Definition
A writ in English common law practice directing the sheriff to compel the attendance of jurors at court, either by seizing their goods and chattels (distraining them) or by producing their persons on an appointed day. The writ commanded the sheriff to enforce juror appearance through the threat or act of distraint — the taking of property as security for compliance.
The distringas juratores operated on a legal fiction: it was nominally premised on the jurors' supposed failure to appear in response to the venire facias (the original jury summons), even though in practice the two writs issued simultaneously. No actual neglect needed to have occurred. The fiction allowed the court to proceed directly to a coercive mechanism alongside the initial summons, treating non-appearance as already anticipated.
The writ was abolished in England by the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 and belongs entirely to the historical record. It has no modern functional equivalent as a distinct writ, though courts retain general powers to compel juror attendance.
---
Common Confusion
DISTRINGAS JURATORES is one of several writs sharing the distringas root, and researchers unfamiliar with the writ system may conflate it with related instruments. The plain DISTRINGAS was a broader writ of distraint used in various civil contexts to compel a defendant's appearance or compliance — not specific to jurors. The HABEAS CORPORA JURATORUM ("that you have the bodies of the jurors") was a companion writ that commanded the sheriff to produce jurors in person rather than merely distrain their property. In practice, the habeas corpora and distringas juratores were often issued together as a paired mechanism: one compelling appearance by bodily production, the other by property seizure. Researchers should not treat these as interchangeable; their procedural postures and historical usage differ.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in English common law sources predating 1852, and in American materials from the colonial and early national periods when English procedure was transplanted with varying fidelity. Several research traps apply.
First, the legal fiction at the heart of the writ — that it was issued after a supposed neglect of the venire — was understood by courts and practitioners alike to be a procedural artifice. Sources from different periods describe the writ differently depending on whether they are presenting its formal theory or its actual operation. Burrill is explicit that the neglect was "fictitious"; Black's and Rapalje treat the mechanics more neutrally. A researcher reading across sources without recognizing this tension may mistake a description of legal form for a description of practice.
Second, American adoption was uneven. Some states followed English jury process closely; others modified or abandoned the distringas juratores early, relying instead on judicial orders or statutory contempt mechanisms to enforce juror attendance. Finding the writ in an American source does not mean it was operative in a given jurisdiction at a given time. Corpus searches should be paired with attention to whether local procedural statutes had supplanted common law writ practice.
Third, the abolition baseline differs between England and the American states. The C.L.P. Act 1852 is the clean terminus for English materials. American state procedural reforms followed their own timelines, often without a single landmark statute. Researchers working with late nineteenth-century American jury materials should verify whether the writ had been formally abolished, replaced by rule, or simply fallen into disuse.
Fourth, because the writ issued simultaneously with the venire despite its theoretical sequencing, records may index it at different points in the procedural record. Archival and docket research should account for this contemporaneous filing despite the ostensibly secondary legal theory.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries agree on the basic structure: a sheriff-directed writ compelling juror attendance through distraint, nominally premised on failure to respond to the venire, but in practice issued concurrently. All three sources cite Blackstone's Commentaries and Stephen's Commentaries as their primary authorities, and the definitions track those treatise descriptions closely.
The significant divergence is in how each source treats the legal fiction. Burrill's is the most candid, characterizing the neglect as "supposed and fictitious" and describing the simultaneous issuance as an established practice that contradicted the writ's formal rationale. Black's and Rapalje present the same facts — issued at same time as venire, founded on supposed neglect — but in a register that reads more like formal description than critical annotation. For a researcher trying to understand how the writ actually functioned rather than what it theoretically commanded, Burrill's framing is the more useful starting point.
Rapalje adds the only abolition notice among the three, flagging the C.L.P. Act 1852 and citing Archbold's Practice. Black's and Burrill's omit this, which reflects their somewhat different audiences and publication contexts. The absence of the abolition note in Black's is a minor gap researchers should be aware of: relying on Black's alone could leave the impression that the writ remained operative longer than it did in English practice.
None of the historical dictionaries addresses American jurisdictional variation in any meaningful depth, which is a consistent limitation of the shelf sources for procedural terms of this vintage.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The writ was formally abolished in England in 1852. American jurisdictions varied considerably in their adoption and retention of English jury process writs; many states displaced the distringas juratores through early nineteenth-century procedural reform without explicit abolition statutes. The writ is not operative in any modern American jurisdiction. Researchers should treat any American source invoking it after roughly 1850 as either historical commentary or evidence of lagging procedural modernization in a particular state.
---