land itself. This, however, did not concern the reporter, or the profession for the benefit of which he reported.

There were, however, cases in which the entry of certain matters upon the roll became of importance at stages previous to the entry of judgment. In Hilary Term, in the twelfth year of Edward III. (pages 373-75), an heir brought an action against his father's executors to recover a charter by which it appeared that the father had been enfeoffed of certain land in fee, and which he ought to have as the holder of the land. For the executors it was pleaded that the feoffment was upon condition (as shown by indenture, of which profert was made) that, whenever the feoffor or his heirs should. pay the feoffee or his heirs or executors £40, it should be lawful for the feoffor or his heirs to re-enter upon the land, and the charter should be held as null. The feoffee in his will directed that the £40 (if paid) should be given to a prior. Judgment was therefore prayed whether the heir could have an action to recover the charter, which would lose its force if the £40 were paid to the executors. Judgment, however, was given that the charter should be delivered to the heir, because the executors could not deny that he was seised of the land as heir, and could not say that the money had been paid to them, or that they had an action to demand it. It would appear that, in the absence of any express direction to the contrary, the special plea on behalf of the executors would have been omitted. from the roll, and that the declaration or count would have been followed by the simple entry that the executors could say nothing wherefore the charter should not be delivered. The counsel for the executors, however, prayed that the whole of his plea might be entered on the roll, as a protection to them against damages, in case the feoffor or his heirs should at any future time wish to pay the £40. To this the court consented, and the plea would consequently have been enrolled in its proper place.

In many cases it is apparent that the court directed, ex officio, what should be entered on the roll. Thus, in an oyer and terminer in Trinity Term, 12 Edward III. (pp. 615–617), where the felling of trees was alleged, the defendant claimed estovers, and on that ground avowed the carrying away of the trees, as not being against the peace, and prayed judgment whether any tort could be assigned thereon. It is not quite clear what was the plaintiff's reply, but the court decided that the issue should be that the defendant had with force and arms felled and carried away the trees, absque hoc that the defendant had estovers. The issue was accordingly so

entered on the roll, notwithstanding that this replication was not expressly pleaded.

It may, perhaps, be thought that the clerk or registrar had a difficult task to perform in entering the pleadings correctly on the roll, and that occasionally he failed. Failure did occur sometimes, and the roll had to be amended by order of the court. Sometimes also apparently the clerk (who was a very important officer, often consulted by the judges with regard to points of practice) discovered his own mistake, and corrected it by substituting an entirely new record of the case for one erroneously entered.

In the sixteenth year of Edward III.1 there are two records of one and the same case.2 The first is incomplete; the second is in a different form, and complete. The clerk, however, omitted to vacate the first by placing in the margin the usual words "vacat quia alibi." The proceedings were on the judicial writ of Quid juris clamat, brought for the purpose of compelling tenants for life to attorn after a fine had been levied. The tenants, husband and wife, alleged that the wife's estate was an estate tail in virtue of a previous fine, and not a mere estate for life, as purported in the fine on which the Quid juris clamat was brought. Then arose a question whether the tenants could be admitted to aver this in opposition to the particular fine on which suit was taken. The court held that they could, and that the fact must be tried by a jury, adding that the whole matter should be entered on the roll, and that inquiry should be had as to the whole.

In making the first entry on the roll a mistake had occurred with regard to the process by which the tenants were required to appear, Distringas having been substituted for Venire facias. There is also an important difference between the first entry and the second as to the tenor of the earlier fine. In the first it is stated that the tenements had been granted and rendered to the wite and her previous husband and the heirs of their bodies, that they therefore claimed a fee tail in the person of the wife, and that they prayed judgment whether they ought to attorn in respect of such an estate. This was in accordance with the earlier part of the report; counsel for the tenants having distinctly used the words "fee tail," on the ground apparently that the wife was what would in later times have been called tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct. In the second entry, however, the express claim

1 H. 16 E. 3, No. 3.

2 Placita de Banco, Hil. 16 Edward III. R. 64 and R. 181.

of a fee tail is omitted, and the following words are substituted: "So that if the same Robert and Margaret (the first husband and the wife) should die without heir of their bodies, the tenements should remain to the right heirs of Robert, and they say that Robert died without heirs issuing from his body and the body of Margaret, and they claim to have such an estate in the person of Margaret, and pray judgment whether they ought to attorn in respect of such an estate." This also is in accordance with the later part of the report, counsel having changed the form of pleading after argument.

We thus see how faithfully the clerks attempted to place the pleadings on the roll, and the difficulties with which they were beset. The second entry on the roll is, no doubt, a faithful representation of the matter which the court directed to be enrolled, as the first entry was of words which had, in the first instance, fallen from the mouth of counsel. The second entry shows the conclusion of the case, the verdict for the demandants, to the effect that Margaret and her husband held only for life (as supposed by the fine on which proceedings were instituted), and judgment for the demandants to recover seisin. In the report these details are deferred to a later term.

