Editing Writ (section)

==History==<!-- This section is linked from [[Habeas corpus]] -->	
[[Image:Edward the Confessor sealed writ.jpg|thumb|A sealed writ of [[Edward the Confessor]], a king of England who died in 1066 – the same year as the Norman Conquest]]

===Origins===
Sometime before the [[History of Anglo-Saxon England|tenth century]], officials in England began utilizing writs to convey orders.<ref>Harper-Bill, Christopher. [https://books.google.com/books?id=FaI5tE6z07gC ''Anglo-Norman Studies, XXVII: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1994.''] Boydell Press (1995). 114-116.</ref> A "writ" was simply a short written command issued by a person in authority. It was customary for the sender to [[Great Seal of the Realm|seal]] such a command as proof of its authenticity. In the days when writing was a rare art, a writ was revered because the person receiving the command was unlikely to deny or question its legitimacy.<ref>Jenks, Edward. [http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2956&context=ylj ''The Prerogative Writs in English Law''.] The Yale Law Journal 32.6 (1923): 523-534.</ref> The [[Norman Conquest of England]] in 1066 led to the establishment of a strong, centralized monarchy. The first [[Normans|Norman]] [[King of England]], [[William the Conqueror]], modified writs to become mainly framed in Latin, increased the number of writs to cover additional royal commands, and established the ''[[Curia Regis]] '' in England.<ref name="William the Conqueror">{{cite book |last1=Douglas |first1=David C. |title=William the Conqueror The Norm |date=1967 |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |location=Berkeley, California |isbn=9780520003507 |page=293 |url=https://www.abebooks.co.uk/William-Conqueror-Norm-Douglas-David-C/32165762736/bd |access-date=9 April 2025 |language=English}}</ref> The ''Curia Regis'', a Latin term meaning "royal council", consisted of the King of England and his loyal advisors. The ''Curia Regis'' accompanied the King as he travelled. This council administered all of the King's governmental activities, including judicial matters.<ref name="English Law History">Holdsworth, William Searle. [https://books.google.com/books?id=gTJLAAAAYAAJ ''A History of English Law.''] Vol. 1. Methuen, 1922. p 32-41.</ref>

One of the most important members of the ''Curia Regis'' was the [[Lord Chancellor]]. The Lord Chancellor led the chancery. [[Chancery (medieval office)|Chancery]] is a general term for a [[Middle Ages|medieval]] writing office that was responsible for the production of official documents.<ref>Corèdon, Christopher, and Ann Williams. [https://books.google.com/books?id=RxJlQgAACAAJ ''A Dictionary of Medieval Terms and Phrases'']. Cambridge, England: D.S. Brewer, 2004. p. 66.</ref> The Lord Chancellor wrote writs on behalf of the King, maintained all official documents, and acted as the keeper of the [[Great Seal of the Realm|royal seal]]. This position, in effect, placed the Lord Chancellor as the head of the English legal system. The King, however, was the ultimate leader of the kingdom; therefore, the Lord Chancellor issued writs under the guidance of what he believed to be in the best interests of the King. Between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Lord Chancellor had a large control over the issuance of all original writs. In this history of English common law, original writs began a legal proceeding, while a judicial writ was issued during a legal proceeding.<ref name="English Law History" />

The writ was a unique development of the [[Anglo-Saxon monarchs|Anglo-Saxon monarchy]] and consisted of a brief administrative order, authenticated (innovatively) by a [[Seal (contract law)|seal]].<ref name="Medieval Foundations">{{cite book |last1=Sayles |first1=G.O. |title=The Medieval Foundations of England |date=1950 |publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania Press]] |location=Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |isbn=9781512820980 |page=174 |url=https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Medieval-Foundations-England-Sayles-G-O/30753372163/bd |access-date=9 April 2025 |language=English}}</ref> Written in the [[vernacular]], they generally made a [[land grant]] or conveyed instructions to a local court. In the beginning, writs were the documents issued by the King's Chancellor against a landowner whose [[vassal]] complained to the King about an injustice, after a first summon by the sheriff to comply had been deemed fruitless.<ref name="Medieval Foundations" /> [[William the Conqueror]] took over the system unchanged, but was to extend it in two ways: first, writs became mainly framed in Latin, not Anglo-Saxon; second, they covered an increasing range of royal commands and decisions.<ref name="William the Conqueror" /> Writs of instruction continued to develop under his immediate successors, but it was not until [[Henry II of England|Henry II]] that writs became available for purchase by private individuals seeking justice, thus initiating a vast expansion in their role within the common law.<ref name="Medieval Foundations" />

