Definition
A writ of exemption, formerly available in English law, by which a named individual was freed from compulsory service on assizes and juries. The full phrase — non ponendis in assisis et juratis — translates roughly as "not to be placed on assizes and juries." The writ operated as a personal discharge, directed to the relevant officers, commanding that the named person not be summoned or impaneled for jury service or assize proceedings.
The writ was a creature of royal grace or statutory privilege. Those who obtained it — typically by reason of age, infirmity, office, or favor — could present the writ as a bar to being put on a panel.
Common Confusion
The writ is sometimes loosely grouped with writs of privilege or writs of exemption generally, but it is a distinct instrument with a specific operational scope: discharge from assizes and juries specifically. It should not be conflated with broader writs releasing a person from all public duties or offices, nor with the modern administrative mechanisms for jury exemption, which operate through court rules and statutes rather than individual royal writs.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in older English legal sources and is effectively obsolete as a live procedural tool. Researchers encountering it will do so in one of two contexts: historical study of medieval and early modern English writ practice, or examination of the historical foundations of jury exemption doctrine.
The key research trap is anachronism. Modern jury exemption and excuse operate through entirely different mechanisms — statutory schedules, court rules, individual applications to a judge or clerk — and have no formal connection to the writ system. Drawing a line of descent from non ponendis in assisis et juratis to modern exemption practice requires care; the institutional logic is similar, but the legal machinery is wholly different.
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus should note that this writ sits within a cluster of medieval and early modern writs governing jury composition and qualification. Related writs governing who could be placed on juries, and writs challenging particular jurors, form a coherent body of historical practice. Cross-reading sources on assize procedure, the development of the jury system, and the writ of de juratis acquietandis (a related instrument) will give the fullest picture.
Because the writ required royal or official authorization, its availability was not universal. Tracing who held such exemptions historically can illuminate questions of social rank, office-holding, and royal favor in a given period — useful for legal historians working on specific reigns or localities.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence provide the core definition succinctly: "A writ formerly granted for freeing and discharging persons from serving on assizes and juries," citing Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium at folio 165. This entry is representative of how nineteenth-century American legal dictionaries treated obsolete English writs — a compressed, functional description keyed to the primary English authority rather than any American practice.
Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium remains the foundational reference for the writ's operational details. Historical sources are consistent on the basic nature of the instrument; there is no meaningful divergence among the standard dictionaries that touch it. What those sources uniformly omit is any treatment of how the writ was obtained in practice, what showing was required, or how frequently it was actually used — questions that require turning to the plea rolls and administrative records of the relevant period rather than the writ registers and form books.
No American counterpart to this writ developed. Its appearance in American legal dictionaries like Rapalje & Lawrence reflects the encyclopedic tradition of cataloguing English legal history rather than any live relevance to American practice.
Jurisdictional Note
This writ is English in origin and has no direct American equivalent. Its relevance in any U.S. legal research context is purely historical. Researchers in English legal history should situate it within the broader English writ system prior to the procedural reforms of the nineteenth century.