While doing some research on for another topic, I came across some additional information that Master Ronald might find important. I first addressed Master Ronald's question here: A Brewing Problem
It is true that inferior brew could be subject to some steep fines, but this is not the only punishment that was used against sellers of inferior ale. Ale wives or brewers who sold bad brew could be subject to being placed in a cucking-stool, a seat with a hole cut in the bottom, as to publicly expose one's bare backside. The intention was public humiliation. The stool would be placed in public near the scene of the crime, where passersby could gawk and jeer. In some cases, the cucking-stool would be on wheels or carried around the village for maximum exposure.
The cucking-stool eventually became the dunking stool, in which the guilty party was tied to a chair that was attached to a lever, allowing for the chair, and the occupant, to be repeatedly dunked in a nearby river or lake. Whereas the cucking-stool merely caused embarassment, the dunking stool did occassionally result in drowning. In either case, these are punishments that a brewer or seller of ale would want to avoid.
In sum, if the threat of heavy fines would not dissuade you from selling a bad batch of ale, perhaps exposing your buttocks to the whole village or being dunked in a nearby river would.
As ever, Yours, in Service,
Ld. Dauid Eadwines sune
Footnotes:
1: Source: Old Time Punishments, William Andrews; 1890, pp. 2-3, 18.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Great sugggestions, from a great site
I have been a forum member of armourarchive.org for over 10 years. It is a fantastic resource for medieval fighting and armor, but it is more than that. All facets of medieval recreation are touched upon in the various forums and essays. I recently reached out to the forum members and they came up with some great suggestions, including medieval traffic laws and an in-depth analysis of the various trials by ordeal.
I think I will work on an article about medieval traffic laws, in an effort to find the medieval Larry H. Parker, in the short term, and try to give the trial by ordeal topic a far more lengthy look.
I am always looking for more topics and more contributors. If you are interested, let me know!
As ever, In Service,
Ld.Dauid Eadwines sune
I think I will work on an article about medieval traffic laws, in an effort to find the medieval Larry H. Parker, in the short term, and try to give the trial by ordeal topic a far more lengthy look.
I am always looking for more topics and more contributors. If you are interested, let me know!
As ever, In Service,
Ld.Dauid Eadwines sune
Thursday, March 15, 2012
While life marches on...
It has been far too long since I have delved into the world of the Medieval Legal Eagle. My young law clerks (my two oldest sons) have expressed an interest in returning to the fair Kingdom of Caid and witnessing the spectacle of the tourney. As a good and faithful subject of the Crown of Caid and the Barony of Altavia, I am using this as an opportunity to show my worth by resuming research on all subjects both medieval and legal.
Please, forward me your questions, post haste! I will endeavor to answer your queries in as complete and accurate a manner possible, short of exposing myself to liability.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours in Service,
Ld. Dauid Eadwines sune
Please, forward me your questions, post haste! I will endeavor to answer your queries in as complete and accurate a manner possible, short of exposing myself to liability.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours in Service,
Ld. Dauid Eadwines sune
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Officially Official
First, I'd like to apologize for my extended absence, and promise to get back on the proverbial horse asap.
Second, I say with great relief that I am now officially an attorney, having passed the California Bar Examination. This, of course, means that I will be a squire (or esquire) for the remainder of my natural life...
I hope to see you at an event in the near future, but until then, feel free to contact me with your medieval legal issues.
Yours in Service,
Ld. Dauid Eadwinnes sune
Second, I say with great relief that I am now officially an attorney, having passed the California Bar Examination. This, of course, means that I will be a squire (or esquire) for the remainder of my natural life...
I hope to see you at an event in the near future, but until then, feel free to contact me with your medieval legal issues.
Yours in Service,
Ld. Dauid Eadwinnes sune
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Now the Bar is finally over...
Well, I'm finally done preparing for and taking the Bar. Hopefully, I will never have that experience again!
I am looking for good topics for MLE and for an upcoming installment of my column in The Crown Prints, so send your ideas my way, please!!
I'd also still like to get the Legal Guild off the ground, so if you're interested, let me know.
Hopefully, I will have a new article up soon!
Dauid
I am looking for good topics for MLE and for an upcoming installment of my column in The Crown Prints, so send your ideas my way, please!!
I'd also still like to get the Legal Guild off the ground, so if you're interested, let me know.
Hopefully, I will have a new article up soon!
