"_Gosefield_ imparted, and returned and said: 'Sir, we will tell you the truth of this matter; and we tell you that the place where the taking was made was King Henry's forest; and Henry granted what was the forest to our ancestor by way of chace; and that in that chace, according to the custom of the chace, no person could put to common more beasts than could be fed or wintered on the produce of the land which he held in the same chace; and because Robert brought his beasts from his lands which he held elsewhere, which beasts could not be fed or wintered on the land which he held within the chace, contrary to the usage and custom of the said chace, he (Richard) took them, &c....' "_Warwick_: 'Sir, first of all they avowed the taking, and said that we ought not to have any kind of common; and now they have admitted our right of common partially, viz. as to beasts which can be wintered ...' "_Gosefield_: 'The assise of forest is notorious and well-known to all, viz., that no man can have therein more beasts to common than can be fed off the said land.' "_Warwick_ (he spoke then for the King): 'Richard, do you claim to have assise of forest?' "_Gosefield_: 'Nay, sir. But King Henry granted and gave it to us to hold as a chace in the same manner as he held it while it was a royal forest; and we have three swain-motes yearly for searching and inquiring whether anyone puts more beasts therein than he ought to put; and, inasmuch as King Henry granted it to us to hold like as he held it, it seems to us that there is no need to take the Inquest.' "_Hertford_ [the judge]: 'Do you accept the averment or not?' "_Gosefield_ (being obliged to accept the averment) said: 'Sir, they were never seised of common for more beasts than could be wintered and fed and supported on the growth of the said land.'" There is appended to this report a note which lays down the law in a different sense from that before stated. It is as follows: