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
Still in existence is the old self-help law of hamsocne, the thief
hand-habbende, the thief back-berend, the old summary procedure where
the thief is caught in the act, AEthelstan's laws, Edward the
Confessor's laws, and Kent's childwyte [fine for begetting a bastard on
a lord's female bond slave]. Under the name of "actio furti" [appeal of
larceny] is the old process by which a thief can be pursued and goods
vindicated. As before and for centuries later, deodands were forfeited
to the king to appease God's wrath. These chattel which caused the death
of a person were usually carts, cart teams, horses, boats, or
millwheels. Then they were forfeited to the community, which paid the
king their worth. Sometimes the justices named the charitable purpose
for which the deodand was to be spent, such as the price of a boat to go
to the repair of a bridge.
Five cases are:
CASE: "John Croc was drowned from his horse and cart in the water of
Bickney. Judgment: misadventure. The price of the horse and cart is
4s.6d. deodand."
CASE: "Willam Ruffus was crushed to death by a certain trunk. The price
of the trunk is 4d., for which the sheriff is to answer. 4d. deodand."
CASE: "William le Hauck killed Edric le Poter and fled, so he is to be
exacted and outlawed. He was in the tithing of Reynold Horloc in Clandon
of the abbot of Chertsey (West Clandon), so it is in mercy. His chattels
were 4 s., for which the bailiff of the abbot of Chertsey is to answer."
CASE: "Richard de Bregsells, accused of larceny, comes and denies the
whole and puts himself on the country for good or ill. The twelve jurors
and four vills say that he is not guilty, so he is quit."
CASE: William le Wimpler and William Vintner sold wine contrary to the
statute, so they are in mercy.
Other cases dealt with issues of entry, e.g. whether land was conveyed
or just rented; issues of whether a man was free, for which his lineage
was examined; issues of to which lord a villein belonged; issues of
nuisance such as making or destroying a bank, ditch, or hedge; diverting
a watercourse or damming it to make a pool; obstructing a road, and
issues of what grazing rights were conveyed in pasture land, waste,
woods, or arable fields between harvest and sowing. Grazing right
disputes usually arose from the ambiguous language in the grant of land
"with appurtenances".
Courts awarded specific relief as well as money damages. If a landlord
broke his covenant to lease land for a term of years, the court restored
possession to the lessee. If a lord did not perform the services due to
his superior lord, the court ordered him to perform the services. The
courts also ordered repair by a lessee.
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