Dauid
Sunday, February 7, 2010
My CP Article
Let me know what you think!
Lord Dauid,
I am a noblewoman who lives in Cornwall in the late 13th century, and I have a question: Does a wife retain the rights to her husband’s property and goods if he dies?
“Mistress Independent”
Mistress –
While I have no doubt that you pose this question solely to be prepared for the unlikely scenario in which you are alive and your husband has shuffled off this mortal coil, I must warn whomever might use this information for, shall we say, motivational purposes, the punishment for murder in virtually all places and times is unpleasant and permanent. That being said, I will cover a few different scenarios that could possibly arise if your husband predeceases you.
Who owns the land in the first place?
Of course, any discussion about land rights has to begin with who really owns the land to start. It is entirely possible that the lord of the area has retained rights to the land you now possess. If that is indeed the case, if it is his will to do so (and often times it was), you would be evicted upon your husband’s death, lucky to have the clothes on your back. In many places, however, the rights to the land were retained by individuals, allowing for the property to be retained, under certain circumstances, by the widow. Not that this was a foregone conclusion. Widow’s estates in land were the subject of many legal disputes, even between mother and son. I shall leave any lament for the ungrateful nature of children to others.
If the husband owns the land, what happens?
Although a husband and a wife could not inherit from each other, because under the law they were one person, a method could be utilized that ensured a surviving spouse received all of the deceased spouse’s assets, or at least the benefit from them. This method was called “the use.” The husband could grant his lands to a foeffee to hold and use them as instructed in his will. If the wife was the instructed beneficiary in the husband’s will, she could receive the benefit of the land and bypass this restriction on passing land from husband to wife. But even if this was not used by your husband, you have significant protection under the law. A right of dower, usually one-third to one-half of the estate, was guaranteed to the widow to support her. This was the groom’s wedding gift to his bride, and was designed to ensure that a widow and her children were properly cared after if her husband died. This property reverted to the deceased husband’s family upon her death. The Magna Carta, considered to be the pinnacle of legal documents of the time, placed the widow’s right of dower above any existing creditors’ rights, ensuring she would be taken care of even if her husband died while in debt. You would also be able to retain the home where you and your husband lived, until you die or remarry. This right is called freebench. In addition, you might retake any dowry provided by her family in some circumstances. The remainder of the estate would fall to any male heirs. You would need to determine what agreement was made concerning you and your husband’s assets, what was provided by your husband for dower and what your father provided for dowry to have a better understanding of how much land you would continue to control.
Do you really want it anyway?
Many records indicate that widows prefer to have land be disposed of instead of attempting to manage it herself. In London at this time, St. Bartholomew’s Hospital offered to take over widows’ estates or assist in their disposition. Often, those who took advantage of these services did so because the family estate was overwhelmed with debt. Another reason for disposing of property was because the widow had sufficient wealth and did not want to expend the effort to maintain the property, instead wishing to retire to a life of leisure. Others would exchange their interest in property for services from the Hospital, such as taking care of them in their dotage or caring for their minor sons. They would then become Sisters of St. Bartholomew’s until their death. These services were well thought of in the community at the time, and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital was looked upon as benevolent, and not intended to take advantage of vulnerable women.
Of course, many other widows did choose to receive rents and manage their property after their husband died. In fact, some widows even wrote advice to other women as to how to handle such tasks. Advice for Noblewomen by Christine de Pisan (1405) and the household accounts of Dame Alice de Bryene (1412-1413) are two such examples. You, sounding like a strong-willed, intelligent and independent woman would most likely pursue this avenue, and I would suggest seeking out this fantastic advice in the sources listed below.
If you got the land, was it yours to dispose of as you wish?
It appears so, at least in the early 14th century. Records indicate that women could give inheritances to whomever they chose, even giving land to their daughter and her husband when she had a surviving son. As indicated above, the snubbed son might challenge the validity of the bequest in court. Until the fourteenth century, many court proceedings would take place in the ecclesiastical courts, who took responsibility for the welfare of widows, whom they considered to be among the oppressed, and in particular need of protection. Widows would also take their cases to Court of Common Pleas, a royal court. In fact, widows were considered among the most litigious in a fairly litigious time.
