The distinction between crime and tort in the early common law

Boston University Law Review

Volumn 76, Issue 1-2, 1996, Pages 59-89

  Seipp, David J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030527802     PISSN: 00068047     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (187)

1. See David J. Seipp, Bracton, the Year Books, and the "Transformation of Elementary Legal Ideas" In the Early Common Law, 7 LAW & HIST. REV. 175, 183-95 (1989).
2. See Theodore F.T. Plucknett, A Commentary on the Indictments, in PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IN THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES: EDWARD III TO RICHARD III, at clix (Bertha H. Putnam ed., 1938) [hereinafter Plucknett, PROCEEDINGS].
3. Authorship of all four works is still disputed. The names are those by which the treatises are known to legal historians. Editions used herein are: THE TREATISE ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF THE REALM OF ENGLAND COMMONLY CALLED GLANVILL (G.D.G. Hall ed. & trans, 1965) [hereinafter cited as GLANVILL, (book, chapter, at page)]; BRACTON ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF ENGLAND (George E. Woodbine ed. & Samuel E. Thorne trans., 1977-1982) [hereinafter cited as Bracton, (folio, (volume:page))]; FLETA, 72, 89, & 99 Selden Society (H.G. Richardson & G.O. Sayles eds., 1953-1983) [hereinafter cited as FLETA, (volume S.S. page)]; BRITTON (Francis M. Nichols ed., London, Macmillan & Co. 1865) [hereinafter cited as BRITTON, (volume:page)].
4. Authorship of all four works is still disputed. The names are those by which the treatises are known to legal historians. Editions used herein are: THE TREATISE ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF THE REALM OF ENGLAND COMMONLY CALLED GLANVILL (G.D.G. Hall ed. & trans, 1965) [hereinafter cited as GLANVILL, (book, chapter, at page)]; BRACTON ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF ENGLAND (George E. Woodbine ed. & Samuel E. Thorne trans., 1977-1982) [hereinafter cited as Bracton, (folio, (volume:page))]; FLETA, 72, 89, & 99 Selden Society (H.G. Richardson & G.O. Sayles eds., 1953-1983) [hereinafter cited as FLETA, (volume S.S. page)]; BRITTON (Francis M. Nichols ed., London, Macmillan & Co. 1865) [hereinafter cited as BRITTON, (volume:page)].
5. Authorship of all four works is still disputed. The names are those by which the treatises are known to legal historians. Editions used herein are: THE TREATISE ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF THE REALM OF ENGLAND COMMONLY CALLED GLANVILL (G.D.G. Hall ed. & trans, 1965) [hereinafter cited as GLANVILL, (book, chapter, at page)]; BRACTON ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF ENGLAND (George E. Woodbine ed. & Samuel E. Thorne trans., 1977-1982) [hereinafter cited as Bracton, (folio, (volume:page))]; FLETA, 72, 89, & 99 Selden Society (H.G. Richardson & G.O. Sayles eds., 1953-1983) [hereinafter cited as FLETA, (volume S.S. page)]; BRITTON (Francis M. Nichols ed., London, Macmillan & Co. 1865) [hereinafter cited as BRITTON, (volume:page)].
6. Authorship of all four works is still disputed. The names are those by which the treatises are known to legal historians. Editions used herein are: THE TREATISE ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF THE REALM OF ENGLAND COMMONLY CALLED GLANVILL (G.D.G. Hall ed. & trans, 1965) [hereinafter cited as GLANVILL, (book, chapter, at page)]; BRACTON ON THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF ENGLAND (George E. Woodbine ed. & Samuel E. Thorne trans., 1977-1982) [hereinafter cited as Bracton, (folio, (volume:page))]; FLETA, 72, 89, & 99 Selden Society (H.G. Richardson & G.O. Sayles eds., 1953-1983) [hereinafter cited as FLETA, (volume S.S. page)]; BRITTON (Francis M. Nichols ed., London, Macmillan & Co. 1865) [hereinafter cited as BRITTON, (volume:page)].
