at it was no court.
Judgment: let Matilda have her seisin and let Clement be in
mercy for disseisin.

Fitz Hereward v. Prior of Lecton (1195, king's court):
The assize came to recognize if the prior of Lecton unjustly
and without judgment disseised Reginald son of Hereward and
Essolda his wife of his free tenement in Clapston after the
first coronation of the lord king. The prior says that the
assize ought not be taken thereof, because he seised that
land by judgment of his court for default of his service and
his rent, whereof he has his court present, which asserts
the same thing. It is considered that the prior replevy
[give back] to them their land and give them a day in his
court concerning the arrears of rents and services. And let
him treat them justly by judgment of his court.

Stanfeld v. Brewes (1199, king's court):
The assize comes to recognize if Simon of Brewes and Luke
cleric and Peter of Brewes unjustly and without a judgment
disseised Odo of Stanfeld and Juliana his wife of her free
tenement in Michehey within the assize. Simon says that the
assize ought not be taken thereof, because he took that land
into his hand by judgment of his court -- which he produced
and which attests to this -- for default of his service. And
it was testified that Odo holds that land from the same
Simon. Simon was ordered to replevy that land to Odo as well
as the chattels and to treat him rightfully in his court.

fitz William v. Amice et al. (1200, king's court):
The assize comes to recognize if Amice who was the wife of
Richard earl of Clare and Hugh of Ceriton, John of Cornherd,
William of Wattevill, Alexander son of Gilbert, Alexander
son of Matthew, Bartholomew son of Alexander, Robert of
Cornherd, and Geoffrey son of Leveric unjustly and without
judgment disseised Richard son of William of Sudbury of his
free tenement in Sudbury after the feast of St Michael next
before the coronation of the lord king. The countess says
that, when she was separated by papal order from the earl of
Clare her husband by reason of consanguinity, to which
husband the vill of Sudbury had been given with her as
marriage portion, she came to Sudbury and convoked her court
and made the same Richard to be summoned to come to show by
what warrant he held her land. He willingly entered into the
plea and vouched the earl of Clare her former husband to
warrant and at the day given him to have [his warrantor] he
did not have him. And thus by