1650 Latin Indictment

[Janet Waterhouse]

Hello,

Can you transcribe the last entry involving Francis Oxley and Jennet Greene in the attached and translate into English.

Regards,

Janet

[horselydown86]

ffranciscus Oxley p(ro) manufort(i) ingress(is)

Sup(er) terr(am) Jennet Greene

I think it means that Francis Oxley with a strong hand entered upon the land of Jennet Greene.

However I'm not sure how pro should be translated.  It is followed by the ablative case (which has with as a meaning) but doesn't mean with in any dictionary I can find.

ADDED:

Manu forti is a key phrase to be included in a writ of forcible entry.

[Vance Mead]

The legal term would be forcible entry.
There were two forcible entry acts, of 1381 and 1429.

[Janet Waterhouse]

Thank you to both of you for providing the transcription and explanation.

Regards,

Janet

[horselydown86]

Janet, there's an aspect of this page which may turn out to be of interest.

The apparent heading which comes beneath the place and date is:  Ignoram(us)

I'm well short of understanding this (syncopated perfect is mentioned?) but it seems that it might be to do with a pardon or forgiveness.

It's also not clear whether it applies to everyone on the page or just to John Heathfeild at the top.  The script does seem too tall to be a note on only the Heathfeild case.

Anyway, I though it worth mentioning should you wish to investigate further.

[Bookbox]

Ignoramus (present indicative 1st person plural) is used on an indictment to indicate that the Grand Jury did not know of enough evidence to justify sending the defendant for trial by jury. In cases where there was enough evidence, they would pass the indictment as a ‘true bill’.

[horselydown86]

Thank you very much for explaining this in the legal context.

I could see that ignoramus could be arrived at either as the present active indicative 1 P  of ignorare or the pluperfect active indicative 1 P of ignoscere (after a conventional modification).

The present active indicative made grammatical sense but less logical sense - why record an indictment only to say you are ignoring it?

The alternative made no grammatical sense but did relate to an explicit legal action.

However, it's very useful to know that ignoramus (P A I) has legal significance as the alternative to a finding of true bill, so both grammar and logic are satisfied.

[Bookbox]

... why record an indictment only to say you are ignoring it?

The indictments would normally be prepared and written out in advance, and annotated later with the jury's/judge's decisions. Then another copy of the whole document might be made for the official court records.

[horselydown86]

Thanks Bookbox.