At this time, unmarried and widowed women had far higher legal standing than their married counterparts. Married women were subject to rule by their husbands and had no legal status. They could not bring suit, enter contracts or appear in court on civil matters, and although they could be sued, it would fall to their husbands to actually defend against the charges. Once widowed, most of these restrictions were lifted. This change in status was vital in order to allow for widows to administer their estates effectively. Of course, the legal landscape is a tricky one, fraught with dangers. Retaining competent counsel, such as myself, is vitally important.
Conclusion:
It is very likely that you would, as an aristocratic widow, retain at least a portion of the lands after your husband passes on. You would also most likely have the ability to retain and manage these lands. You would even have the ability to dispose of some of this land in any manner you see fit. I hope you do not find any inspiration in this counsel to in any way accelerate your husband’s death. In short, I wish you many, many years of wedded bliss.
Yours in Service,
Lord Dauid Eadwines sune
Sources:
1. Shahar, Shulamar. The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages. New York: Methuen and Company , 1983: p. 95-96
2. Cavell, Emma, “Aristocratic Women and the Medieval Welsh Frontier, The Shropshire Evidence”. Transactions of the RHS, Royal Historical Society, 2007. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRHT%2FRHT6_17%2FS0080440107000539a.pdf&code=c610c638dc6614c6b5d589f01343f27c
3. Steuer, Susan M.B. “Family Strategies in Medieval London: Financial Planning and the Urban Widow”, 1123-1473, http://www.illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL12/steuer.html
4. McCarthy, Connor. Marriage in Medieval England: Law, Literature and Practice. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2004
5. Amt, Emily, Editor. Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook. New York: Routlidge, 1993
6. Gies, Frances and Joseph, Women in the Middle Ages. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1978
7. Virgoe, Roger, Editor. Private Life in the Fifteenth Century. New York: Toucan Books Unlimited, 1989
8. Sheriden Walker, Sue. Wife and Widow in Medieval England. University of Michigan, 1993,
Lord Dauid,
I am a noblewoman who lives in Cornwall in the late 13th century, and I have a question: Does a wife retain the rights to her husband’s property and goods if he dies?
“Mistress Independent”
Mistress –
While I have no doubt that you pose this question solely to be prepared for the unlikely scenario in which you are alive and your husband has shuffled off this mortal coil, I must warn whomever might use this information for, shall we say, motivational purposes, the punishment for murder in virtually all places and times is unpleasant and permanent. That being said, I will cover a few different scenarios that could possibly arise if your husband predeceases you.
Who owns the land in the first place?
Of course, any discussion about land rights has to begin with who really owns the land to start. It is entirely possible that the lord of the area has retained rights to the land you now possess. If that is indeed the case, if it is his will to do so (and often times it was), you would be evicted upon your husband’s death, lucky to have the clothes on your back. In many places, however, the rights to the land were retained by individuals, allowing for the property to be retained, under certain circumstances, by the widow. Not that this was a foregone conclusion. Widow’s estates in land were the subject of many legal disputes, even between mother and son. I shall leave any lament for the ungrateful nature of children to others.
If the husband owns the land, what happens?
Although a husband and a wife could not inherit from each other, because under the law they were one person, a method could be utilized that ensured a surviving spouse received all of the deceased spouse’s assets, or at least the benefit from them. This method was called “the use.” The husband could grant his lands to a foeffee to hold and use them as instructed in his will. If the wife was the instructed beneficiary in the husband’s will, she could receive the benefit of the land and bypass this restriction on passing land from husband to wife. But even if this was not used by your husband, you have significant protection under the law. A right of dower, usually one-third to one-half of the estate, was guaranteed to the widow to support her. This was the groom’s wedding gift to his bride, and was designed to ensure that a widow and her children were properly cared after if her husband died. This property reverted to the deceased husband’s family upon her death. The Magna Carta, considered to be the pinnacle of legal documents of the time, placed the widow’s right of dower above any existing creditors’ rights, ensuring she would be taken care of even if her husband died while in debt. You would also be able to retain the home where you and your husband lived, until you die or remarry. This right is called freebench. In addition, you might retake any dowry provided by her family in some circumstances. The remainder of the estate would fall to any male heirs. You would need to determine what agreement was made concerning you and your husband’s assets, what was provided by your husband for dower and what your father provided for dowry to have a better understanding of how much land you would continue to control.
Do you really want it anyway?
