In Saxon times the purchase of stock by an individual was a matter of general concern to the community in which he lived. By a law of King Edgar, if a man in the course of a journey bought cattle, he was required on his return to turn them out into the common pasture, "with the witness of the township." If he omitted to do so within five nights, the townsmen were to acquaint the hundred elder, and the cattle were forfeited, the lord receiving one-half and the hundred the other. If the townsmen failed in their duty, their herdsman was subjected to a flogging. For the purchase of cattle the witness of the township was not enough. Twelve standing witnesses were appointed for every hundred, and the buyer had to make it his business to seek out two or three of them so as to secure their presence at the transaction. Whatever the primitive constitution of society may have been, in historical times three parties possessed an interest in the waste. Blackstone defines common as "a profit which a man hath in the land of another, as to feed his beasts, to catch fish, to dig turf, to cut wood, and the like." In theory, the waste belonged to the King, who vested portions of it in individual lords or religious houses, and they thus became recognized owners of the soil. In case of outlawry or attainder, the waste reverted to the Crown, which, according to custom, held possession of it for a year and a day. Thirdly, the _use_ of the soil, for various specified purposes, resided in the inhabitants of certain townships or hundreds, was appendant to certain tenements, or was reserved as easement on the sale of the land. Some very interesting questions, arising out of this joint occupancy, were raised in the courts at the close of the thirteenth century--notably the right of search for the object of ascertaining whether there were on the common more animals than any of the parties was entitled to place there, and, if so, of impounding them. Was this right appurtenant to the manor, or was it also appendant to a frank tenement in a particular vill? In one case where the lord had depastured an excess of beasts, the court decided against him, and in favour of a commoner whom he accused of "tortiously" taking his cattle. But, notwithstanding this judgment, there is some uncertainty on the point, as appears from the report of an action tried in the Middlesex Iter of 1294. "Robert Fitznel brought the Replegiare against Richard, the son of John, saying that he had tortiously taken his beasts in the wood of the Abbat of Horwede, formerly the forest of King Henry, by whom it was given as a chace to N., ancestor of Richard." "_Warwick_: 'Sir, we offer to aver that Robert and all those who have held the land in N., which he holds have been seised for all time, &c, of the common in the wood where his taking was made as appurtenant to their frank tenement....'