7. Contrary to views often expressed in standard surveys of legal history, medieval English common lawyers took an active, professional interest in matters of criminal law and procedure. See David J. Seipp, Crime in the Year Books, in LAW REPORTING IN BRITAIN: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ELEVENTH BRITISH LEGAL HISTORY CONFERENCE 15, 16-17 (Chantal Stebbings ed., 1995). Year Book references herein are to the Vulgate (London 1678-1680) edition unless otherwise indicated as: R.S.: Rolls Series (London 1866-1911); S.S.: Selden Society (1903-); Ames: Ames Foundation (1914-); Stath.: [Nicholas Statham,] EPITOME ANNALIUM LIBRORUM TEMPORE HENRICI SEXTI (London c. 1490) (Statham's Abridgment); Fitzh.: ANTHONY FITZHERBERT, LA GRAUNDE ABRIDGEMENT (London 1516); Brooke: ROBERT BROOKE, LA GRAUNDE ABRIDGEMENT (London 1573). Dates are calculated by historical year beginning January 1.
8. For example, courts that were not empowered to award damages can be found awarding them. See infra page 77 and notes 116 and 119.
9. See J.H. BAKER, AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH LEGAL HISTORY 70 (3d ed. 1990).
10. See 2 FREDERICK POLLOCK & FREDERIC W. MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW BEFORE THE TIME OF EDWARD I, at 470 (2d ed. Cambridge, University Press 1898).
11. See 2 id. at 461. A lawyer in 1493 questioned the appropriateness of putting a thief to death for stealing goods worth a few pence. Note from littleton's Reading, in THE NOTEBOOK OF SIR JOHN PORT, 102 S.S. 83 (J.H. Baker ed., 1986). Other remarks in Year Books probably communicated this implicit criticism. See Trin. 12 Edw. 2, pl. 29(f), 81 S.S. 123 (1319) (defendant will be hanged for theft of fourpence halfpenny at night); Hil. 14 Edw. 3, pl. 73, R.S. 353 (K.B. 1340) (hanged for robbery of eight pence); 22 edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 39, fol. 94; Brooke, Appeale pl. 58, fol. 41 (1348) (Thorp C.J.K.B.) (hanged for robbery of two pence).
12. See 2 POLLOCK & MAITLAND, supra note 7, at 461.
13. Methods included beheading, drowning, dismembering, burning alive, and burying alive in sand. See Ralph de Hengham, Summa Parva, ch. 3, in RADULPHI DE HENGHAM SUMMAE 56-57 (William H. Dunham, Jr. ed., 1932); FLETA, 99 S.S. 81; BRITTON, 2:278.
14. BRACTON, 147 (2:414-15), 148 (2:417); PLACITA CORONE 9 (J.M. Kaye ed. & trans., 1966); Kent Eyre, 6-7 Edw. 2, 24 S.S. 134 (1313).
15. Trin. 11 Edw. 3, R.S. 171 (1337) (traitor drawn, hanged, beheaded, disemboweled, and quartered); 33 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 7, fol. 200 (1359) (servant drawn and hanged); Mich. 1 Hen. 4, pl. 1, fol. 1 (H.L. 1399) (traitor hanged, disemboweled, beheaded, and quartered); Mich. 1 Ric. 3, pl. 5, fol. 4 (1483) (wife burned alive).
16. BRACTON, 6 (2:34), 98b (2:283), 122b (2:346), 125b (2:354), 128b (2:362), 144b (2:408), 145b (2:411-12); Trin. 29 Edw. 3, pl. [31], fol. 41, 42 (K.B. 1355).
17. BRACTON, 129 (2:363); RICHARD FITZNIGEL, DIALOGUS DE SCACCARIO 97-98 (Charles Johnson ed., 1983) (late twelfth c.). Sheriffs were responsible for sending to the king's exchequer the monetary value of such goods, as found by juries. Id. Presumably, sheriffs sold the goods.