Writs could take two main forms: '[[letters patent]]', which were open for all to read, and 'letters close' for one or more specified individuals alone.<ref name="Community of Realm" />

===Development===
The development of writs as a means of commencing a court action was a form of "off-the-shelf" justice designed to enable the English law courts to rapidly process lawsuits by allocating each complaint form into a standard category that could be dealt with by standard procedures. The complainant applied to the court for the writ most relevant to his complaint to be sent to the wrongdoer, which ordered him under royal authority to attend a royal court to answer for his actions. The development was part of the establishment of a [[Court of Common Pleas]], for dealing with commonly made complaints by subjects of the crown, for example: "someone has damaged my property". The previous system of justice at the royal [[court of Chancery]] was tailor-made to suit each case and was thus highly time-consuming. Thus eventually the obtaining of a writ became necessary, in most cases, to have a case heard in one of the Royal Courts, such as the [[Court of King's Bench (England)|King's Bench]] or [[Court of Common Pleas (England)|Common Pleas]]. Some franchise courts, especially in the [[County Palatine|Counties Palatine]], had their own system of writs, which often reflected or anticipated the common law writs. The writ was "served" on (delivered in person to) the wrongdoer and acted as a command that he should appear at a specified time and date before the court specified in the writ, or it might command some other act on the part of the recipient.

Where a [[plaintiff]] wished to have a case heard by a local court or by the justice of an [[Eyre (legal term)|Eyre]] if one happened to be visiting the county, there would be no need to obtain a writ. An informal complaint could usually start actions in local courts. However, if a plaintiff wished to avail himself of Royal — and by implication superior — justice in one of the King's courts, then he would need a writ, a command of the King, to enable him to do this. Initially, for common law, recourse to the King's courts was unusual, and something for which a plaintiff would have to pay. For most Royal Courts, the writ would usually have been purchased from the Chancery, although the court of the [[Exchequer of Pleas|Exchequer]], being, in essence, another government department, could issue its own writs.

While originally writs were exceptional, or at least non-routine devices, [[Frederic William Maitland|Maitland]] suggests that by the time of [[King Henry II of England|King Henry II]] (1154–1189), the use of writs had become a regular part of the system of royal justice in England.

At first, new writs were drafted to fit each unique situation. However, in practice, the clerks of the Chancery would use wording from previously issued writs, with suitable adjustments, often taken from reference books containing collections of forms of writ, much as in modern times, lawyers frequently use fixed precedents or [[Boilerplate text|boilerplate]], rather than re-inventing the wording of a new legal document. The problem with this approach was that a plaintiff's rights and available forms of action at his disposal, would be defined, and in most cases limited, by the limited variety of writs available to him. Thus, the power to create new writs was akin to the power to create new rights, a form of extra-parliamentary legislation. Moreover, a writ, if one could be found fitting the plaintiff's case, provided the legal means to remove the dispute from the jurisdiction of the local court, often controlled by a lesser [[nobility|noble]], and instead have it heard by the King's judges. The nobility thus saw the creation of new writs as an erosion of their influence.

Over time, opposition to the creation of new writs by the Chancery increased. For example, in 1256, a court was asked to quash a writ as "novel, unheard of, and against reason".<ref name="Abbot v. Harcourt">{{cite web |title=Abbot of Lilleshall v Harcourt 96 SS xxix 44 |url=https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/12864-sample.pdf |website=Student VIP |access-date=9 April 2025 |date=1256}}</ref> Ultimately, in 1258, the King was forced to accept the [[Provisions of Oxford]], which among other things, prohibited the creation of new forms of writ without the sanction of the [[Curia Regis|King's council]].<ref name="Baker_Page_63">{{cite book |last1=Baker |first1=John |author1-link=John Baker (legal historian) |title=An Introduction to English Legal History |date=2019 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780198812609 |page=63 |edition=5th |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0S0zEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA63 |access-date=August 26, 2023}}</ref> New writs were created after that time only by the express sanction of Parliament and the forms of writ remained essentially static, each writ defining a particular [[form of action]].<ref name="Baker_Page_63" /> It was the role and expertise of a [[solicitor]] to select on his client's behalf the appropriate writ for the proposed legal action. These were purchased from the court by payment of a fee. The solicitor would then hire a [[barrister]] to speak for his client in court.

