Theexpression’regardant’neveroccursinthepleadingsatall，but’regardanttoamanor’isusedoften。FromEdwardIII’stimeitisusedquiteasamatterofcourseintheformulaofthe’exceptio’orspecialpleaofvillainage。*Thatis，ifthedefendantpleadedinbarofanactionthattheplaintiffwashisbondmanhegenerallysaid，IamnotboundtoanswerA，becauseheismyvillainandIamseisedofhimasofmyvillainasregardanttomymanorofC。Ofcoursethereareothercaseswhenthetermisemployed，butthepleainbarisbyfarthemostcommononeandmaystandforatest。Thismannerofpleadingisonlycominggraduallyintouseinthefourteenthcentury，andweactuallyseehowitistakingshapeandspreading。AsaruletheYearBooksofEdwardI’stimehavenotgotit。Thedefendantputsinhispleaunqualified。’Heoughtnottobeansweredbecauseheisourvillain’Y。B。21/22EdwardI，p。166，ed。Horwood。Thereisacasein1313whenapreliminaryskirmishbetweenthecounseloneithersidetookplaceastothesufficiencyofthedefendant’spleainbar，theplaintiffcontendingthatitwasnotpreciseenough。Here，ifanywhere，weshouldexpecttheterm’regardant，’butitisnotforthcoming1。Whatismore，andwhatoughttohavepreventedanymistake，theofficialrecordsoftrialsonthePleaRollsuptoEdwardIIalwaysusetheplainassertion，’villanus。ettenetinvillenagio。’*ThepracticeofnamingthemanortowhichavillainbelongedbeginshowevertocomeinduringthereignofEdwardII，andtheterminologyisbynomeanssettledattheoutset；expressionsareoftenusedasequivalentto’regardant’whichcouldhardlyhavemisledlaterantiquariesastothemeaningofthequalification。*Inacaseof1322，forinstance，wehave’withinthemanor’whereweshouldexpecttofind’regardanttothemanor。’*ThiswouldbeverynearlyequivalenttotheLatinformulaadoptedbythePleaRolls，whichissimplyutdemanerio。*Everynowandthencasesoccurwhichgraduallysettletheterminology，becausetheweightoflegalargumentationinthemismadetoturnonthefactthataparticularpersonwasconnectedwithaparticularmanorandnotwithanother。Acasefrom1317iswellinpoint。B。P。thedefendantexceptsagainsttheplaintiffT。A。onthegroundofvillainageqilestnostrevileyn，andnothingelse。Theplaintiffrepliesthathewasenfranchisedbybeingsufferedtopleadinanassizeofmortd’ancestoragainstB。P。’sgrandmother。
Bythisthedefendant’scounselisdriventomaintainthathisclient’srightagainstT。A。descendednotfromhisgrandmotherbutfromhisgrandfather，whowasseisedofthemanorofH。towhichT。A。belongedasavillain。*Theconnexionwiththemanorisadducedtoshowfromwhatquartertherighttothevillainhaddescended，and，ofcourse，impliesnothingastoanypeculiarityofthisvillain’sstatus，orastothekindoftitle，themodeofacquiringrights，uponwhichthelordrelies——itwasgroundcommontobothpartiesthatifthelordhadanyrightsatallheacquiredthembyinheritance。
Anothercaseseemsevenmoreinteresting。Itdatesfrom1355，thatisfromatimewhentheusualterminologyhadalreadybecomefixed。ItaroseunderthatcelebratedStatuteofLabourerswhichplayedsuchaprominentpartinthesocialhistoryofthefourteenthcentury。Oneofthedifficultiesinworkingthestatutecamefromthefactthatithadtorecognisetwodifferentsetsofrelationsbetweentheemployerandtheworkman。Thestatutedealtwiththecontractbetweenmasterandservant，butitdidnotdoawaywiththedependenceofthevillainonthelord，andincaseofconflictitgaveprecedencetothislatterclaim；alordhadtherighttowithdrawhisvillainfromastranger’sservice。Suchcrossinfluencescouldnotbutoccasionagreatdealofconfusion，andourcasegivesagoodinstanceofit。ThomasBarentynhasreclaimedRalphCripsfromtheserviceofthePrioroftheHospitalers，andtheemployersuesinconsequencebothhisformerservantandBarentyn。Thislastanswers，thattheservantinquestionishisvillainregardanttothemanorofC。Theplaintiffscounselmaintainsthathecouldnothavebeenregardanttothemanor，ashewasgoingaboutatlargeathisfreewillandasafreeman；forthisreasonA。theformerownerofthemanorwasneverseisedofhim，andnotbeingseisedcouldnottransfertheseisintothepresentowner，althoughhetransferredthemanor。Forthedefendantitispleaded，thatgoingaboutfreelyisnoenfranchisement，thatbythegiftofthemanoreveryrightconnectedwiththemanorwasalsoconferredandthatconsequentlythenewlordcouldatanymomentlayhandsonhisman，astheformerlordcouldhavedoneinhistime。Ultimatelytheplaintiffofferstojoinissueonthequestion，whethertheservanthadbeenavillainregardanttothemanorofC。ornot。Thedefendantasserts，ratherlateintheday，thatevenifthepersoninquestionwasnotavillainregardanttothemanorofC。themerefactofhisbeingavillainingrosswouldentitlehislordtocallhimaway。ThisattempttostartonanewlineisnotallowedbytheCourtbecausetheclaimhadoriginallybeentraversedonthegroundoftheconnexionwiththemanor。
Thepeculiarityofthecaseisthatathirdpersonhasaninteresttoprovethatthemanclaimedasvillainhadbeenasafreeman。Usuallytherewerebuttwopartiesinthecontestaboutstatus；thelordpullingonewayandthepersonclaimedpullingtheotherway，but，throughtheinfluenceoftheStatuteofLabourers，inourcaselordandlabourerwereatoneagainstathirdparty，thelabourer’semployer。Theacknowledgmentofvillainagebytheservantdidnotsettlethequestion，because，thoughbindingforthefuture，itwasnotsufficienttoshowthatvillainagehadexistedinthepast，thatisatthetimewhenthecontractofhireandservicewasbrokenthroughtheinterferenceofthelord。Everythingdependedonthesettlementofonequestionwasthelordseisedatthetime，ornot？Bothpartiesagreethatthelordwasnotactuallyseisedoftheperson，bothagreethathewasseisedofthemanor，andbothsupposethatifthepersonhadasamatteroffactbeenattachedtothemanoritwouldhaveamountedtoaseisinoftheperson。Andsothecontentionisshiftedtothispoint：canamanbeclaimedthroughthemediumofamanor，ifhehasnotbeenactuallyliving，workingandservinginit？Thecourtassumesthepossibility，andsothepartiesappealtothecountrytodecidewhetherinpointoffactRalphCripstheshepherdhadbeeninlegalifnotinactualconnexionwiththemanor，i。e。couldbetracedtoitpersonallyorthroughhisrelatives。
Thecaseisinterestinginmanyways。Itshowsthatthesamemancouldbeaccordingtothepointofviewconsideredbothasavillaininregardtoamanor，andasavillainingross。Therelativecharacteroftheclassificationisthusillustratedaswellasitsimportanceforpracticalpurposes。Thetransmissionofamanoristakentoincludethepersonsengagedinthecultivationofitssoil，andeventhosewhoseancestorshavebeenengagedinsuchcultivation，andwhohavenospecialpleaforseveringtheconnexion。