18. GLANVILL VII, 17, at 90-91; Magna Carta ch. 32 (1215); BRACTON, 30b (2:101), 129 (2:363-64). The king received the rental value of the land for the year and day.
19. GLANVILL, VII, 17 at 90-91; BRACTON, 129 (2:364). The king received the value of timber and other materials taken as waste.
20. GLANVILL, VII, 17, at 90-91; BRACTON, 23 (2:82).
21. BRACTON, 81 (2:235). See BAKER, supra note 6, at 572.
22. BRACTON, 29b (2:99), 130 (2:366).
23. BRACTON, 30 (2:99), 297b (3:360), 308b (3:388), 311 (3:395).
24. Mich. 10 Edw. 2, pl. 72, 52 S.S. 159 (1316) (noting a case from 1298). But see BRACTON, 311b (3:396) (observing that when the heir commits felony, the lord becomes warrantor of the widow's dower).
25. BRACTON, 130 (2:367), 134 (2:377), 276b (3:306); Kent Eyre, 6-7 Edw. 2, 29 S.S. 48-49 (1313). But see BRACTON, 374b (4:174) (indicating that land that a felon would have inherited descends to next heir).
26. BRITTON, 1:12, 1:114, 1:115; 32 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 8, fol. 196 (K.B. 1358); Trin. 50 Edw. 3, pl. 5, fol. 15 (K.B. 1376); Mich. 11 Hen. 4, pl. 24, fol. 11 (1409); Hil. 11 Hen. 4, pl. 23, fol. 48 (1410); Mich. 9 Hen. 7, pl. 1, fol. 5-6 (1493). See also THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, 7 Selden Society 45, 62 (William J. Whittaker ed., London 1895) (c. 1290) (providing an opinionated critique of early English common law, often inaccurate in detail).
27. Mich. 11 Hen. 4, pl. 24, fol. 11 (1409) (Tyrwhit J.K.B.).
28. Cornwall Eyre, 30-31 Edw. 1, R.S. 499 (1302); Kent Eyre, 6-7 Edw. 2, 24 S.S. 134 (1313) (same case).
29. Trin. 50 Edw. 3, pl. 5, fol. 15 (1376); Hil. 13 Hen. 4, Fitzh. Corone pl. 266, fol. 268v; Stath. Corone pl. 94, fol. 58v (1412); Mich. 9 Hen. 7, pl. 1, fol. 5-6 (1493).
30. 41 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA 114-22 (T.C. O'Brien ed. & trans 1972) (c. 1270) (2ae 2ae, qu. 108, arts. 1, 2); REGINALD PECOCK, THE REULE OF CRYSTEN RELIGIOUN 138-39 (William C. Greet ed., 1927) (c. 1443).
31. 41 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA 114-22 (T.C. O'Brien ed. & trans 1972) (c. 1270) (2ae 2ae, qu. 108, arts. 1, 2); REGINALD PECOCK, THE REULE OF CRYSTEN RELIGIOUN 138-39 (William C. Greet ed., 1927) (c. 1443).
32. An early twelfth-century legal treatise explained how one who killed an enemy in the course of a bloodfeud should arrange the victim's body to publicize the act of vengeance. LEGES HENRICI PRIMI 261 (L.J. Downer ed. & trans., 1972) (ch. 83, tit. 6-6a) See generally SISTER MARY BONAVENTURE MROZ, DIVINE VENGEANCE 66-84 (1941) . Cf. WILLIAM I. MILLER, BLOODTAKING AND PEACEMAKING 179-89 (1990) (providing typology of Icelandic bloodfeud).
33. An early twelfth-century legal treatise explained how one who killed an enemy in the course of a bloodfeud should arrange the victim's body to publicize the act of vengeance. LEGES HENRICI PRIMI 261 (L.J. Downer ed. & trans., 1972) (ch. 83, tit. 6-6a) See generally SISTER MARY BONAVENTURE MROZ, DIVINE VENGEANCE 66-84 (1941) . Cf. WILLIAM I. MILLER, BLOODTAKING AND PEACEMAKING 179-89 (1990) (providing typology of Icelandic bloodfeud).
