3H HARVARD LA W REVIEW. facts. Much " evidence " was thus entered on the records ; once there, it got recited to the jury when they were sent out, and was clearly brought to the notice of all who had occasion to address the jury, as well the counsel as the court. Sometimes, also, this served the purpose of preserving a memorial, in case of further litigation, of exactly what was involved in any given case. Of the last we see an instance in 1306 (Y. B. 34 Edw. I. 1 18-120), where a defendant found put forward against him a deed of release by his father of certain rent now claimed. He met this by a long statement, setting forth that his grandfather had a rent of double this amount ; that it descended in halves to two sons ; that his father, one of these, had released his rent, but subsequently his uncle's share had descended to him. He went on to admit the release, but prayed that this statement " might be entered on the roll so that we be not foreclosed on another occasion from demand- ing the same services. And it was granted by the court." In 1305 (Y. B. 33 Edw. I. 100-107), the plaintiff demands tene- ments of the defendant, tracing title by descent from his great- grandfather. The defendant answers that the land is part of a manor of which plaintiff's grandmother was seised, and that she gave this land in tail to the defendant's father, from whom the de. fendant takes his inheritance. The plaintiff replied that his great- grandfather had separated from the manor the land now demanded, and given it in frank marriage to R. M., who was seised of this land until after the deed of the grandmother was given, and so she was not seised when she gave her deed. The defendant insisted that his assertion of the grandmother's seisin should be traversed as simply as he had alleged it; without limiting it to time. And Bereford, ]. f said to the plaintiff, " It is fit that you traverse him ; and what you give in answer shall be in evidence that she was not seised because R. M. was seised ; and it shall be entered and the inquest shall be charged thereon." In 1302 (Y. B. 30 Edw. I. 228), in a similar dispute, Brump- ton, J., said to the defendants, charged as owners in common with others, and setting up that the others, a husband and wife, held as the wife's dower : " Nothing shall be entered on the roll but this, viz : that you do not hold in common. But state this by way of information and evidence to the inquest." The Year Books of Henry VI., a century and a half later, are full of discussions over this matter. The judges used a large discretion as to entering