=== Rationalisation of writs ===
With the abolition of the [[Form of action|Forms of Action]] in 1832 and 1833, a profusion of writs was no longer needed, and one uniform writ came into use. After 1852, the need to state the name of the form of action was also abolished. In 1875, the form of writ was altered to conform more to the [[subpoena]] used in the Chancery. A writ was a summons from the Crown to the parties to the action, with on its back the substance of the action set out, together with a 'prayer' requesting a remedy from the court (for example, damages). In 1980, the need for writs to be written in the name of the Crown was ended. From that time, a writ simply required the parties to appear.<ref>Rules of the Supreme Court (Writ and Appearance) 1979 (Statutory Instrument 1979, No. 1716)[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1979/1716/made], discussed in House of Lords in 1980,[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1980/feb/07/rules-of-the-supreme-court-writ-and]</ref>

Writs applied to claims to be heard in one of the courts, eventually forming part of the [[High Court of Justice of England and Wales|High Court of Justice]]. The procedure in a [[County Court (England and Wales)|county court]], which was established by statute, was to issue a 'summons'.

In 1999, the [[Woolf Reforms]] unified most of the procedures of the Supreme Court and the county courts in civil matters. These reforms brought in the [[Civil Procedure Rules]]. Under these, almost all civil actions, other than those connected with insolvency, are now commenced by the completion of a 'Claim Form' as opposed to the obtaining of a 'Writ', 'Originating Application', or 'Summons' (see Rules 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules).