34. An early twelfth-century legal treatise explained how one who killed an enemy in the course of a bloodfeud should arrange the victim's body to publicize the act of vengeance. LEGES HENRICI PRIMI 261 (L.J. Downer ed. & trans., 1972) (ch. 83, tit. 6-6a) See generally SISTER MARY BONAVENTURE MROZ, DIVINE VENGEANCE 66-84 (1941) . Cf. WILLIAM I. MILLER, BLOODTAKING AND PEACEMAKING 179-89 (1990) (providing typology of Icelandic bloodfeud).
35. In two situations one who was not a victim could bring an appeal. First, a confessed felon could appeal other felons (become "approver") in hope of delaying death. BRACTON, 152 (2:429-30); BRITTON, 1:121; Margaret H. Kerr, Angevin Reform of the Appeal of Felony, 13 LAW & HIST. REV. 351, 353 (1995). Second, anyone could appeal a traitor to the king, in hope of gaining a reward. GLANVILL, XIV, 1, at 173; BRACTON, 118b (2:334); Pasch. 37 Hen. 6, pl. 8, fol. 19, 20 (1459).
36. BRACTON 125 (2:352); 22 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 97, fol. 106 (1348).
37. BRACTON, 129 (2:363-64).
38. See J.C. HOLT, ROBIN HOOD 8 (1982); JOHN BELLAMY, ROBIN HOOD: A HISTORICAL ENQUIRY 61-62 (1985).
39. See J.C. HOLT, ROBIN HOOD 8 (1982); JOHN BELLAMY, ROBIN HOOD: A HISTORICAL ENQUIRY 61-62 (1985).
40. BRACTON, 128b (2:362), 129 (2:362-63); Hil. 2 Edw. 3, pl. 17, fol. 6; Lib Ass. pl. 3, fol. 3 (K.B. 1328); 27 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 41, fol. 137 (1353); Mich. 21 Edw. 4, pl. 57, fol. 72, 73 (Exch. Ch. 1481).
41. BRACTON, 133b (2:376). The outlaw who returned to face an appeal of felony could not demand trial by battle. Id.
42. BRACTON, 129 (2:363).
43. BRACTON, 137 (2:385-86), 138b (2:390).
44. The jury of twelve knights in a writ of right was called the grand as assize.
45. Defendants appealed of theft might attempt to substitute as "warrantors" those from whom they innocently received tha stolen goods. Warrantors could choose trial by battle. BRACTON, 151 (2:426). Lawyers, however, condemned the attempts of accused thieves to substitute hired champions as warrantors to fight their battles for them. BRACTON, 137b (2:387), 151b (2:427); BRITTON, 1:117.
46. BRITTON, 1:108.
47. Hil. 12 Edw. 2 pl. 45(a), 70 S.S. 92 (1319).
48. See GEORGE NEILSON, TRIAL BY COMBAT 147 (New York 1891); G.O. Sayles, Introduction to 2 SELECT CASES IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH UNDER EDWARD I, 57 Selden Society lxxxv (1938) (finding no record of battles fought from 1272 to 1307).
49. See GEORGE NEILSON, TRIAL BY COMBAT 147 (New York 1891); G.O. Sayles, Introduction to 2 SELECT CASES IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH UNDER EDWARD I, 57 Selden Society lxxxv (1938) (finding no record of battles fought from 1272 to 1307).
50. BRACTON, 137 (2:386); Trin. 1 Edw. 3, pl. 6, fol. 16 (1327); Mich. 45 Edw. 3, Fitzh. Corone pl. 100 fol. 262v (1371); Hil. 13 Hen. 4, Fitzh. Corone pl. 230, 268, fol. 268 268v (1412); Mich. 28 Hen. 6, Stath. Corone pl. 56, fol. 58a (1449); Trin. 22 Edw. 4, pl. 46, fol. 19, 20 (K.B. 1482).
