the spirit of laws-第132部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

　also　requisite　that　a　woman　should　be　authorised　by　her　baron；　that　is；　by　her　husband；　to　challenge；　but　she　might　be　challenged　without　this　authority。＇154＇

If　either　the　challenger　or　the　person　challenged　were　under　fifteen　years　of　age；　there　could　be　no　combat。＇155＇　They　might　order　it；　indeed；　in　disputes　relating　to　orphans　when　their　guardians　or　trustees　were　willing　to　run　the　risk　of　this　procedure。

The　cases　in　which　a　bondman　was　allowed　to　fight　are；　I　think；　as　follows。　He　was　allowed　to　fight　another　bondman；　to　fight　a　freedman；　or　even　a　gentleman；　in　case　he　were　challenged；　but　if　he　himself　challenged；　the　other　might　refuse　to　fight；　and　even　the　bondman's　lord　had　a　right　to　take　him　out　of　the　court。＇156＇　The　bondman　might　by　his　lord's　charter　or　by　usage　fight　with　any　freeman；＇157＇　and　the　church　claimed　this　right　for　her　bondmen＇158＇　as　a　mark　of　respect　due　to　her　by　the　laity。＇159＇

26。　On　the　judiciary　Combat　between　one　of　the　Parties　and　one　of　the　Witnesses。　Beaumanoir　informs　us＇160＇　that　a　person　who　saw　a　witness　going　to　swear　against　him　might　elude　the　other　by　telling　the　judges　that　his　adversary　produced　a　false　and　slandering　witness；　and　if　the　witness　was　willing　to　maintain　the　quarrel；　he　gave　pledges　of　battle。　The　inquiry　was　no　longer　the　question；　for　if　the　witness　was　overcome；　it　was　decided　that　the　adversary　had　produced　a　false　witness；　and　he　lost　his　cause。

It　was　necessary　that　the　second　witness　should　not　be　heard；　for　if　he　had　made　his　attestation；　the　affair　would　have　been　decided　by　the　deposition　of　two　witnesses。　But　by　staying　the　second；　the　deposition　of　the　first　witness　became　void。

The　second　witness　being　thus　rejected；　the　party　was　not　allowed　to　produce　any　others；　but　he　lost　his　cause；　in　case；　however；　there　had　been　no　pledges　of　battle；　he　might　produce　other　witnesses。

Beaumanoir　observes＇161＇　that　the　witness　might　say　to　the　party　he　appeared　for；　before　he　made　his　deposition：　〃I　do　not　care　to　fight　for　your　quarrel；　nor　to　enter　into　any　debate；　but　if　you　are　willing　to　stand　by　me；　I　am　ready　to　tell　the　truth。〃　The　party　was　then　obliged　to　fight　for　the　witness；　and　if　he　happened　to　be　overcome；　he　did　not　lose　his　cause；＇162＇　but　the　witness　was　rejected。

This；　I　believe；　was　a　modification　of　the　ancient　custom；　and　what　makes　me　think　so　is　that　we　find　this　usage　of　challenging　the　witnesses　established　in　the　laws　of　the　Bavarians＇163＇　and　Burgundians＇164＇　without　any　restriction。

I　have　already　made　mention　of　the　constitution　of　Gundebald；　against　which　Agobard＇165＇　and　St。　Avitus＇166＇　made　such　loud　complaints。　〃When　the　accused；〃　says　this　prince；　〃produces　witnesses　to　swear　that　he　has　not　committed　the　crime；　the　accuser　may　challenge　one　of　the　witnesses　to　a　combat；　for　it　is　very　just　that　the　person　who　has　offered　to　swear；　and　has　declared　that　he　was　certain　of　the　truth；　should　make　no　difficulty　of　maintaining　it　by　combat。〃　Thus　the　witnesses　were　deprived　by　this　king　of　every　kind　of　subterfuge　to　avoid　the　judiciary　combat。

27。　Of　the　judicial　Combat　between　one　of　the　Parties　and　one　of　the　Lords'　Peers。　Appeal　of　false　Judgment。　As　the　nature　of　judicial　combats　was　to　terminate　the　affair　for　ever；　and　was　incompatible　with　a　new　judgment　and　new　prosecutions；＇167＇　an　appeal；　such　as　is　established　by　the　Roman　and　Canon　laws；　that　is；　to　a　superior　court　in　order　to　rejudge　the　proceedings　of　an　inferior；　was　a　thing　unknown　in　France。

This　is　a　form　of　proceeding　to　which　a　warlike　nation；　governed　solely　by　the　point　of　honour；　was　quite　a　stranger；　and　agreeably　to　this　very　spirit；　the　same　methods　were　used　against　the　judges　as　were　allowed　against　the　parties。＇168＇

An　appeal　among　the　people　of　this　nation　was　a　challenge　to　fight　with　arms；　a　challenge　to　be　decided　by　blood；　and　not　that　invitation　to　a　paper　quarrel；　the　knowledge　of　which　was　reserved　for　succeeding　ages。

Thus　St。　Louis；　in　his　Institutions；＇169＇　says　that　an　appeal　includes　both　felony　and　iniquity。　Thus　Beaumanoir　tells　us　that　if　a　vassal　wanted　to　make　his　complaint　of　an　outrage　committed　against　him　by　his　lord；＇170＇　he　was　first　obliged　to　announce　that　he　quitted　his　fief；　after　which　he　appealed　to　his　lord　paramount；　and　offered　pledges　of　battle；　In　like　manner　the　lord　renounced　the　homage　of　his　vassal；　if　he　challenged　him　before　the　count。

For　a　vassal　to　challenge　his　lord　of　false　judgment　was　as　much　as　to　say　to　him　that　his　sentence　was　unjust　and　malicious；　now　to　utter　such　words　against　his　lord　was　in　some　measure　committing　the　crime　of　felony。