===List===
{{incomplete list|date=June 2022}}
The following writs, amongst others, existed in England:<ref>For a list of writs, see, for example, "Antiquities of the Law" (1870) 1 Albany Law Journal [https://books.google.com/books?id=kU8ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA247 247].</ref>
* '''''Advocatione decimarum''''' was a writ which lay for claiming the fourth part or more of [[tithe]]s which belong to the church: Reg of Writs, fol 29b.<ref>John Rastell and William Rastell. Les Termes de la Ley. In the Savoy. 1721. [https://books.google.com/books?id=dLQ3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA27 p 27]</ref><ref>[[Black's Law Dictionary]], 2nd Ed, 1910, [https://archive.org/details/lawdictionar_blac_1910_00/page/44/mode/1up?view=theater p 44].</ref><ref>[[Ephraim Chambers]]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP74 "Advocatione"]. [[Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences|Cyclopaedia]]. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.</ref> The writ was founded on section 4 of chapter 5 of the [[Statute of Westminster 1285]].<ref>Finlason. Reeves' History of the English Law. New American Edition. 1880. [https://books.google.com/books?id=qBktAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA501 p  501].</ref><ref>Ruffhead. [https://books.google.com/books?id=6P9MAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PP4 "Advowson"] in "The Table". The Statutes at Large. 1765. Volume 9.</ref><ref>Encyclopædia Britannica. 9th Ed. 1888. vol 23. [https://books.google.com/books?id=7zY7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA412 p 412].</ref> It was obsolete by 1876.<ref>Mozley and Whiteley. A Concise Law Dictionary. Butterworths. London. 1876. [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ip9AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA15 p 15].</ref><ref>See further FNB [https://books.google.com/books?id=sDdOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA67 30] and 2 Co Inst [https://books.google.com/books?id=nzIJAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA487 489] and 646.</ref>
* '''''Arrestandis bonis ne dissipentur''''' was a writ which lay for a man whose cattle or goods were taken by another, who was likely, during the controversy, to make away with them, and would hardly have been able to make satisfaction for them afterwards. Reg of Writs 126. Cowel.<ref>Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850. [https://books.google.com/books?id=hqMBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29 p 29].</ref><ref>Ephraim Chambers. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP179 "Arrestandis"]. Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.</ref> The writ lay to seize the cattle and goods in the hands of a party, and to hold them during the pendency of a suit, to prevent their being made away with. Reg Orig 126b.<ref>Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1. [https://books.google.com/books?id=eZqgaXG23TcC&pg=PA277 p 277].</ref> In 1816, Williams said the writ lay anciently.<ref>Thomas Walter Williams. [https://books.google.com/books?id=qBhXAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA21-IA20 "ARR"]. A Compendious and Comprehensive Law Dictionary. 1816.</ref> Also called '''''bonis arrestandis'''''.<ref>Mozely and Whitely, A Concise Law Dictionary, 1876, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ip9AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA48 p 48]</ref><ref>See further 2 Co Inst [https://books.google.com/books?id=LxbuAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA327 328]; "The Merry Wives of Windsor" (1984) [https://books.google.com/books?id=DkNlAAAAMAAJ 59] Shakespearean Criticism 150; Dolan (ed), "Renaissance Drama and the Law" (1996) [https://books.google.com/books?id=Xq0kAQAAMAAJ 25] Renaissance Drama 158; Ross, [https://books.google.com/books?id=vBFdAAAAMAAJ Elizabethan Literature and the Law of Fraudulent Conveyance], 2003, p 26.</ref><ref>As to the meaning of "cattle" generally, see for example Stroud, The Judicial Dictionary, 1890, [https://books.google.com/books?id=tnvxZMnzIloC&pg=PA113 p 113]; and Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes, 2nd Ed, 1848,
[https://books.google.com/books?id=tO5iAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA636 p 248].</ref>
* '''''Arrestando ipsum qui pecuniam recepit''''' was a writ which anciently lay for the apprehension of him who had taken [[prest money]] for the king's wars, and afterwards hid himself, when he should have been ready to go. Reg Orig 24. Cowel.<ref>Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850. [https://books.google.com/books?id=hqMBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29 p 29].</ref><ref>Ephraim Chambers. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP179 "Arrestando"]. Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.</ref><ref>See further 2 Co Inst [https://books.google.com/books?id=LxbuAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA51 53]; Reg Orig [https://books.google.com/books?id=Oprm40tAxrAC&pg=PP102 24]; Tyler v Pomeroy (1864) 8 Allen's Massachusetts Reports 480 at [https://books.google.com/books?id=DvQPAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA487 487].</ref>