51. Magna Carta, ch. 54 (1215); BRACTON, 142b (2:402-03), 147b (2:419); Pasch. 10 Edw. 4, pl. 17, 47 S.S. 63, 64 (1470).
52. BRACTON, 145 (2:409-10).
53. Pasch. 15 Edw. 2, pl. [6], fol. 464, Fitzh. Corone pl. 385, fol. 272 (1322); Trin. 22 Edw. 4, pl. 46, fol. 19, 20 (K.B. 1482). Cf. Hil. 11 Edw. 2, pl. 40, 61 S.S. 263, 264 (1318) (70-year-old not exempted). Appeals by plaintiffs under the age of 21 were postponed until the plaintiffs reached the age of majority.
54. London Eyre, 14 Edw. 2, 85 S.S. 93 (1321) (rejecting appeal for breach of a door).
55. BRACTON, 125b (2:353); BRITTON, 1:105, 1:122.
56. BRACTON, 138b (2:390), 144 (2:407).
57. BRACTON, 101b (2:291).
58. F.W. MAITLAND, THE FORMS OF ACTION AT COMMON LAW 40 (A.H. Chaytor & W.J. Whittaker eds., 1936); Sayles, supra note 41, at cx.
59. F.W. MAITLAND, THE FORMS OF ACTION AT COMMON LAW 40 (A.H. Chaytor & W.J. Whittaker eds., 1936); Sayles, supra note 41, at cx.
60. BRACTON, 137 (2:386) (secundum leges ad talionem). See also THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 136 (ascribing the practice to the period before Henry I). The principle that false accusers should suffer the same penalty they sought for those they falsely accused is found in the Bible and in Roman law. Deuteronomy 19:18-19; CODE J. 9.2.17, 9.39.2, 9.46.10.
61. BRACTON, 137 (2:386), 142 (2:401); BRITTON, 1:103-04, 1:108; Mich. 33 Edw. 1, R.S. 95 (1305) (father of underage plaintiff imprisoned); 1 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 9, fol. 1 (1327) (prison); Northampton Eyre, 3-4 Edw. 3, 97 S.S. 160 (1329-1330); 37 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 9, fol. 217 (K.B. 1363); Pasch. 11 Ric. 2, pl. 4, Ames 190, 191 (1388) (prison and 100 shilling fine); Hil. 8 Hen. 4, pl. 2, fol. 17 (1407) (prison until fine paid to King).
62. Statute of Westminster 2d, ch. 12 (1285). See also Pasch. 17 Edw. 2, pl. [9], fol. 534 (K.B. 1324); Mich. 40 Edw. 3, pl. 24, fol. 42; Lib. Ass. pl. 18, fol. 242 (1366); Mich. 14 Hen. 7, pl. 8, fol. 2 (1498).
63. Pasch. 41 Edw. 3, Fitzh. Corone pl. 98, fol. 262v (1367); Hil. 46 Edw. 3, Fitzh. Corone pl. 102, fol. 262v (1372) (£40 awarded); Hil. 8 Hen. 5, pl. 26, fol. 6, 7 (K.B. 1421) (£200 awarded).
64. See supra page 62 and note 14.
65. Northampton Eyre, 3-4 Edw. 3, 97 S.S. 160-61; Fitzh. Corone pl. 367, fol. 271v (1329-1330); WILLIAM STAUNFORD, LES PLEES DEL CORON fols. 165r-166v (London 1557). See 3 WILLIAM HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 330 (5th ed. 1942); Plucknett, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at cxli.
66. Northampton Eyre, 3-4 Edw. 3, 97 S.S. 160-61; Fitzh. Corone pl. 367, fol. 271v (1329-1330); WILLIAM STAUNFORD, LES PLEES DEL CORON fols. 165r-166v (London 1557). See 3 WILLIAM HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 330 (5th ed. 1942); Plucknett, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at cxli.
67. BRACTON, 150b (2:425); BRITTON, 1:57, 1:68; FLETA, 72 S.S. 90. See J.L. Barton, Remedies for Chattels, in LAW, LITIGANTS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION 30, 30-31 (E.W. Ives & A.H. Manchester eds., 1983).
