the parties were at issue on some question of fact, to say what the

fact was, and the name for this thing was “ rei veritas." The
truth of the thing about what? About all sorts of questions. Was
a party in possession of something? Did he disseise somebody?
Had he put his seal to a paper ?
Did he enfeoff another of land?
and what land? What is the consuetudo, the custom, of such a
place? Is a person legitimate, or a nativus, or an idiot, or insane?
This is the same sort of question that juries pass on to-day, -
having the same elements of opinion and law, compounded with
the simpler features which catch the eye and ear; questions of
fact, as we say.
Now, although juries had only to do with an issue, yet ques-
tions of fact were by no means limited to the issue. The
courts settled a great many questions of fact for themselves;
they could not take a step without passing upon such questions.
Was the deed that was put forward in pleading “rased or not?
If a party claimed the right to defend himself as a maimed per-
son, was it really mayhem? Was a person presenting himself
and claiming to be a minor, really under age? A stream of
questions as to the reality, the rei veritas, the fact, of what was
alleged before them, was constantly pouring in. A prisoner, for
example, had confessed; on being brought into court, he declared
that it was by duress of his jailer. Was this so? To find this
out the justice took the short cut of sending for several of the
fellow-prisoners and the jailer, and questioning them all in
the prisoner's presence; and he found that it was not true.1
This, again, is just as it is to-day. Courts pass upon a vast
number of questions of fact that do not get into the pleadings.
Courts existed before juries; juries came in to perform only
their own one special office, and the courts have continued to re