No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2012
The Anglo-Saxon legal procedure has failed to attract the attention either of the antiquary or the lawyer. The causes of this neglect, however, do not readily suggest themselves. As a practice it must have had merit, for amongst other germs which fructified under the fosterage of the Norman we find in it that of the English jury in a state of inception prompt for further development. With such bearings upon the future, this legal procedure may, I think, be reasonably regarded as a subject worthy of antiquarian research.
page 207 note a Cod. Diplom. vol. iii. p. 292.
page 208 note a See the expression in Ine's Laws, c. 8. (Ancient Laws and Institutes published by the Record Commission.)
page 208 note b In the laws of Hlothhære and Eadric (c. 8) it is said, “If a man make plaint against another in a suit, and he cite (moot) the man to a methel or a thing,” &c. (Gif man oðerne sace tihte, and he ðane mannan mote an meðle oþþe an þinge). Here the plaint precedes the citation or summons. In the Book of Ely (p. 150 of edit. London, 1848), Brihtnoth the ealdorman orders a defendant to be summoned (jussit summoneri). These two passages being read together support the assertion in the text.
page 208 note c Besides the ordinary sittings of the County Court, which were five in number, three being held in cities and two in the country, the ealdorman could appoint as many others as should be necessary. (Cnut's Laws, Secular, c. 18, buton hit oftor neod si.)
page 208 note d Book of Ely, (ed. Stewart) p. 139. “Nee mora, fit maxima concio, summonetur Wlnothus (defendant) ad placitum, summonentur et filii Bogan (plaintiffs).” See p. 138, ibid.
page 208 note e Book of Ely (ibidem). I attribute the expression to an Anglo-Saxon lawyer advisedly. The writer, who in this chronicle describes Anglo-Saxon law-suits, shows the technical knowledge of a lawyer, and by his use of Anglo-Saxon inflections must have been an Anglo-Saxon, and not an Englishman writing post Conquestum.
page 209 note a Cod. Dipl. vol. iii. p. 292. ”Then man assigned Wynflæd that she must geahnian,” &c.
page 209 note b Ibid, and Cnut's Laws, Secular, cc. 22.
page 209 note c Cnut, as above.
page 209 note d Book of Ely, p. 139: “Sed filii Bogan (plaintiffs) noluerunt suscipere juramentum, statuerunt itaque omnes ut Wlnothus Bluntesham haberet.”
page 209 note e Book of Ely, pp. 130, 139, “produxit, adduxit;” Cod. Dipl. as above, Wynflæd “led the ahnung;” Confessionale Ecgberti, c. 34, “Se ðe bið on aðe gelædd,” &c.
page 209 note f Book of Ely, p. 141, “Qua de causa lis et altercatio permaxima orta est, et multos annos habita, inter eos ;” and (ibid.) “res etenim eadem multis annis in lite versabatur.”
page 210 note a See oaths in Thorpe's Laws. Also Cnut's Laws, Secular, c. 23.
page 210 note b Book of Ely, p. 150. The ealdorman “veniens ad Dittune, cœpit ibi disserere et enarrare causas et calumpnias, conventiones, et pacta infracta, quæ habuit super eum, per testimonium multorum legalium hominum.” See also a clearer instance at p. 130, “producti ergo testes …. perhibuerunt testimonium, &c. Then follow details of evidence.
page 210 note c Cod. Dipl. vol. iii. p. 293. “Then she led the ahnung, &c. until all the full oath were forth come both in men and women.” Book of Ely, p. 139 : “Wlnothus adduxit secum illuc perplures viros fideles, scilicet omnes meliores de vi. hundredis …. Tune Wlnothus adduxit fideles viros plusquam mille ut per juramentum illorum sibi vindicarent eandem terram.” Wlnothus was defendant.
page 210 note d This may be inferred from the fact of the law requiring the full oath to be adduced by the plaintiff.