68. FITZNIGEL, supra note 14, at 102-03; Hil. 12 Edw. 2, pl. 45(e), 70 S.S. 92-93 (1319); Mich. 44 Edw. 3, pl. 57, fol. 44 (1370); Mich. 45 Edw. 3, Fitzh. Corone pl. 100, fol. 262v (1371); Pasch. 7 Hen. 4, pl. 9, fol. 43, 44 (K.B. 1406); Pasch. 4 Edw. 4, pl. 16, fol. 11 (1464) (reporting Newgate Gaol Delivery 1409). A statute of 1285 provided that inhabitants of the place where goods were stolen should pay the victim of theft the value of the goods if they failed to capture the thief, but the statute seems to have been little used. Statute of Winchester, ch. 2, 1 Stat. Realm 96 (1285). See Henry Summerson, The Enforcement of the Statute of Winchester, 1285-1327, 13 J. LEGAL HIST. 232, 243-45 (1992).
69. BRITTON, 1:123, 124; Pasch. 18 Edw. 3, pl. 31, fol. 20; R.S. 131 (1344); Pasch. 12 Ric. 2, pl. 4, Ames 147 (K.B. 1389) (Sjt. Cassy). See also THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 142 (peines taillons).
70. Trin. 19 Edw. 3, pl. 47, R.S. 227 (1345); 22 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 82, fol. 102 (1348) (victim's choice); 22 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. [99], fol. 107 (1348); Pasch. 12 Ric. 2, pl. 4, Ames 147 (K.B. 1389); Mich. 8 Hen. 4, pl. 8, fol. 6, 7 (1406) (dictum).
71. Pasch. 18 Edw. 3, pl. 31, R.S. 131 (1344); Pasch. [6] Hen. 7, pl. 1, fol. 41 (1491).
72. Matthew 6:12.
73. BRACTON, 119b (2:337), 125b (2:353). Thomas Marowe said as much in 1503 in his reading on Statute of Westminster 1st, ch. 1, De Pace Terre & Ecclesie & Conseruacione Eiusdem, in B.H. PUTNAM, EARLY TREATISES ON THE PRACTICE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES 375 (1924). Cf. BRACTON, 216b (3:152) (stating that every disseisin is a trespass, but not every trespass is a disseisin).
74. The Bracton treatise used all these terms (in Latin forms) and made "delict" a synonym for "felony" in many passages on forfeiture of land. E.g., BRACTON, 78 (2:227), 80b (2:234), 81 (2:235), 84b (2:245), 87b (2:253), 95b (2:275), 160 (3:14). Lawyers later puzzled whether felony and trespass were "delicts." See, e.g., Mich. 8 Hen. 4, pl. 2, fol. 1, 2 (1406); Trin. 11 Hen. 6, pl. 10, fol. 50 (1433).
75. Fourteenth-century statutes frequently contained two formulas, making provision on the one hand for "covenant, debt, and trespass" and on the other hand for "felony and trespass."
76. Many statutes and commissions from 1327 onward directed justices of the peace to inquire of "felonies and trespasses." See Bertha H. Putnam, Introduction to PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at xxiii-xxv, xxxiii-xxxiv [hereinafter Putnam, PROCEEDINGS]; Plucknett, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at cliv (not called "misdemeanors" until the sixteenth century).
77. Many statutes and commissions from 1327 onward directed justices of the peace to inquire of "felonies and trespasses." See Bertha H. Putnam, Introduction to PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at xxiii-xxv, xxxiii-xxxiv [hereinafter Putnam, PROCEEDINGS]; Plucknett, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at cliv (not called "misdemeanors" until the sixteenth century).
78. See H.G. Richardson & G.O. Sayles, Introduction to SELECT CASES OF PROCEDURE WITHOUT WRIT UNDER HENRY III, 60 Selden Society cxvii (1941).