* '''''Arresto facto super bonis mercatorum alienigenorum''''' was a writ that lay for a denizen against the goods of aliens found in the kingdom, as a recompense for goods taken from him in a foreign country after a refusal to restore them. Reg Orig 129; Cowel.<ref>Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850. [https://books.google.com/books?id=hqMBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29 p 29].</ref><ref>Ephraim Chambers. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP179 "Arresto"]. Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.</ref> The writ was equivalent to [[clarigatio]].<ref>Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1. [https://books.google.com/books?id=eZqgaXG23TcC&pg=PA191 p 191].</ref><ref>See further Reg Orig [https://books.google.com/books?id=MJg0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PP283 129]; 2 Co Inst [https://books.google.com/books?id=LxbuAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA205 205]; FNB [https://books.google.com/books?id=yu46oMyRLesC&pg=PA250 114]; 4 Co Inst [https://books.google.com/books?id=ulE0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA123 124]; De Lovio v Boit (1815) 2 Gallison 398 at [https://books.google.com/books?id=du07AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA408 408],  23 Myer's Federal Decisions 20 at [https://books.google.com/books?id=Q2slAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA26 26]; Molloy, ''De jure maritimo et navali'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=wD1fAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA29 p 29]; 17 Viner's Abridgment [https://books.google.com/books?id=2WBGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA4 4].</ref>
* '''''Attornato faciendo''''',<ref>An Abridgment of Sir Edward Coke's Reports. New York. 1813. [https://books.google.com/books?id=H7gvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA233 p 233]</ref> or '''''de attornato faciendo'''''<ref>Maugham. A Treatise on the Law of Attornies, Solicitors and Agents. 1825. [https://books.google.com/books?id=HeMGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA6 p 6].</ref> or '''''atturnato faciendo'''''<ref>The New Encyclopaedia. 1807. vol 3. [https://books.google.com/books?id=mG4O65TZjvUC&pg=PA78 p 78].</ref> or '''''attornato recipiendo'''''<ref>Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1. [https://books.google.com/books?id=eZqgaXG23TcC&pg=PA277 p 277].</ref> or '''''dedimus potestatem de attornato faciendo'''''<ref>Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1. [https://books.google.com/books?id=eZqgaXG23TcC&pg=PA619 p 619].</ref> or '''''Attornato faciendo vel recipiendo''''', was a writ, commanding a sheriff or steward of a county court, or [[hundred court]] to receive an attorney for the person taking out the writ, and to admit his appearance by him. Cowel.<ref>Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850. [https://books.google.com/books?id=hqMBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA36 p 36]</ref><ref>Ephraim Chambers. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP210 "''Atturnato''"]. Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.</ref> Sweet said it was the writ [[dedimus potestatem]].<ref>Sweet. A Dictionary of English Law. 1882. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2M4UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253 p 153].</ref> In 1760, Wynne said that the writ ''de attornato faciendo'' was obsolete.<ref>Edward Wynne. "Observations on Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium". 1760. printed in "A Miscellany containing Several Law Tracts". 1765. [https://books.google.com/books?id=AbFfAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA24 p 24].</ref><ref>See further FNB [https://books.google.com/books?id=sDdOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA349 156]</ref>
* '''''Auxilium ad filium militem faciendum et filiam maritandam''''',<ref name=Holthouse/> or '''''Auxilium ad filium primogenitum militem faciendum, vel ad filiam primogenitam maritandam''''',<ref>Adams. A Juridicial Glossary. 1886. vol 1. [https://books.google.com/books?id=eZqgaXG23TcC&pg=PA230 p 230].</ref> was a writ directed to the sheriff of every county where the king or other lord had tenants, to levy of them reasonable [[Feudal aid#In England|aid]] towards the [[knight]]ing of his son and the marriage of his eldest daughter. Cowel. No man was entitled to have this writ before his son had attained the age of fifteen years, or his daughter the age of seven years. FNB 82 A; Reg Orig 87; Glanvil, l 9, c 8;<ref name=Holthouse>Henry James Holthouse. A New Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. London. Boston. 1850. [https://books.google.com/books?id=hqMBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA39 p 39].</ref><ref>Ephraim Chambers. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP217 "Auxilium"]. Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.</ref><ref>English. A Dictionary of Words and Phrases Used in Ancient and Modern Law. 1899. Reprinted 2000. vol 1. [https://books.google.com/books?id=KVWH3SS7GBkC&pg=PA79 p 79].</ref> [[Statute of Westminster 1275]] c 36.<ref>Digby. An Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property. 2nd Ed. 1876. [https://books.google.com/books?id=LXdGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA117 p 117]. The enactment which is chapter 36 in [https://books.google.com/books?id=FHUcmnRIr54C&pg=PA53 Ruffhead's edition] is sometimes cited as chapter 35.</ref> This writ was abolished by the [[Tenures Abolition Act 1660]] ([[12 Cha. 2]]. c. 24).<ref>Mozely and Whitely. A Concise Law Dictionary. 1876. [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ip9AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA36 p 36]</ref><ref>See further 2 Broom & Had Com [https://books.google.com/books?id=Hu1BAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA144 144]; FNB [https://books.google.com/books?id=sDdOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA183 82] and 83; and [https://books.google.com/books?id=TP9aAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP197 The Law-french Dictionary].</ref>