page 210 note e See the Cod. Dipl. as above. Here the plaintiff had taken the fore-oath, and had led up the full number of witnesses, who swore with her. “Then quoth the witan, who were there, that it were better that man let (the defendant's) oath away than that man should give it, because thereafter there would be no friendship,” &c. The judgment of the Court was that the land should be restored to the plaintiff.
page 210 note f Cod. Dipl. as above. Book of Ely, p. 150. “Cui, omnia illata deneganti et contradicenti, statuerunt ut cum jure jurando se purgaret; quod cum facere nequibat, nec, qui secum jurare debuerant, habere poterat, decretum est, ut eo expulso Brihtnothus alderman utrisque hydis uteretur.”
page 211 note a See oaths in the Laws.
page 211 note b This is to be inferred, as without it there could be no defence. It is supported by the analogy of the function of the other oath—the criminal oath. If the accused's witnesses all swore consentiently, the accused was acquitted. If they did not so do, the oath burst, end the accused was convicted. See Æthelred's Domas, c. 1.
page 211 note c Book of Ely passim.
page 211 note d Hlothhære and Eadric's Laws, c. 10; Book of Ely, p. 137: “Tune judicantes statuerunt, ut abbas suam terram cum palude et piscatione habere deberet; statuerunt etiam ut Begmundus et cognati præfatæ viduæ suum piscem de vi annis abbati solverent et regi forisfacturam darent; statuerunt quoque ut si sponte sua hoc reddere nollent, captione suæ pecuniæ constricti justificarentur.” See an instance of the County Court Judges assessing damages in their judgment in the Book of Ely, p. 123.
page 211 note e Ine's Laws, c. 62. Æfred's Laws, c. 22. The latter has reference to a criminal prosecution. See the use of the word “yppe” in Pœnitentiali Ecgberti, additam. c. 2.
page 211 note f Ine's Laws, c. 62.
page 212 note a See oaths in Laws.
page 212 note b Ordinance respecting the Dunsætas, c. 6.
page 212 note c Ælfred and Guthrum's Peace, c. 3, “gif he hine ladian dyrre.”
page 212 note d The Laws, passim.
page 212 note e See oath in Laws.
page 212 note f Ine, c. 54.
page 212 note g Ine, c. 54; Dunsætas, c. 6; Æthelred's Domas, c. 13.
page 213 note a Æthelred's Domas, c. 13; Æthelstan's Laws, c. 9; Laws of the Northumbrian Priests, cc. 51, 52, 53.
page 213 note b Hlothhære and Eadric, c. 5. This is a direct authority; but the general rule of law is also inferrible from the sub-rule that where the accused was infamis the oath was to be summoned out of several hundreds. Cnut's Laws, c. 22.
page 213 note c Ine's Laws, c. 30, “by his own were.” But this is stated more explicitly in the Laws of the Northumbrian Priests, cc. 51, 52, 53; and Wihtræd, c. 21. Ælfred and Guthrum's Peace, c. 3.
page 213 note d See post.
page 213 note e “Odium vel aliquid competens.” Hen. I. L.L. c. 31, § 8 ; Æthelstan, c. 10. (Perjury.)
page 213 note f Dunsætas c. 6. Cnut, c. 66. See also LL. Hen. I. c. 31, s. 6, 7, 8. These sections refer to the jury.
page 213 note g See oaths in Laws; Thorpe, vol. i. p. 181. The position of this oath, as following those of the prosecutor and the accused, shows it to be that of the jury.
page 213 note h Æthelred's Domas, c. 13.
page 214 note a Eadward, c. 3; Dunsætas, cc. 4 and 6. The latter authority regards the oath as being torn, but the metaphor is not very dissimilar.
page 214 note b Wihtræd, c. 21; Domas of Æthelred, c. 13. The first authority declares the verdict to be uncontrovertible, the other that the “doom” of the jury shall stand.
page 214 note c This assertion is very much strengthened by the interesting fact that the jury, as the Anglo-Saxons understood it, is to be found in the early Welsh Laws.
