.R.R. 326. The scribe has noted that ‘that record is in the 7th year’ (sc. of King Richard). I assume therefore that the ‘record of her dower’, to which this entry refers, is that of her original action against Thomas Bigod.

⁹⁴ Ante, footnote 89.

⁹⁵ Dugdale, , Monasticon Anglicanum, IV, 338.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Roger's charter confirming this gift is printed in Richards, Glanville, Anglo-Norman House of Glanville, 40.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ For this fine, dated October, 1196, see 20 P.R.S., No. 7.

⁹⁸ In 1207, Robert de Crec has unjustly and without judgment broken the pool of the mill: he must pay damages and repair it: 5 C.R.R. 42, 70. In 1211, Agnes and Robert are sued about the vineyard and fishpool, and they quitclaim to the prior in return for 7s. per annum: Rye, Norfolk Fines, p. 136. It seems that the former action, for novel disseisin, was in the nature of an action of nuisance: see Glanvill's Treatise, Bk. 13, cc. 34, 36.

⁹⁹ 5 C.R.R. 202.

^99a 2 P. & M. 281 et seq. Alternatively, if we assume that the lands had been given to Roger by his father, for his homage, Robert's claim to inherit them could rest upon the rule ‘cannot be lord and heir’: see Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 9, 96 et seq.

¹⁰⁰ 2 P.R.S.N.S. 50.

¹⁰¹ 6 P.R.S.N.S. 68; 7 ibid. 129; 8 ibid. 229. In 19 ibid, 244 he pays.

¹⁰² 16 P.R.S.N.S. 237.

¹⁰³ 2 C.R.R. 213. The lands are there assessed as one knight's fee.

¹⁰⁴ It is mentioned in Rye, Calendar of Suffolk Fines, p. 11.

¹⁰⁵ In that year, and the next, he owed the King 1 mark for a false claim: 16 P.R.S.N.S. 99; 18 ibid. 99. But these entries are in the Pipe Rolls for Lincolnshire.

¹⁰⁶ Our only record of this is the resulting fine, in 1196: 17 P.R.S., No. 155; Rye, Norfolk Fines, p. 10. The area of this land is given as one carucate. Robert de Glanvill is described as ‘tenant’. Presumably he managed to get into possession of it as soon as Roger died, and Agnes with her husband (Thomas Bigod) had sued mortdancestor against him. They console him with 5 marks.

¹⁰⁷ 5 C.R.R. 202, 292; Rye, Norfolk Fines, p. 138. There is some mystery here. For some reason, the defendant (one William) vouches as warrantor Earl Roger Bigod, who duly warrants him; moreover, Robert's quitclaim (in return for 40 marks) is made to the Earl, so that the defendant will retain possession as the Earl's tenant, by the service of one knight. This Roughton land is evidently the same land (again one carucate, as in preceding footnote) that Agnes recovered from Robert Glanvill in 1196: since then she has evidently sold or released it to Earl Roger Bigod, who thereupon enfeoffed the present tenant. It seems to be the same land (again 1 knight's fee in Norfolk) which Roger Glanvill had acquired from Earl Hugh Bigod in 1166 (ante, footnote 68) and which, in the years 1196–1200, Gundred had claimed from Agnes as dower (ante, footnote 82).

¹⁰⁸ 23 P.R.S.N.S. 13. Robert Cree takes over this obligation for him: ibid.

¹⁰⁹ ibid.

¹¹⁰ 5 C.R.R. 205: it transpired that defendant's daughter was the actual tenant.

¹¹¹ Glanv., Bk. 6, cc. 2, 3, 13, 17.

¹¹² Ante, p. 98.

¹¹³ Glanv., Bk. 6, c. 3.

¹¹⁴ In the Pipe Roll of 5 Richard, a Bedfordshire entry runs: ‘Walter de Stiveclea owes 100s. for his judgment which he had against Roger de Glanvill’: 3 P.R.S.N.S. 147. This entry continues until 1198, when Walter has paid in full: 9 P.R.S.N.S. 10.

¹¹⁵ 2 R.C.R. 131.

¹¹⁶ 1 R.C.R. 343; Plac.Abr. 6 (s.c); 2 R.C.R. 42.

¹¹⁷ 3 C.R.R. 117: the parties have left to a jury (which defaults) the question whether Richard was seised of half that vill on the day of his departure. In 18 P.R.S.N.S. 15, the stated area is one carucate.

¹¹⁸ See their allegation in 6 C.R.R. 82; but it may mean that he won, and that they afterwards recovered the land from him by a higher action before the itinerant justices.

¹¹⁹ 6 C.R.R. 120; ibid. 358, 376. Unfortunately, he had not joined as co-defendants some of the actual tenants of those lands. These tenants he ejected, in the process of taking the seisin he had won. They then sued novel disseisin against him and recovered their tenement: 7 C.R.R. 17.

¹²⁰ In 6 C.R.R. 82, he may well have failed. Defendants plead that they won this land from him in a previous action, before certain itinerant justices whom they vouch. The jurors are dismissed, and his fate depends upon what is found in those justices’ rolls.

¹²¹ 6 C.R.R. 129.

¹²² 8 C.R.R. 304; B.N.B., Nos. 180, 385, 1377, 1625.

¹²³ The tenant-defendants (a husband and wife) begin by vouching Henry de Glanvill, by aid of the court, and produce his charter of ‘gift’ to them for their homage. The plaintiffs counterplead this voucher, alleging that Henry was never seised except by intrusion in time of war. Defendants answer that Henry entered upon the lands as his inheritance of which his uncle Richard had died seised: 8 C.R.R. 304. Simultaneously (B.N.B., No. 1377), the defendants are suing de warrantia cartae against Henry, in order to compel him to warrant them. Two years later, home from the crusades, he duly warrants them and so stands in their place as defendant in the main action: B.N.B., No. 180.

¹²⁴ 8 C.R.R. 304–305. For an even earlier instance of this, after duel waged in the shire court, see 2 R.C.R. 277–278. Cf. Glanv., Bk. 8, cc. 1, 5–9.

¹²⁵ 2 B.N.B., pp. 146, 147.

¹²⁶ Glanv., Bk. 7, c. 16.