* '''''Ayel''''', or '''''ayle''''' or '''''de avo'''''<ref name=AdamsJG1886p278/> or '''''aile'''''<ref>John Rastell and William Rastell. ''Les Termes de la Ley''. In the Savoy. 1721. [https://books.google.com/books?id=dLQ3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA35 p 35]</ref> or '''''aiel''''',<ref>1 Rosc Real Act [https://books.google.com/books?id=Xu0GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA127 127]</ref> was a writ which lay for an heir to recover the possession of lands of which a grandfather or grandmother was [[Seisin|seized]] in [[fee simple]] on the day of his or her death; and a stranger entered on that day and abated or dispossessed the heir of the inheritance. FNB 221D; 3 Bl Com 186. It was a [[possessory ancestral writ]].<ref name=AdamsJG1886p278/><ref>Ephraim Chambers. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP220 "Ayel"]. Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.</ref><ref>Also called an ancestral possessory writ: 1 Rosc. Real Act. [https://books.google.com/books?id=Xu0GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA127 127]; Martin, [https://books.google.com/books?id=tZNCAQAAMAAJ Civil Procedure at Common Law], 1899, p 127. Ayel is an [[ancestral writ]]: Roberts, A Digest of Select British Statutes, 1817, [https://books.google.com/books?id=n8hCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA148 p 148]. ''Cf''. Booth, [https://books.google.com/books?id=7PdMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA80-IA4 p 83].</ref> 1 Rosc Real Act 127. It was abolished by section 36 of the [[Real Property Limitation Act 1833]] (3 & 4 Will 4 c 27).<ref name=AdamsJG1886p278>Henry C Adams. A Juridical Glossary. 1886. Weed, Parsons & Company. Albany, New York. Volume 1. [https://books.google.com/books?id=eZqgaXG23TcC&pg=PA278 p 278].</ref> Ayle was one of a group of writs consisting of ayle, besayle, tresayle, and cosinage.<ref>Roberts, A Digest of Select British Statutes, 1817, [https://books.google.com/books?id=n8hCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA148 p 148]. Buchanan, A Technological Dictionary, 1846, [https://books.google.com/books?id=R61jAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA133 p 133]. (1879) 112 Westminster Review [https://books.google.com/books?id=LVwVAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA356 356]. (1943) [https://books.google.com/books?id=P8JVAAAAYAAJ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research] 217. Booth, The Nature and Practice of Real Actions, 2nd Ed, 1811, Ch 16, pp [https://books.google.com/books?id=7PdMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA200-IA1 200] to 205.</ref>
* '''''Beau pleader''''', whereby it is provided that no [[fine (penalty)|fine]] shall be taken of anyone in any court for fair pleading, i.e. for not pleading aptly, and to the purpose.<ref>{{1728|title=Beau pleader}} [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/HistSciTech/HistSciTech-idx?type=turn&entity=HistSciTech000900240244&isize=L]</ref>
* '''''Chartis reddendis''''' was a writ which lay against him that has [[charter]]s of [[feoffment]] delivered him to be kept, and refuses to deliver them. Old Nat Brev, fol 66. Reg Orig, fol 159.<ref>John Rastell and William Rastell. Les Termes de la Ley. In the Savoy. 1721. [https://books.google.com/books?id=dLQ3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA119 p 119].</ref><ref>Ephraim Chambers. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP369 "Chartis"]. Cyclopaedia. Fifth Edition. 1741. Volume 1.</ref><ref>Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Revised 6th Ed. 1856.</ref> It was a writ of [[detinue of charters]].<ref>Stewart Rapalje and Robert L Lawrence. A Dictionary of American and English Law. Frederick D Lynn & Co. Jersey City. 1888. vol 1. [https://books.google.com/books?id=sXU8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA341 p 341].</ref><ref>"Detinue of charters" (or "detinue for charters") was a form of [[detinue]].</ref> It had fallen into disuse by 1816<ref>Williams. [https://books.google.com/books?id=qBhXAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA21-IA146 " ''Chartis reddendis''"]. A Compendious and comprehensive Law Dictionary. 1816.</ref> and was obsolete by 1843.<ref>Bouvier. A Law Dictionary. 2nd Ed. 1843. vol 1. [https://books.google.com/books?id=KGg8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA257 p 257].</ref><ref>See further, Finlason, Reeves' History of the English Law, 1869, vol 2, pp [https://books.google.com/books?id=4GRHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA383 383] to 385; and Troubat, The Practice in Civil Actions and Proceedings, 1837, vol 2, [https://books.google.com/books?id=kfNCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA30 p 30].</ref>