Our Legal Heritage, King AEthelbert, 596 to King George III, 1775Reilly, S. A.
History
Our Legal Heritage, King AEthelbert, 596 to King George III, 1775
Reilly, S. A.
Law -- England -- History
Some statutes applied only to Kent County, which had a
unique position between London and the continent. One could
sell or give away his land without the consent of one's
lord. The services of the land, however, could only be sold
to the chief lord. Inheritance of land was to all sons by
equal portions, and if there were no sons, then to all
daughters in equal portions. The eldest brother has his
choice of portion, then the next oldest, etc. The goods of a
deceased person were divided into three parts after his
funeral expenses and debts were paid. One third went to the
surviving spouse. One third went to the deceased's sons and
daughters. One third could be disposed by will of the
decedent. If there were no children, one half went to the
spouse and one half went according to will. If an heir was
under 15 years old, his next of kin to whom inheritance
could not descend was to be his guardian. A wife who
remarried or bore a child lost her dower land. A husband
lost his dower if he remarried. If a tenant withheld rent or
services, his lord could seek award of court to find
distress on his tenement and if he could find none, he could
take the tenement for a year and a day in his hands without
manuring it. It the tenant paid up in this time, he got the
tenement back. If he didn't within a year and a day,
however, the lord could manure the land. A felon forfeited
his life and his goods, but not his lands or tenements. A
wife of a felon had the dower of one half or her husband's
lands and tenements.
The common law recognized the tort of false imprisonment if
a man arrested as a felon, a person who was not a felon.
- Judicial Procedure -
The writ of Quo Warranto [by what right] is created, by which all
landholders exercising jurisdictions must bring their ancestors'
charters before a traveling justice for the Common Pleas for
examination and interpretation as to whether they were going
beyond their charters and infringing upon the jurisdiction of the
Royal Court. As a result, many manor courts were confined to
manorial matters and could no longer view frankpledge or hear
criminal cases, which were reserved for the royal courts. In the
manor courts which retained criminal jurisdiction, there was a
reassertion of the obligation to have present a royal coroner,
whose duty it was to see that royal rights were not infringed and
that the goods of felons were given to the Crown and not kept by
the lords.
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