按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
s that concerned also the country of his barons； these were made in concert with them；＇236＇ or sealed and subscribed by them： otherwise the barons received or refused them； according as they seemed conducive to the good of their baronies。 The rear…vassals were upon the same terms with the great…vassals。 Now the Institutions were not made with the consent of the lords； though they regulated matters which to them were of great importance： but they were received only by those who believed they would redound to their advantage。 Robert； son of St。 Louis； received them in his county of Clermont； yet his vassals did not think proper to conform to this practice。
30。 Observation on Appeals。 I apprehend that appeals； which were challenges to a combat； must have been made immediately on the spot。 〃If the party leaves the court without appealing；〃 says Beaumanoir；＇237＇ 〃he loses his appeal； and the judgment stands good。〃 This continued still in force； even after all the restrictions of judicial combat。＇238＇
31。 The same Subject continued。 The villain could not bring a challenge of false judgment against the court of his lord。 This we learn from Défontaines；＇239＇ and he is confirmed moreover by the Institutions。＇240＇ Hence Défontaines says；＇241＇ 〃between the lord and his villain there is no other judge but God。〃
It was the custom of judicial combats that deprived the villains of the privilege of challenging their lord's court of false judgment。 And so true is this； that those villains＇242＇ who by charter or custom had a right to fight had also the privilege of challenging their lord's court of false judgment； even though the peers who tried them were gentlemen；＇243＇ and Défontaines proposes expedients to gentlemen in order to avoid the scandal of fighting with a villain by whom they had been challenged of false judgment。＇244＇
As the practice of judicial combats began to decline； and the usage of new appeals to be introduced； it was reckoned unfair that freemen should have a remedy against the injustice of the courts of their lords； and the villains should not； hence the parliament received their appeals all the same as those of freemen。
32。 The same Subject continued。 When a challenge of false judgment was brought against the lord's court； the lord appeared in person before his paramount to defend the judgment of his court。 In like manner； in the appeal of default of justice； the party summoned before the lord paramount brought his lord along with him； to the end that if the default was not proved； he might recover his jurisdiction。＇245＇
In process of time as the practice observed in these two particular cases became general； by the introduction of all sorts of appeals； it seemed very extraordinary that the lord should be obliged to spend his whole life in strange tribunals； and for other people's affairs。 Philip of Valois ordained＇246＇ that none but the bailiffs should be summoned； and when the usage of appeals became still more frequent； the parties were obliged to defend the appeal： the deed of the judge became that of the party。＇247＇
I took notice that in the appeal of default of justice；＇248＇ the lord lost only the privilege of having the cause tried in his own court。 But if the lord himself was sued as party；＇249＇ which became a very common practice；＇250＇ he paid a fine of sixty livres to the king； or to the paramount； before whom the appeal was brought。 Thence arose the usage； after appeals had been generally received； of making the fine payable to the lord upon the reversal of the sentence of his judge； a usage which lasted a long time； and was confirmed by the ordinance of Rousillon； but fell； at length； to the ground through its own absurdity。
33。 The same Subject continued。 In the practice of judicial combats； the person who had challenged one of the judges of false judgment might lose his cause by the combat； but could not possibly gain it。＇251＇ And； indeed； the party who had a judgment in his favour ought not to have been deprived of it by another man's act。 The appellant； therefore； who had gained the battle was obliged to fight likewise against the adverse party： not in order to know whether the judgment was good or bad （for this judgment was out of the case； being reversed by the combat）； but to determine whether the demand was just or not； and it was on this new point they fought。 Thence proceeds our manner of pronouncing decrees； 〃The court annuls the appeal； the court annuls the appeal and the judgment against which the appeal was brought。〃 In effect； when the person who had made the challenge of false judgment happened to be overcome； the appeal was reversed： when he proved victorious； both the judgment and the appeal were reversed； then they were obliged to proceed to a new judgment。
This is so far true that； when the cause was tried by inquests； this manner of pronouncing did not take place： witness what M。 de la Roche Flavin says；＇252＇ namely； that the chamber of inquiry could not use this form at the beginning of its existence。
34。 In what Manner the Proceedings at Law became secret。 Duels had introduced a public form of proceeding； so that both the attack and the defence were equally known。 〃The witnesses；〃 says Beaumanoir；＇253＇ 〃ought to give their testimony in open court。〃
Boutillier's commentator says he had learned of ancient practitioners； and from some old manuscript law books； that criminal processes were anciently carried on in public； and in a form not very different from the public judgments of the Romans。 This was owing to their not knowing how to write； a thing in those days very common。 The usage of writing fixes the ideas； and keeps the secret； but when this usage is laid aside； nothing but the notoriety of the proceeding is capable of fixing those ideas。
And as uncertainty might easily arise in respect to what had been adjudicated by vassals； or pleaded before them； they could； therefore； refresh their memory＇254＇ every time they held a court by what were called proceedings on record。＇255＇ In that case； it was not allowed to challenge the witnesses to combat； for then there would be no end of disputes。
In process of time a private form of proceeding was introduced。 Everything before had been public； everything now became secret； the interrogatories； the informations； the re…examinations； the confronting of witnesses； the opinion of the attorney…general； and this is the present practice。 The first form of proceeding was suitable to the government of that time； as the new form was proper to the government since established。
Boutillier's commentator fixes the epoch of this change to the ordinance in the year 1539。 I am apt to believe that the change was made insensibly； and passed from one lordship to another； in proportion as the lords renounced the ancient form of judging； and that derived from the Institutions of St。 Louis was improved。 And indeed； Beaumanoir says＇256＇ that witnesses were publicly heard only in cases in which it was allowed to give pledges of battle： in others they were heard in secret； and their depositions were reduced to writing。 The proceedings became； therefore； secret； when they ceased to give pledges of battle。
35。 Of the Costs。 In f