[1027]. Sel. Pleas of the Crown, No. 1.
[1028]. Ibid., No. 68. Cf. No. 119.
[1029]. Bracton, folio 142 b.
[1030]. Select Pleas of the Crown, No. 130.
[1031]. The Act 6 Richard II. c. 6, to prevent the wife’s connivance, extended the right of appeal in such cases to a woman’s husband, father, or other near relative; but denied the appellee’s right to the option of defending himself by battle—thus proving no exception to the policy of discouraging the duellum wherever possible.
[1032]. Glanvill, XIV. c. 3.
[1033]. Glanvill, XIV. c. 33, Fleta I. c. 3, seems by different words to indicate only the same doctrine of constructive presence, when he speaks in this connection “de morte viri sui inter brachia sua interfecti,” although laboured explanations of this passage are sometimes attempted, e.g. Coke, Second Institute, 93. Pollock and Maitland (I. 468, n.) dismiss the phrase inter brachia sua as "only a picturesque ‘common form.’"
[1034]. See Coke, Second Institute, p. 68, and contrast Pollock and Maitland, I. 468. John’s justices rejected in 1202 a woman’s claim to appeal for her father’s death, and some ten years later two other claims for the death of sons. See Select Pleas of the Crown, Nos. 32, 117, and 118.
[1035]. A peculiarity in the wording of this clause should, perhaps, be noticed. It restricts explicitly not appeals by women, but merely “arrest and imprisonment” following on such.