page 215 note a Cod. 4, tit. 20; de Testibus, s. 16; Novell de Test. 90. c. 8.
page 215 note b Accordingly great facilities were afforded for giving evidence in civil matters. The judge who tried the cause might take the evidence orally or he might read at the trial evidence taken elsewhere, the latter consisting of depositions or voluntary affidavits made before any magistratus within whose provinces or territories the witnesses might be. Cod. 4, 20, pp. 2, 15, and 20; ibid. tit. 21, p, 18. See the expressions used in Dig. 22, tit. 5, p. 3, § 4, and p. 22. See also Quinctilian, Instit, Orat. 5, 7.
page 215 note c See Calvin's Lex. Jurid. and Festus sub voce Vadem.
page 215 note d Paulus in Dig. 48, tit. 2, cc. 3 and 6; ibid. tit. 5, c. 11, p. 6; Cod. 9, tit. 2, c. 8.
page 215 note e Dig. 48, tit. 3, c. 1; and the following capita.
page 215 note f Dig. 48, tit. 18, c. 18, p. 2.
page 215 note g Symmachi Epist, lib. 10, ep. ult.
page 215 note h See the expression repeated, Dig. 48, tit. 1. c. 5; ibid. tit. 4, c. 11; ibid. tit. 17, c. 1, p. 3, c. 5. So Apuleius, de Mundo, c. 35, “Reus purgandi se necessitate, insectandi studio accusator venit.”
page 216 note a That the Roman system rendered the truth attainable we are assured by a Roman subject and citizen. Apuleius (De Magia) says, “Quippe insimulari quivis innocens potest, revinci nisi nocens non potest.”
page 216 note b Passim in the Laws: St. Cyprian, Epist. 54: “Cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis …. ut unius cujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum.”
page 216 note c Cod. 9, tit. 41, c. 8.
page 216 note d Cod. Theod. 11, tit. 39, c. 13; and Godefroye's learned and interesting note; Cod. 4, c. 20, pp. 11, 16; Novell, 90, p. 8; Symmach, ante. For an exception to the rule see Pliny's Letters, lib. 5, ep. 20; see also Domat (Strahan's translation), vol. i. p. 451. Dr. Smith is thus wrong in stating generally that there was no subpœna before Justinian (Classical Dictionary, p. 529).
page 216 note e See the expressions used by the Council of Carthage quoted by Godefroye in his note to Cod. Theod. 11, tit. 39, c, 8, “in judicium ad testimonium devocari eum quia cognitor vel præsens fuerit.”
page 216 note f Cod. 4, tit. 20, p. 11. That the evidence taken at a criminal trial was considered one context only—the result of the judicial inquiry—appears by the expressions of Constantine (Cod. Theod. 11, tit. 36, c. 1): “Quod si reus …. partem, pro defensione sui ex testibus quæstioneque propositâ, possit arripere parte vero obrui, accusarique videatur,” &c.
page 216 note g Dig. 48, tit. 18, c. 1, p. 21; Cod. 4, tit 20, p. 14, “ad judicantis intrare secretum.”
page 216 note h Justinian's recital in Cod. 4, tit. 20, p. 16.
page 217 note a Dig. 22, tit. 5, p. 1, § 2; ibid. p. 12, p. 3, § 2.
page 217 note b Cod. 4, tit. 20, p. 9.
page 217 note c Cod. 4, c. 20, p. 15.
page 217 note d Dig. 22, tit. 5, p. 3, § 5.
page 217 note e Cod. Theod. 9, tit. 40, c. 1.
page 217 note f Dig. 48, tit. 18, c. 1, pp. 17.
page 217 note g Dig. 22, tit. 5, c. 13.
page 217 note h Domat, vol. i. p. 452 (Strahan's translation), and Dr. Smith's Dictionary. See also Dig. 12, tit. 2, p. 34.
page 218 note a See Liber Albus (Riley's edition), pp. 56, 57, 58.