Many records indicate that widows prefer to have land be disposed of instead of attempting to manage it herself. In London at this time, St. Bartholomew’s Hospital offered to take over widows’ estates or assist in their disposition. Often, those who took advantage of these services did so because the family estate was overwhelmed with debt. Another reason for disposing of property was because the widow had sufficient wealth and did not want to expend the effort to maintain the property, instead wishing to retire to a life of leisure. Others would exchange their interest in property for services from the Hospital, such as taking care of them in their dotage or caring for their minor sons. They would then become Sisters of St. Bartholomew’s until their death. These services were well thought of in the community at the time, and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital was looked upon as benevolent, and not intended to take advantage of vulnerable women.
Of course, many other widows did choose to receive rents and manage their property after their husband died. In fact, some widows even wrote advice to other women as to how to handle such tasks. Advice for Noblewomen by Christine de Pisan (1405) and the household accounts of Dame Alice de Bryene (1412-1413) are two such examples. You, sounding like a strong-willed, intelligent and independent woman would most likely pursue this avenue, and I would suggest seeking out this fantastic advice in the sources listed below.
If you got the land, was it yours to dispose of as you wish?
It appears so, at least in the early 14th century. Records indicate that women could give inheritances to whomever they chose, even giving land to their daughter and her husband when she had a surviving son. As indicated above, the snubbed son might challenge the validity of the bequest in court. Until the fourteenth century, many court proceedings would take place in the ecclesiastical courts, who took responsibility for the welfare of widows, whom they considered to be among the oppressed, and in particular need of protection. Widows would also take their cases to Court of Common Pleas, a royal court. In fact, widows were considered among the most litigious in a fairly litigious time.
At this time, unmarried and widowed women had far higher legal standing than their married counterparts. Married women were subject to rule by their husbands and had no legal status. They could not bring suit, enter contracts or appear in court on civil matters, and although they could be sued, it would fall to their husbands to actually defend against the charges. Once widowed, most of these restrictions were lifted. This change in status was vital in order to allow for widows to administer their estates effectively. Of course, the legal landscape is a tricky one, fraught with dangers. Retaining competent counsel, such as myself, is vitally important.
Conclusion:
It is very likely that you would, as an aristocratic widow, retain at least a portion of the lands after your husband passes on. You would also most likely have the ability to retain and manage these lands. You would even have the ability to dispose of some of this land in any manner you see fit. I hope you do not find any inspiration in this counsel to in any way accelerate your husband’s death. In short, I wish you many, many years of wedded bliss.
Yours in Service,
Lord Dauid Eadwines sune
Sources:
1. Shahar, Shulamar. The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages. New York: Methuen and Company , 1983: p. 95-96
2. Cavell, Emma, “Aristocratic Women and the Medieval Welsh Frontier, The Shropshire Evidence”. Transactions of the RHS, Royal Historical Society, 2007. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRHT%2FRHT6_17%2FS0080440107000539a.pdf&code=c610c638dc6614c6b5d589f01343f27c
3. Steuer, Susan M.B. “Family Strategies in Medieval London: Financial Planning and the Urban Widow”, 1123-1473, http://www.illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL12/steuer.html
4. McCarthy, Connor. Marriage in Medieval England: Law, Literature and Practice. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2004
5. Amt, Emily, Editor. Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook. New York: Routlidge, 1993
6. Gies, Frances and Joseph, Women in the Middle Ages. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1978
7. Virgoe, Roger, Editor. Private Life in the Fifteenth Century. New York: Toucan Books Unlimited, 1989
8. Sheriden Walker, Sue. Wife and Widow in Medieval England. University of Michigan, 1993,
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
I've been published
Well, my first article has been published in Crown Prints, under the column The Prudent Jurist. If you aren't in Caid, I will be posting it here in a few weeks. If you do have it, let me know what you think! I've been asked to write more articles, so I'm counting on you to give me great topics. Please?!?
Monday, December 7, 2009
First Crown Prints article submitted
It looks like I'll have an article posted in January's Crown Prints, Caid's kingdom newsletter. The column will be called "The Prudent Jurist" and will be in the same format as here on Medieval Legal Eagle. Let me know what you think!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
First Caid Legal Guild meeting
We are trying to have a first meeting at Calafia Anniversary on November 21st. I am planning to bring my small, white canvas sunshade, so look for it!
I haven't forgotten about you, I promise...
Over the next week or so, I will be working on an article for The Crown Prints, and I won't be posting any new letters until I finish. I'll let the gentle who I am using their question that (hopefully) it will be in January's Crown Prints.
