Our Legal Heritage : 600-1776 King Aethelbert - King George IIIReilly, S. A.
History
Our Legal Heritage : 600-1776 King Aethelbert - King George III
Reilly, S. A.
Law -- England -- History
The supreme court was the king and his council in Parliament. It
heard the most important causes, important because they concern
the king, or because they concern very great men (e.g.treason), or
because they involve grave questions of public law, or because
they are unprecedented. It has large, indefinite powers and
provides new remedies for new wrongs. The office of great
justiciar disappears and the chancellor becomes the head of the
council. After the council were the royal courts of the King's
Bench, Common Pleas, and the Exchequer, which had become separate,
each with its own justices and records. The Court of Common Pleas
had its own Chief Justice and usually met at Westminster. This
disadvantaged the small farmer, who would have to travel to
Westminster to present a case. The King's Council maintained a
close connection with the Court of the King's Bench, which heard
criminal cases and appeals from the Court of Common Pleas. It
traveled with the King. There were many trespass cases so heard by
it in the reign of Edward I. The King's Council did a great deal
of justice, for the more part criminal justice. It was supported
by the populace because it dealt promptly and summarily with
rebellion or some scandalous acquittal of a notorious criminal by
bribed or partial jurors, and thereby prevented anarchy. Its
procedure was to send for the accused and compel him to answer
upon oath written interrogatories. Affidavits were then sworn upon
both sides. With written depositions before them, the Lords of the
council, without any jury, acquit or convict. Fines and
imprisonments were meted out to rioters, conspirators, bribers,
and perjured jurors. No loss of life or limb occurred because
there had been no jury.
In criminal cases, witnesses acquainted with particular facts were
added to the general assize of twelve men from each hundred and
four men from each town. The assize then bifurcated into the grand
jury of twelve to twenty-four men and the petty jury or jury of
verdict of twelve men, which replaced ordeal, compurgation, and
trial by combat as the method of finding the truth. The men of the
petty jury as well as those of the grand jury were expected to
know or to acquaint themselves with the facts of the cases. The
men of the petty jury tended to be the same men who were on the
grand jury.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account