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
Courts controlled by lords of large private estates had various
kinds of jurisdiction recognized by the King: sac and soke
[possession of legal powers of execution and profits of justice
held by a noble or institution over inhabitants and tenants of the
estate, exercised through a private court], toll [right to collect
a payment on the sale of cattle and property] and team [right to
hold a court to determine the honesty of a man accused of illegal
possession of cattle], infangenetheof [the authority to judge and
to hang and take the chattels of a thief caught on the property],
and utfangenetheof [the authority to judge and to hand and take
the chattels of a thief dwelling out of his liberty, and
committing theft without the same, if he were caught within the
lord's property]. Some lords were even given jurisdiction over
breach of the royal peace, ambush and treacherous manslaughter,
harboring of outlaws, forced entry into a residence, and failure
to answer a military summons. Often this court's jurisdiction
overlapped that of the hundred court and sometimes a whole hundred
had passed under the jurisdiction of an abbot, bishop, or earl.
A lord and his noble lady, or his steward, presided at this court.
The law was administered here on the same principles as at the
hundred court. Judges of the leet of the court of a large private
estate were chosen from the constables and four representatives
selected from each community, village, or town.
Before a dispute went to the hundred court, it might be taken care
of by the head tithing man, e.g. cases between vills, between
neighbors, and some compensations and settlements, namely
concerning pastures, meadows, harvests, and contests between
neighbors.
The vill [similar to village] was the smallest community for
judicial purposes. There were several vills in a hundred.
In London, the Hustings Court met weekly and decided such issues
as wills and bequests and commerce matters. The folkmote of all
citizens met three times a year. Each ward had a leet court [for
minor criminal matters].
The king and his witan decided the complaints and issues of the
nobility and those cases which had not received justice in the
hundred or shire court. The witan had a criminal jurisdiction and
could imprison or outlaw a person. The witan could even compel the
king to return any land he might have unjustly taken. Specially
punishable by the king was "oferhyrnesse": contempt of the king's
law. It covered refusal of justice, neglect of summons to gemot or
pursuit of thieves, disobedience to the king's officers, sounding
the king's coin, accepting another man's dependent without his
leave, buying outside markets, and refusing to pay Peter's pence.
The forests were peculiarly subject to the absolute will of the
king. They were outside the common law. Their unique customs and
laws protected the peace of the animals rather than the king's
subjects. Only special officials on special commissions heard
their cases.
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