Dauid
Dauid
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Highway Robbery - Part Deux
*Additional correspondence with James gave rise to other potential legal issues, discussed below.
Dauid -
While your information is, well, informative for some circumstances, my situation, living on the Border of Scotland and England, might expose me to other laws. What other issues should I be concerned with?
James the Curious
Curious James-
You are quite correct, and I apologize for my incomplete and slightly off-topic answer to your inquiry. As you know, the border of Scotland and England was governed by a special set of laws,called Border Laws.1 These laws were specifically created to deal with the circumstances when a subject of one country would cross the border into the other, commit a crime, then pass back into their own country. These lawless men, called reivers, often travelled in groups to conduct raids across the border.2 The word "reive" comes from the English, meaning "to rob or plunder." 3After they returned to their own country, they would not be held responsible for their actions in the other country. This led to virtual lawlessness along the Scotland/England border.
To combat this rampant lawlessness, Border Laws were created, in which offenders who committed crimes and went back across the border would be brought back to a nearby town adjacent to the border to face trial. Guilt or innocence was determined by trial by combat.3 These trials would be conducted on the Day of Truce, where wardens from each side of the border would meet to conduct trials concerning cross-border incidents.4 The wardens were very distrustful of their cross-border counterpart, but by the use of formalities, including swearing of "Assurances" that both sides would have safe conduct during the Day of Truce.5
As you correctly pointed out in our correspondence, many times the fugitives sought by the wardens could not be located, or was protected and hidden by his clan to prevent capture. At the appointed time and place, the accused and the accuser would gather to do battle to settle the matter.6 If the accuser failed to show up, the matter would be closed. If a witness who accused a person later recanted, the accused could then seek justice against the witness, via combat, of course.
Taking these factors into consideration, my previous hypothetical advice of potentially looking for fairer climes stands.
I hope this additional information proves useful.
Yours in Service,
Lord Dauid Eadwines sune
Footnotes:
1: http://ukirishhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/border_laws_of_medieval_britain
2: http://www.nwlink.com/~scotlass/border.htm#THE BORDER REIVER
3: merriam-webster.com
4: http://modern-british-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/law_on_the_englishscottish_border
5:http://modern-british-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/law_on_the_englishscottish_border
6: Trial by Combat, George Neilson 1891 pp. 127-128(available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=4VEYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA126&dq=leges+marchiarum&as_brr=1&ei=9Pr6StT9BY7CkASFro2lDw#v=onepage&q=leges%20marchiarum&f=false)
Dauid -
While your information is, well, informative for some circumstances, my situation, living on the Border of Scotland and England, might expose me to other laws. What other issues should I be concerned with?
James the Curious
Curious James-
You are quite correct, and I apologize for my incomplete and slightly off-topic answer to your inquiry. As you know, the border of Scotland and England was governed by a special set of laws,called Border Laws.1 These laws were specifically created to deal with the circumstances when a subject of one country would cross the border into the other, commit a crime, then pass back into their own country. These lawless men, called reivers, often travelled in groups to conduct raids across the border.2 The word "reive" comes from the English, meaning "to rob or plunder." 3After they returned to their own country, they would not be held responsible for their actions in the other country. This led to virtual lawlessness along the Scotland/England border.
To combat this rampant lawlessness, Border Laws were created, in which offenders who committed crimes and went back across the border would be brought back to a nearby town adjacent to the border to face trial. Guilt or innocence was determined by trial by combat.3 These trials would be conducted on the Day of Truce, where wardens from each side of the border would meet to conduct trials concerning cross-border incidents.4 The wardens were very distrustful of their cross-border counterpart, but by the use of formalities, including swearing of "Assurances" that both sides would have safe conduct during the Day of Truce.5
As you correctly pointed out in our correspondence, many times the fugitives sought by the wardens could not be located, or was protected and hidden by his clan to prevent capture. At the appointed time and place, the accused and the accuser would gather to do battle to settle the matter.6 If the accuser failed to show up, the matter would be closed. If a witness who accused a person later recanted, the accused could then seek justice against the witness, via combat, of course.
Taking these factors into consideration, my previous hypothetical advice of potentially looking for fairer climes stands.
I hope this additional information proves useful.