79. See S.F.C. Milsom, Trespass from Henry III to Edward III (pt. 3), 74 LAW Q. REV. 561, 588-89 (1958); John S. Beckerman, The Forty-Shilling Jurisdictional Limit in Medieval English Personal Actions, in LEGAL HISTORY STUDIES 1972, at 110, 114 (Dafydd Jenkins ed., 1975).
80. See S.F.C. Milsom, Trespass from Henry III to Edward III (pt. 3), 74 LAW Q. REV. 561, 588-89 (1958); John S. Beckerman, The Forty-Shilling Jurisdictional Limit in Medieval English Personal Actions, in LEGAL HISTORY STUDIES 1972, at 110, 114 (Dafydd Jenkins ed., 1975).
81. See, e.g., BAKER, supra note 6, at 72-74; MAITLAND, supra note 50, at 53-58.
82. See, e.g., BAKER, supra note 6, at 72-74; MAITLAND, supra note 50, at 53-58.
83. E.g., 41 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 16, fol. 254 (K.B. 1367) (writ of trespass or appeal of mayhem); BRITTON, 1:123.
84. BRITTON, 1:123. A contemporary treatise by a nonlawyer expressed this as a choice between vengeance and damages. THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 45, 62, 150.
85. E.g., Hil. 4 Hen. 6, pl. 2, fol. 10 (1426).
86. BRACTON, 290b (3:341).
87. BRACTON, 125-125b (2:353).
88. BRACTON 155 (2:438). See Sayles, supra note 41, 57 S.S. cx-cxi, cxiv. See also THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 142-43, 144 (stating that judgments in pleas of trespass required defendants to make reasonable satisfaction to plaintiffs, and also imposed corporal punishments such as imprisonment, which could be redeemed by a ransom in money) .
89. BRACTON 155 (2:438). See Sayles, supra note 41, 57 S.S. cx-cxi, cxiv. See also THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 142-43, 144 (stating that judgments in pleas of trespass required defendants to make reasonable satisfaction to plaintiffs, and also imposed corporal punishments such as imprisonment, which could be redeemed by a ransom in money) .
90. See Putnam, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at cxvii.
91. See Sayles, supra note 41, 57 S.S. cxi-cxii.
92. BRACTON, 155b (2:438).
93. See BAKER, supra note 6, at 69.
94. Unlike these older writs, the writ of trespass pointed to no specific thing withheld from the plaintiff. The judge or jury had to decide how much money compensated a victim for a horse stolen, a house burned down, a hand struck off, or a rape. Fixing monetary compensation for the lost horse and the lost house must have seemed easier than setting a price on physical injuries. Perhaps judges or juries recalled that before 1066, Anglo-Saxon laws promulgated pricelists of compensation for severed body parts and other injuries. See, e.g., Laws of Alfred, chs. 8-40, 44-77, in THE LAWS OF THE EARLIEST ENGLISH KINGS 68-82, 86-92 (1963).
95. See Seipp, supra note 1, at 189-91.
96. Pasch 20 Edw. 3, pl. 71, R.S. 429, 431-35 (1346); Pasch. 12 Ric. 2, pl. 4, Ames 147 (K.B. 1389); Hil. 7 Hen. 4, pl. 4, fol. 35, 36 (1406) (different natures).
97. Pasch. 17 Edw. 2, pl. [3], fol. 531-32 (1324) (law favors life and member more than damages); Mich. 13 Edw. 3, pl. 34, R.S. 63, 65; Lib. Ass. pl. 5-6, fol. 39 (1339) (judgment of life and member higher than judgment of damages).
98. Hil. 21 Hen. 6, pl. 12, fol. 28, 29 (1443).
99. BRACTON, 112b (2:319); 175 (3:47).
100. Victims who brought writs of trespass could change their minds and convert these writs at the pleading stage into appeals of felony, but victims who brought appeals of felony could not convert them into writs of trespass. BRACTON, 140b (2:396).
