and
the question of fact was referred to the Assise (or Jury) which found
that part of the tenements were in William's seisin and that William had
purchased his father's estate therein.

We now come to the concluding passages of this highly interesting suit:

"_Berewyke_ [the Judge]: 'For that he could not purchase his own
heritage so that it could be styled his own purchase; and he devised the
tenements; and the custom of the town does not permit a man to devise
his heritage; Therefore this Court adjudges that Sybil (_sic_) do
recover her seisin of the tenements which were not devisable. Now what
say you as to the remainder?'

"The Assise said that the remainder of the tenements were of his own
purchase from several persons in the town, and that in his last illness
he devised them to Martin for the term of his life, and that the
testament was proved at the Guildhall according to the custom of the
town; and that the executors were commanded to deliver seisin to Martin,
and that according to the custom he had the seisin, &c.

"_Berewyke_: 'Since it is found that he entered on the tenements
according to the custom, &c.--although you were seised for four weeks,
yet that ought not to give you a title--this Court adjudges that you do
take nothing by the writ, &c. After Martin's death be well advised.'"

Communal law, however, was not allowed to _override_ the law of
England.[12] This principle was asserted in 1293, when Thomas le
Chamberleyn brought a writ before the Common Bench against a certain W.,
who, he complained, had taken his horse in the highway in the town of
Bernewell. The writ ran--"took in the highway and still keeps
impounded." There was the usual wrangle between counsel, and an attempt
was made to oust or invalidate the writ by asserting that six years and
a half before it (the writ) was purchased the animal had been
surrendered. After this preliminary fencing counsel for the defence
produced his real case, which was that by the King's charter the
burgesses of Cambridge had a franchise to this extent, that when clerks
or other persons were in debt they might seize their horses or other
property within the liberty; and as Thomas was bound in so many
shillings, his horse was seized according to the custom of the town, and
in no other way. The trespass being admitted, the Judge (Gislingham)
proceeded to give judgment on the plea of justification. He said:

"For that it is against the common law and agains