The party who is thus summoned either appears at the day appointed, or makes default, or sends a Messenger, or Essoin,[46] or neither. If he neither appear, nor send an Essoin, his adversary, the Demandant, should, on the day appointed, appear before the Justices, and offer to proceed against him in the suit; and he shall thus await in Court during three days. If the Tenant appear not on the fourth day, the summoners being present, and alledging that they had duly cited him, and offering to prove it, according to the course of the Court, another Writ shall Issue to summon the Tenant to appear at the distance of fifteen days[47] at least, in which Writ he shall be required as well to answer to the original Suit, as for his default in disobeying the first summons.[48] In this manner, three Summonses shall issue; and, if the Tenant neither appear at the third summons, nor send, the Tenement shall be taken into the King’s hands, and shall so remain, during fifteen days. [Footnote 46: _Essonium_, an Excuse. Sir Edward Coke derives the term from the French verb _essonier_ or _exonier_. He tells us, it is all one with what the civilians call _excusatio_. Sir Henry Spelman mentions the same derivation, and adds, _ex_, _privativum_, _soing_, _cura_. The Greek word ἐξὸμνυσθαι has been proposed as another derivation, implying an excuse by means of an oath. The term occurs so early as the Assizes of Jerusalem, (c. 58.) So limited is the doctrine of Essoins in the present day, that it will here suffice to observe, there were five _principal_ kinds in the reign of Henry the second; I say principal, because there were necessarily many others of less importance. These, as enumerated by Sir Edward Coke, were; 1. _de servitio Regis_. 2. _In terram sanctam_. 3. _Ultra mare_. 4. _De malo lecti_. 5. _De malo veniendi_; the two last being the same as those _ex infirmitate de reseantisâ_ and _ex infirmitate veniendi_, so frequently mentioned by our author, in the present book. Essoins are said to have been derived to us from the Normans. (Vide Assises of Jerusalem, c. 58. le Grand Custum. de Norm. sparsim. Bracton 336. b. et seq. Fleta L. 6. c. 7. Mirror, 117. et seq. 2 Inst. 125. Spelm. Cowell. Les termes de la ley, &c. &c.)] [Footnote 47: In affirmance of this period of time, see _Articuli super chartas_, c. 15. and Lord Coke’s comment. (2 Inst. 567.) The Norman code required the same period to render a summons lawful, Grand Custum. de Norm. c. 49. See also Bracton 334. a. and Fleta L. 6. c. 6. s. 11. 12.] [Footnote 48: It seems from the _Regiam Majestatem_, that if the summons were made by one summoner, in the presence of lawful and sufficient witnesses, it was good. These witnesses were to verify the summons, before the defendant could be compelled to answer. (Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 6.)]