Bringing A Suit

The procedure for taking a law-suit before the courts was strictly formal, and any deviation could cause the loss of a suit. The law-suit required a plaintiff (the person against whom - it was alleged - an illegal act had been committed) and a defendant (allegedly the person who allegedly committed the allegedly illegal act). The plaintiff started the whole thing off by appearing before the hundred court, making his charge on oath before witnesses, and summoning the defendant to appear and answer the charge.

The hundred court would first decide whether the plaintiff had a case to bring and if it was worth the court's time to hear it. (Norsemen apparently had a reputation for going to court at the drop of a hat - further proof that Eirik the Red discovered America.) The court might decide that a case fell outside of its jurisdiction and would pass it up to the shire court. Also, certain types of crime might be dealt with with the king's reeve as plaintiff on the king's behalf. If the hundred court accepted the validity of the law-suit, a day would be appointed on which the defendant should appear. (If the defendant was not at court to hear the charge, then we must assume that someone would be delegated to go and tell him of it.) If the defendant did not turn up on the appointed day, the plaintiff had to repeat his law-suit, before witnesses, at the next hundred court and a new date would be set. This way, a defendant could avoid appearing before the court for some time, but eventually the court would decide that enough was enough and he would lose the suit by default. On the appointed day, assuming that the defendant appeared, the plaintiff would make a preliminary oath to prove the honesty of his motives. He would then repeat the charges before witnesses and the defendant.

An early example of 'whistle blowers'

The basic principle of the law was that 'denial is always stronger than accusation', so, in most cases, the defendant would be allowed to bring forward an oath to prove his innocence. This was achieved with the aid of oath-helpers, the number of which depended on the nature and severity of the charge involved. Interestingly, these oath-helpers were not required to give any evidence or information. The defendant swore: "By the Lord, I am guiltless both of deed and instigation of the crime with which N charges me", and the oath-helpers simply swore in support of this: "By the Lord, the oath is pure and not false that M swore". Usually, that was enough, and the defendant walked away free. To our cynical 20th century minds, this may seem incredibly naive and wide open to abuse, but a hundred was a small area - perhaps a thousand people or so - bound together by a web of duties, rights, oaths, and promises, and everyone knew everyone else. The oath-helpers would know the facts behind the case as well as anyone else, which is why there was no need for them to give evidence. A man who was known to be guilty would have a hard job getting together the requisite number of oath-helpers.

Sometimes, a defendant might not be considered 'oath-worthy'. If he had a record as long as your arm, for example, or if he had been caught in the act or with stolen goods. In such a case, the plaintiff was awarded the oath if he could bring forward witnesses to the crime, who would swear: "In the name of Almighty God, so I stand here by N in true witness, unbidden and unbought, as I saw with my eyes and heard with ears that which I pronounce with him". If the plaintiff had been given the oath, or if it had been granted to the defendant and he had failed to find enough oath-helpers, the defendant might then go to the ordeal, the judgement of God, rather than admit to his guilt.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14