Definition
A writ of historical English law commanding the removal of a person afflicted with leprosy (or a similar disfiguring disease) who intruded upon the company of neighbors in public spaces — including churches, markets, or other communal gatherings — to the disturbance or annoyance of others. The writ authorized the forcible exclusion of the individual from such assemblies. It belongs to a class of ancient prerogative writs directed at the removal of persons or conditions deemed harmful to the public order or welfare.
The full Latin phrase translates roughly as "for removing the leper," identifying both the subject (a person with leprosy) and the purpose (removal from public presence).
Common Confusion
Rapalje & Lawrence redirects this entry with a cross-reference to DE LESWES (or LESUES), which concerns pastures. This appears to be a typographical or editorial error in that volume, not a genuine conceptual connection. Researchers encountering the Rapalje & Lawrence entry should treat the cross-reference as a misprint and consult Black's or the Registrum Omnium Brevium for an accurate account of the writ.
Why It Matters in Research
This writ is almost exclusively of antiquarian interest, but it surfaces in three research contexts worth knowing.
First, it appears in surveys of the English writ system as an illustration of the breadth of original writs catalogued in the Registrum Omnium Brevium — the medieval register of chancery forms. Researchers tracing the historical development of public health law or the origins of compulsory removal and quarantine powers will encounter leproso amovendo as an early common-law mechanism for exclusion of persons deemed physically dangerous or socially disruptive. It is a precursor, conceptually if not doctrinally, to later quarantine and public nuisance powers.
Second, the writ appears in broader discussions of the legal treatment of persons with leprosy in medieval England. Canon law and common law intersected on this question: leprosy could affect legal capacity, property rights, and social status. A researcher following this thread should treat leproso amovendo as one piece of a larger framework, not a standalone doctrine.
Third, the writ illustrates a category of original writs concerned with removal — as distinct from writs of possession or writs compelling a positive act. Comparative study of removal writs (amovendo writs generally) benefits from understanding this example alongside related forms such as the writ to remove a receiver, a guardian, or other fiduciary.
The Rapalje & Lawrence error is a practical trap. Researchers relying on that dictionary alone will find no useful definition and a misleading cross-reference. Any serious research on this writ should go directly to the Registrum Omnium Brevium or secondary accounts that draw on it.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary provides the operative definition, citing the Registrum Omnium Brevium at page 237 — the standard medieval register of chancery forms and the primary historical authority for the writ's existence and form. Black's characterizes the writ as lying against a leper who "thrust himself into the company of his neighbors," framing it as a response to social intrusion and annoyance rather than to any specific physical harm. The language reflects the medieval conflation of moral, social, and medical concerns that shaped legal responses to leprosy.
Rapalje & Lawrence offers no substantive treatment and instead provides a cross-reference that appears to be a printing or editorial error. The entry contributes nothing to understanding the writ.
Neither dictionary addresses the writ's relationship to the broader legal disabilities imposed on persons with leprosy under medieval English law, nor do they situate it within the canon law tradition that ran parallel to common law on this subject. Researchers should treat both dictionary accounts as entry points only.
Jurisdictional Note
This writ is specific to the historical English common law and has no American counterpart or reception. It did not carry forward into colonial or post-independence American law. Its relevance is limited to English legal history and the study of the original writ system.