Yours in Service,
Lord Dauid Eadwines sune
Footnotes:
1: http://ukirishhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/border_laws_of_medieval_britain
2: http://www.nwlink.com/~scotlass/border.htm#THE BORDER REIVER
3: merriam-webster.com
4: http://modern-british-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/law_on_the_englishscottish_border
5:http://modern-british-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/law_on_the_englishscottish_border
6: Trial by Combat, George Neilson 1891 pp. 127-128(available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=4VEYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA126&dq=leges+marchiarum&as_brr=1&ei=9Pr6StT9BY7CkASFro2lDw#v=onepage&q=leges%20marchiarum&f=false)
Monday, November 9, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
I'm Ba-ack...
After 4 days with my family, I'm ready to go back to work. I will be posting in the next day or so a legal conundrum from "James the Curious." Please, don't hesitate to contact me with your legal issues. Just a note: I do accept training in other arts and sciences, as well as garb, as payment for my services. Just sayin'.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Caid's Legal Guild!
Caid's Legal Guild is forming now! All those who wish to further their study of medieval legal issues is encouraged to join. No previous legal experience or education necessary!! Please contact me at sinistersword@gmail.com if you are interested. It is my hope to organize an informal meeting at an upcoming event, to be named later.
Flying the coop for a few days
Just a quick note to let anyone who sends request for information over the next few days: I will be unavailable to respond to your requests until Monday. In the meantime, send your request and DON'T SAY ANYTHING!! When I return, I will reply to let you know I have received your missive, and will attempt a rough estimate on when I can respond.
Also, be advised that your legal question might be answered via Caid's Kingdom Newsletter, The Crown Prints. If answered in this manner, it will not be posted to Medieval Legal Eagle until after it has been published. I will, of course, let you know as soon as possible that this is where your question will be answered.
Also, be advised that your legal question might be answered via Caid's Kingdom Newsletter, The Crown Prints. If answered in this manner, it will not be posted to Medieval Legal Eagle until after it has been published. I will, of course, let you know as soon as possible that this is where your question will be answered.
Monday, November 2, 2009
A brewing problem?
Lord Dauid –
I am a brewer of no small fame and my brews are in high demand. I know my quality is par excellence, but do I have to worry about any legal issues? After all, the last thing I wish is to brew up trouble.
“Master Ronald”
Dear Master Ronald –
You are right to be concerned, if you are an English subject at least. Your trade, selling Ale and the like, falls under the jurisdiction of the Court Leet, also called frankpledge. 1There were three types of secular courts in Medieval England; Assizes, Court Baron and Court Leet, although by the 13th century, Court Baron and Court Leet were effectively interchangeable. This term is different than the popular Knowne World conception of Court Baron, so beware of unscrupulous types who have been awarded a Court Barony who attempt to use their station to get free drink. Instead, Court Baron is a type of court, not a person. Court Baron often dealt with local issues of the manor, such as admitting new tenants to the land. Most other issues, including minor crimes, civil issues, and various court officers would be handled by the Court Leet, whereas major crimes would be handled by Assizes, roaming courts that would hear criminal cases a limited number of times during the year.2 Among the Court Leet’s many responsibilities were adjudicating issues concerning the quality of food and drink. To do so, various officials would be appointed. Carniters, also known as meat tasters, were responsible for the quality of meat in the local area. Likewise, Bread Tasters ensured that bread being sold was not more sawdust than grain.3
The official of most concern to you is called the Ale Conner, or ale taster. It is the Ale Conner’s job to make sure that the ale you sell is not too weak or of inferior quality, as well as assign a tax according to the strength of the ale. According to legend, there are various methods that the Ale Conner can do this. One more interesting method is to pour some ale on a wooden bench and sit on the puddle of ale while wearing leather pants. If, after waiting for 30 minutes, he sticks to the bench, there is too much sugar in the ale, and is thus impure. An alternative thought was that if the pants did not stick, the ale was too thin and unworthy of the courts seal of approval. The more likely method of checking the quality and strength of the ale was to drink a small amount. In London as of 1419, the Ale Conner had to swear an oath that he wouldn’t let ale brewers sell above a certain price, and if after tasting the ale, would ensure that the price matched the quality.4
The fines for selling weakened ale could be steep. For selling as few as 3 times before tasting by the Ale Conner, you could be fined 12 pence. This was not a rare occurrence, either. Many brewers have been fined with the only explanation being the ale was “too weak” or “not of good enough quality.” 5
I hope that I have impressed upon you the importance of getting your ale approved by your local Ale Conner. Alas that I do not live in your Barony, or I would be most anxious to be appointed Ale Conner. In fact, if Their Excellencies in my home Barony of Altavia require the services of an Ale Conner, I humbly offer my services.
