Our Legal Heritage: King AEthelbert - King George III, 600 A.D. - 1776: June 2011 (Sixth) EditionReilly, S. A.
History
Our Legal Heritage: King AEthelbert - King George III, 600 A.D. - 1776: June 2011 (Sixth) Edition
Reilly, S. A.
Law -- England -- History
27. Thomas, Leofwin's son, appeals Alan Harvester, for that he in the
king's peace assaulted him as he went on the highway, and with his force
carried him into Alan's house, and struck him on the arm so that he
broke a small bone of his arm, whereby he is maimed, and robbed him of
his cape and his knife, and held him while Eimma, [Alan's] wife, cut off
one of his testicles and Ralph Pilate the other, and when he was thus
dismembered and ill-treated, the said Alan with his force carried him
back into the road, whereupon as soon as might be he raised the cry, and
the neighbors came to the cry, and saw him thus ill-treated, and then at
once he sent to the king's serjeant, who came and found, so [Thomas]
says, the robbed things in Alan's house and then as soon as might be
[Thomas] went to the wapentake [court] and to the county [court] and
showed all this. So inquiry is made of the king's sergeant, who
testifies that he came to Alan's house and there found the knife and the
testicles in a little cup, but found not the cape. Also the whole county
testifies that [Thomas] never before now appealed Alan of breaking a
bone. And so it is considered that the appeal is null, and that [Thomas]
be in mercy, and that the other appellees be quit. Thomas also appeals
Emma, Alan's wife, for that she in the peace aforesaid after he was
placed in her lord's house cut off one of his testicles. He also appeals
Ralph Pilate, for that he cut off the other of his testicles.
28. The twelve jurors presented in their verdict that Austin, Rumfar's
son, appealed Ralph Gille of the death of his brother, so that [Ralph]
fled, and that William, Rumfar's son, appealed Benet Carter of the same
death, and Ranulf, Ralph's son, appealed Hugh of Hyckham of the same
death and Baldwin of Elsham and Ralph Hoth and Colegrim as accessories.
And the coroners by their rolls testify this also. But the county
records otherwise, namely, that the said Ralph Gille, Benet, Hugh,
Baldwin, Ralph [Hoth] and Gocegrim were all appealed by Ranulf, Ralph's
son, and by no one else, so that four of them, to wit, Ralph Gille,
Hugh, Benet and Colegrim, were outlawed at the suit of the said Ranulf,
and that the said persons were not appealed by anyone other than the
said Ranulf. And for that the county could not [be heard to] contradict
the coroners and the said jurors who have said their say upon oath, it
is considered etc. Thereupon the county forestalled the judgment and
before judgment was pronounced made fine with 200 pounds [4,000s.] [to
be collected throughout the county], franchises excepted.
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