Hence；　instead　of　bringing　a　challenge　of　false　judgment　against　the　lord　who　appointed　and　directed　the　court；　they　challenged　the　peers　of　whom　the　court　itself　was　formed；　by　which　means　they　avoided　the　crime　of　felony；　for　they　insulted　only　their　peers；　with　whom　they　could　always　account　for　the　affront。

It　was　a　very　dangerous　thing　to　challenge　the　peers　of　false　judgment。＇171＇　If　the　party　waited　till　judgment　was　pronounced；　he　was　obliged　to　fight　them　all　when　they　offered　to　make　good　their　judgment。＇172＇　If　the　appeal　was　made　before　all　the　judges　had　given　their　opinion；　he　was　obliged　to　fight　all　who　had　agreed　in　their　judgment。　To　avoid　this　danger；　it　was　usual　to　petition　the　lord　to　direct　that　each　peer　should　give　his　opinion　aloud；＇173＇　and　when　the　first　had　pronounced；　and　the　second　was　going　to　do　the　same；　the　party　told　him　that　he　was　a　liar；　a　knave　and　a　slanderer；　and　then　he　had　to　fight　only　with　that　peer。

Défontaines＇174＇　would　have　it　that；　before　a　challenge　was　made　of　false　judgment；　it　was　customary　to　let　three　judges　pronounce；　and　he　does　not　say　that　it　was　necessary　to　fight　them　all　three；　much　less　that　there　was　any　obligation　to　fight　all　those　who　had　declared　themselves　of　the　same　opinion。　These　differences　arose　from　this；　that　in　those　times　there　were　few　usages　exactly　in　all　parts　the　same；　Beaumanoir　gives　an　account　of　what　passed　in　the　county　of　Clermont；　and　Défontaines　of　what　was　practised　in　Vermandois。

When　one　of　the　peers　or　a　vassal　had　declared　that　he　would　maintain　the　judgment；　the　judge　ordered　pledges　of　battle　to　be　given；　and　likewise　took　security　of　the　challenger　that　he　would　maintain　his　case。＇175＇　But　the　peer　who　was　challenged　gave　no　security；　because　he　was　the　lord's　vasal；　and　was　obliged　to　defend　the　challenge；　or　to　pay　the　lord　a　fine　of　sixty　livres。

If　he　who　challenged　did　not　prove　that　the　judgment　was　bad；＇176＇　he　paid　the　lord　a　fine　of　sixty　livres；　the　same　fine　to　the　peer　whom　he　had　challenged；　and　as　much　to　every　one　of　those　who　had　openly　consented　to　the　judgment。＇177＇

When　a　person；　strongly　suspected　of　a　capital　crime；　had　been　taken　and　condemned；　he　could　make　no　appeal　of　false　judgment：＇178＇　for　he　would　always　appeal　either　to　prolong　his　life；　or　to　get　an　absolute　discharge。

If　a　person　said　that　the　judgment　was　false　and　bad　and　did　not　offer　to　prove　it　so；　that　is；　to　fight；　he　was　condemned　to　a　fine　of　ten　sous　if　a　gentleman；　and　to　five　sous　if　a　bondman；　for　the　injurious　expressions　he　had　uttered。＇179＇

The　judges　or　peers　who　were　overcome　forfeited　neither　life　nor　limbs；＇180＇　but　the　person　who　challenged　them　was　punished　with　death；　if　it　happened　to　be　a　capital　crime。＇181＇

This　manner　of　challenging　the　vassals　with　false　judgment　was　to　avoid　challenging　the　lord　himself。　But　if　the　lord　had　no　peers；＇182＇　or　had　not　a　sufficient　number；　he　might　at　his　own　expense　borrow　peers　of　his　lord　paramount；＇183＇　but　these　peers　were　not　obliged　to　pronounce　judgment　if　they　did　not　like　it；　they　might　declare　that　they　were　come　only　to　give　their　opinion：　in　that　particular　case；　the　lord　himself　judged　and　pronounced　sentence　as　judge；＇184＇　and　if　an　appeal　of　false　judgment　was　made　against　him；　it　was　his　business　to　answer　to　the　challenge。

If　the　lord　happened　to　be　so　very　poor　as　not　to　be　able　to　hire　peers　of　his　paramount；＇185＇　or　if　he　neglected　to　ask　for　them；　or　the　paramount　refused　to　give　them；　then；　as　the　lord　could　not　judge　by　himself；　and　as　nobody　was　obliged　to　plead　before　a　tribunal　where　judgment　could　not　be　given；　the　affair　was　brought　before　the　lord　paramount。

This；　I　believe；　was　one　of　the　principal　causes　of　the　separation　between　the　jurisdiction　and　the　fief；　whence　arose　the　maxim　of　the　French　lawyers；　〃The　fief　is　one　thing；　and　the　jurisdiction　is　another。〃　For　as　there　were　a　vast　number　of　peers　who　had　no　subordinate　vassals　under　them；　they　were　incapable　of　holding　their　court；　all　affairs　were　then　brought　before　their　lord　paramount；　and　they　lost　the　privilege　of　pronouncing　judgment；　because　they　had　neither　power　nor　will　to　claim　it。

All　the　judges　who　had　been　at　the　judgment　were　obliged　to　be　present　when　it　was　pronounced；　that　they　might　follow　one　another；　and　say　aye　to　the　person　who；　wanting　to　make　an　appeal　of　false　judgment；　asked　them　whether　they　followed；＇186＇　for　Défontaines　says＇187＇　that　it　is　an　affair　of　courtesy　and　loyalty；　and　there　is　no　such　thing　as　evasion　or　delay。　Hence；　I　imagine