Yours in Service,
Lord Dauid Eadwines sune
Footnotes
1: For more information on frankpledge, see The Frankpledge System by William Alfred Morris, PhD. 1910, available free of copyright at http://www.archive.org/details/frankpledgesyste00morriala; see also A Tretese on Copyhold, Customary Freehold and Ancient Demense Tenure with the Jurisdiction of Courts Baron and Courts Leet by John Scriven, Esq., Sergent at Law, Volume II, 1834, available free of copyright at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MfAyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
2: A more thorough description of the various courts and their jurisdictions will be discussed in the future.
3: Source: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=63777
4: Source: A History of Beer and Brewing by Ian Spencer Hornsey, Cambridge 2003 p. 285
5: Source: Life in a Medieval Village, Francis and Joseph Gies, New York 1990 pp. 182-183
I am a brewer of no small fame and my brews are in high demand. I know my quality is par excellence, but do I have to worry about any legal issues? After all, the last thing I wish is to brew up trouble.
“Master Ronald”
Dear Master Ronald –
You are right to be concerned, if you are an English subject at least. Your trade, selling Ale and the like, falls under the jurisdiction of the Court Leet, also called frankpledge. 1There were three types of secular courts in Medieval England; Assizes, Court Baron and Court Leet, although by the 13th century, Court Baron and Court Leet were effectively interchangeable. This term is different than the popular Knowne World conception of Court Baron, so beware of unscrupulous types who have been awarded a Court Barony who attempt to use their station to get free drink. Instead, Court Baron is a type of court, not a person. Court Baron often dealt with local issues of the manor, such as admitting new tenants to the land. Most other issues, including minor crimes, civil issues, and various court officers would be handled by the Court Leet, whereas major crimes would be handled by Assizes, roaming courts that would hear criminal cases a limited number of times during the year.2 Among the Court Leet’s many responsibilities were adjudicating issues concerning the quality of food and drink. To do so, various officials would be appointed. Carniters, also known as meat tasters, were responsible for the quality of meat in the local area. Likewise, Bread Tasters ensured that bread being sold was not more sawdust than grain.3
The official of most concern to you is called the Ale Conner, or ale taster. It is the Ale Conner’s job to make sure that the ale you sell is not too weak or of inferior quality, as well as assign a tax according to the strength of the ale. According to legend, there are various methods that the Ale Conner can do this. One more interesting method is to pour some ale on a wooden bench and sit on the puddle of ale while wearing leather pants. If, after waiting for 30 minutes, he sticks to the bench, there is too much sugar in the ale, and is thus impure. An alternative thought was that if the pants did not stick, the ale was too thin and unworthy of the courts seal of approval. The more likely method of checking the quality and strength of the ale was to drink a small amount. In London as of 1419, the Ale Conner had to swear an oath that he wouldn’t let ale brewers sell above a certain price, and if after tasting the ale, would ensure that the price matched the quality.4
The fines for selling weakened ale could be steep. For selling as few as 3 times before tasting by the Ale Conner, you could be fined 12 pence. This was not a rare occurrence, either. Many brewers have been fined with the only explanation being the ale was “too weak” or “not of good enough quality.” 5
I hope that I have impressed upon you the importance of getting your ale approved by your local Ale Conner. Alas that I do not live in your Barony, or I would be most anxious to be appointed Ale Conner. In fact, if Their Excellencies in my home Barony of Altavia require the services of an Ale Conner, I humbly offer my services.
Yours in Service,
Lord Dauid Eadwines sune
Footnotes
1: For more information on frankpledge, see The Frankpledge System by William Alfred Morris, PhD. 1910, available free of copyright at http://www.archive.org/details/frankpledgesyste00morriala; see also A Tretese on Copyhold, Customary Freehold and Ancient Demense Tenure with the Jurisdiction of Courts Baron and Courts Leet by John Scriven, Esq., Sergent at Law, Volume II, 1834, available free of copyright at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MfAyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
2: A more thorough description of the various courts and their jurisdictions will be discussed in the future.
3: Source: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=63777
4: Source: A History of Beer and Brewing by Ian Spencer Hornsey, Cambridge 2003 p. 285
5: Source: Life in a Medieval Village, Francis and Joseph Gies, New York 1990 pp. 182-183
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)