Definition
"Raglorious" does not appear to be an established legal term. The entry in Rapalje & Lawrence's Law Dictionary that begins at this alphabetical position is fragmentary and does not contain a definition for "raglorious" as a discrete legal concept. The source text shows a dictionary page break or binding artifact — the visible entry fragments ("A steward. Hon. 597," "RAIL FENCES," "RAGMAN'S-ROLL") are separate entries for distinct terms, not components of a single definition. No corresponding entry appears in other historical legal dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering "RAGLORIOUS" in a search result or index should treat it with caution. It most likely represents a digitization error, OCR misread, or page-boundary artifact from a scanned historical dictionary, not a genuine legal term. Rapalje & Lawrence's dictionary was published in 1883 and has been subject to varying quality in digital reproduction. When a source entry yields only fragments — as this one does — the researcher should consult the physical or high-resolution facsimile to identify what term the entry actually begins.
The surrounding fragments visible in the source are genuinely useful terms and have their own entries elsewhere in the corpus: RAGMAN'S ROLL (the collection of instruments by which Scottish nobles submitted to Edward I of England in 1296, significant in feudal and constitutional history) and RAIL FENCES (treated in New York property law as passing with a conveyance of land). If either of those was the intended search target, redirect accordingly.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence provide no definition for "raglorious." The text attributed to this entry in the source material is plainly truncated and spans what appear to be at least three unrelated entries: a definition of a steward with a citation to Honorius (Hon. 597), a note on rail fences citing 1 N.Y. 564, and the beginning of an entry on Ragman's Roll or Ragi-[man's Roll]. No historical legal dictionary in the standard reference corpus — Black's, Bouvier's, Burrill, or others — contains an entry under this term. Its absence across sources is itself informative: "raglorious" carries no recognized legal meaning.