Highway robbery?

Dauid,
So, totally like speculative, of academic curiosity only, let's say I was to run into some annoying fellow on the open road, and quite justifiably, seeing as he was so annoying, I was to beat him liberally about the head and shoulders. Once I go through the body looking for loose change and such, would I have to split that with my worthless partner, who wasn't even there, didn't help, and wouldn't know, or can I keep it all to help pay off my bookie?
James the Curious

Curious James –
Your inquiry raises many legal questions. In an endeavor to provide complete counsel, I will address each issue separately.

Highway robbery : I believe you are from Scotland in the late 13th century. From your description of the events, it appears that you beat someone “liberally about the head and shoulders.” After beating him, you proceeded to take any coin you were able to find. This series of events would most assuredly earn you a new title. Depending on whether you traveled on foot or by horseback, you would now be called a footpad or highwayman.1 These are not, of course, flattering titles, but instead descriptors as one who engages in robbery. It pains me to note that another term used was “high lawyer.” 2 You certainly are not the first noble to travel down this path, though most who were considered robbers committed crimes during periods of anarchy, such as during the civil unrest during the reign of King Stephen. 3

Robbery was considered one of the four crimes exclusively reserved for the King’s Court; rape, robbery, murder and treason, with murder being by far the most common crime.4 If we can consider the Pleas of the Crown of the borough of Oxford, before Salomon de Roff, Richard de Boyland, Robert Fulcon, Roger Loveday, and Geoffrey de Pycheford, itinerant justices at Oxford on 14 January 1285 to be representative, the good news is robbers were not necessarily killed outright, though it would have been the more probable punishment. The bad news is that not one listed as convicted of Robbery survived their stay in prison.5 Others were allowed to be “purged by water,” 6

Had you merely beat this hypothetical person without taking his money, a completely different set of rules would apply, with monetary payment to the victim and a fine being the most probable outcome. I would be happy to discuss that circumstance in the future.

Splitting money with your worthless partner: To properly address this issue, I would want to know what the nature of your partnership consists of. As a general principle, however, it is a long-held legal axiom that contracts to engage in illegal activity are not enforceable. As, hypothetically, of course, you have engaged in the criminal act of highway robbery, your partner could not seek to force you to share your ill-gotten gains through a court of law. Whether he might resort to other ways of “encouragement” might be something to consider when making your decision to include him in your windfall.

Gambling: By “bookie,” I presume you are referring to those individuals who take wagers on various events, paying those who are successful and collecting from those who lady luck does not smile upon. In Scotland during the 13th Century, gambling took many forms, from dice to chess, from cock fighting to bull baiting. 7 Using your coin to settle a debt would not be an unwise use of your coin, as to avoid being brought to court to enforce your debt. However, considering the other issues you face, hypothetically, owing money to a “bookie” might be the least of your problems.

Expeditious departure: Throughout the middle ages, many persons who committed crimes of the type you hypothesize tended to make themselves scarce when charges were levied.8 While a flight from justice did not stop the King’s court from assigning guilt, it did prevent the punishment portion of the trial. Had you done what you hypothetically describe, a change of venue might be prudent. As an added bonus, any money owed to a partner or a bookie would be effectively discharged. Of course, I could not recommend such action, as it would be contrary to upholding the law.

I hope this information has quenched your curiosity about such vile and despicable acts. Surely one as noble and good-hearted as yourself was merely interested on learning about those less virtuous. Of course, if I happen to hear that you have left for more comfortable climes elsewhere, I certainly wish you all the best.

Yours in Service,
Lord Dauid Eadwines sune

Footnotes
1: Samuel Rid, Martin Markall, Beadle of Bridewell, ed. A. V. Judges in The Elizabethan Underworld (London, George Routledge, 1930)
2: Id.
3: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle , 1154
4: The London Eyre of 1276 – Edited by Martin Weinbaum, 1976 – online at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=156
5: Transcription by Brian Twyne, 17th century, of a document once among the Public Records listed on http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/culture/towns/florilegium/government/gvjust22.html
6: Pleas Before the Justices in Eyre in the Reign of King John – 1201 A.D. online at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/seth/pleas-cornish.html
7: http://www.medieval-life.net/games.htm
8: See footnotes 4 and 6 for descriptions of people prosecuted in absentia.