You misunderstood my post. Mario use to say that Rawle never cites a precedent or a court case.
I’m saying the same is true for Roberts. He cites no legal precedent or court case.
I wanted to discuss this point further with you. What is a court case but the opinion of a Judge? Citing previous judges opinions has somehow become significant in law nowadays, but it still boils down to the opinion of a Judge.
In the case of the "Digest of British Statutes..." it is the opinion of multiple judges. That it does not have any specific court cases (of which we are currently aware) does not detract from it at all.
Presumably these Judges all got together and held hearings on the matters dealt with in that book, and this is their conclusion. Presumably they called forth whatever witnesses or authorities they thought were necessary to arrive at their decisions.
They did in fact have something very much like a "trial" and they simply handled many matters at the same time.
That there was no plaintiff or defendant is immaterial to the point that their judicial proceedings arrived at this result.
A lot of modern court cases simply ignore evidence and end up putting forth a ruling of whatever the Judge's personal preferences are, and they have no concern for what the reality of the law is anyway.