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
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