It sometimes happens that there are widely different reports of the same case, one, perhaps, giving the names of the parties, and another not; one omitting matter which another includes; and one even absolutely at variance with another in relation to what was said, done, or decided. The record of the case is then invaluable, as it is the only authoritative statement of the pleadings accepted, and of the judgment. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to look even beyond the actual record of the case as enrolled in the court in which the action was brought. In difficult cases petitions were frequently made by the parties to the king in his council in his parliament, at various stages before judgment was reached. It then becomes expedient to consult the rolls of parliament if the cause is to be followed out from beginning to end, and the working of the prevailing system of justice to be understood.

The case of the Stauntons1 affords an apt illustration. The names of the parties are omitted from one of the reports, but given in another. In one report, that in which the names are given, the conclusion is not reached. In the other, judgment is reached, and

1 Y. B. M. 13 E. 3, No. 15.

even the fact that a writ of error was sued after judgment. The demandant was Geoffrey de Staunton, who brought a formedon in the descender against John de Staunton and Amy his wife, as appears in one of the reports and in the Placita de Banco.1 Amy was admitted to defend, upon her husband's default, and, having vouched one Thomas de Cranthorne, waived that voucher, and vouched her own husband, on the following ground. A fine had been levied, by which John de Staunton acknowledged the tenements in dispute to be the right of Thomas de Cranthorne (as those which he had of John's gift) and by which Thomas rendered the same tenements to John and Amy and the heirs of John. Geoffrey, the demandant, tendered the averment that Thomas never had any estate in the tenements by John's gift. On behalf of Amy, the admissibility of this averment was denied, but the averment was entered on the roll with a protestation on behalf of Amy, that, if the court should be of opinion that it was admissible, she was ready to answer over.

This was a dignus vindice nodus, and Geoffrey presented a petition to the king in his council in his parliament. In the report it is stated only that the demandant "sued in parliament," that being a sufficient indication to the lawyers of the period of the course actually pursued. In his petition, the text of which is to be found among the rolls of parliament,2 Geoffrey represented that the protestation as to Amy's readiness to answer over had been inserted by the clerks of the court by misprision, and prayed a decision as to whether the averment was admissible or not. It was agreed in the council in parliament that the averment was admissible, and that Amy could not be admitted to any further answer, as both parties had stood to judgment absolutely. Writs were accordingly sent to the justices of the Common Pleas, directing them to proceed without delay. The court, however, did not proceed, and another writ was sent to the same effect. Another series of arguments followed, in which Scrope and Willoughby, of the King's Bench, lent their assistance, but disagreed. These arguments, of course, appear only in the report. In the meantime no judgment was given, and Geoffrey, the demandant, presented another petition to the council in parliament, praying that the justices of the Common Pleas might be commanded to give judgment forthwith, or else bring their rolls, record, and process into parliament, so that judg

1 Mich. 13 Edward III. R°. 107 d.

2 2 Rol. Parl., 124 b, as printed.

ment might be given one way or the other, without further delay. It was thereupon agreed by all in full parliament, and commanded by the prelates, earls, barons, and others of the parliament," that the clerk of the parliament should go to the chief justice and other justices of the Common Bench, and require them to proceed to judgment without further adjournment or delay." In case the justices were unable to agree, they were to come into parliament, and the chief justice was to bring into parliament the rolls and the record of the plea.

Stonore, the chief justice, with the other justices, did bring the record into parliament. The chancellor, the treasurer, the justices of the King's Bench, as well as those of the Common Bench, the barons of the Exchequer, and others of the king's council were there present. The process and record were viewed and read, the point of law was decided as before, and direction was given that Geoffrey should recover his seisin against John and Amy.1

Geoffrey's last petition and the whole of the proceedings following upon it are represented in the report by the few words following: "And afterwards the matter was again sent into Parliament, and there judgment was commanded for the demandant for the reason above."

Judgment was then given, as appears both by the report and by the Common Pleas roll, in accordance with the direction of the council in Parliament. Even in the Common Pleas roll, however, there is not the full account of the transaction which is given in the rolls of Parliament, the judgment being prefaced only by these few words: "And thereupon, after advice had as well of the prelates and magnates as of the justices and other of the council of the lord the king, there present in the full parliament last held."

It might have been supposed that the case was now at an end; but the demandant was almost as far as ever from obtaining seisin of the land. The judgment, though given by direction of Parliament, was technically a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. From that court a writ of error lay to the Court of King's Bench, and a writ of error was accordingly sued. A full account of all the proceedings in error would be tedious, as (except in the fact that John and Amy now became plaintiffs in error, and that the assignments of error and pleadings thereupon took the place of the pleadings in the court below) precisely the same features present