101. London Eyre, 14 Edw. 2, 86 S.S. 335-36 (1321); 43 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 39, fol. 276 (1369) (appeal of mayhem before writ of trespass); Pasch. 12 Ric. 2, pl. 4, Ames 147 (K.B. 1389) (writ of trespass before appeal of mayhem).
102. Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. 1, ch. 9 (1278); Pasch. 15 Edw. 3, pl. 53, R.S. 153, 155 (K.B. 1341); Trin. 19 Edw. 3, pl. 2, R.S. 131, 133 (K.B. 1345). Rape had to be appealed within forty days. Statute of Westminster 1st, ch. 13. In some periods the year-and-day limit applied only to appeals of homicide. E.g., THE NOTEBOOK OF SIR JOHN PORT, supra note 8, 102 S.S. 82 (Frowyk, C.J.C.P.); STAUNFORD, supra note 56, at fols. 62r-63r.
103. Assize of Clarendon, ch. 1 (1166), in WILLIAM STUBBS, SELECT CHARTERS AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 170 (H.W.C. Davis ed., 9th ed. 1913); Assize of Northampton, ch. 1 (1176), in WILLIAM STUBBS, SELECT CHARTERS AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 179 (H.W.C. Davis ed., 9th ed. 1913); Articles of the Eyre, Kent Eyre, 6-7 Edw. 2, 24 S.S. 28-46 (1313). See Putnam, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at xcviii-cii.
104. Assize of Clarendon, ch. 1 (1166), in WILLIAM STUBBS, SELECT CHARTERS AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 170 (H.W.C. Davis ed., 9th ed. 1913); Assize of Northampton, ch. 1 (1176), in WILLIAM STUBBS, SELECT CHARTERS AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 179 (H.W.C. Davis ed., 9th ed. 1913); Articles of the Eyre, Kent Eyre, 6-7 Edw. 2, 24 S.S. 28-46 (1313). See Putnam, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at xcviii-cii.
105. Assize of Clarendon, ch. 1 (1166), in WILLIAM STUBBS, SELECT CHARTERS AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 170 (H.W.C. Davis ed., 9th ed. 1913); Assize of Northampton, ch. 1 (1176), in WILLIAM STUBBS, SELECT CHARTERS AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 179 (H.W.C. Davis ed., 9th ed. 1913); Articles of the Eyre, Kent Eyre, 6-7 Edw. 2, 24 S.S. 28-46 (1313). See Putnam, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at xcviii-cii.
106. See EDWARD POWELL, KINGSHIP, LAW, AND SOCIETY: CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE REIGN OF HENRY V, at 82 (1989) ("Available data from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries suggests that roughly 70 per cent of indicted felons were acquitted.").
107. After 1529, the king allowed restitution of stolen goods after conviction of thieves on indictment. Statute of 21 Hen. 8, ch. 11 (1529).
108. See POWELL, supra note 90, at 83-85; Putnam, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at cxxviii.
109. See POWELL, supra note 90, at 83-85; Putnam, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at cxxviii.
110. See BRACTON, 55b (2:166), 98b-99 (2:283); London Eyre, 14 Edw. 2, 85 S.S. 59, 60 (1321). In Trin. 10 Hen. 7, pl. 3, fol. 25 (K.B. 1495), the king's interest is simply that the felon be hanged. Another lawyer said in 1493 that thieves were hanged for the common good. Note from Littleton's Reading, supra note 8, 102 S.S. 83. In the thirteenth century, canon lawyers in Europe developed a similar doctrine that the public interest required punishment of crime. See Richard M. Fraher, The Theoretical Justification for the New Criminal Law in the High Middle Ages: "Rei publicae interest, ne crimina remaneant impunita," 1984 U. ILL. L. REV. 577, 581-89.
111. One Year Book report stated that the court hanged murderers as an example to others Hil. 3 Hen. 7, pl. 4, fol. 1 (1488) (quoting Fortescue C.J.K.B., before 1461). In the thirteenth century, canon lawyers in Europe applied a sophisticated theory of deterrence. See Richard M. Fraher, Preventing Crime in the High Middle Ages: The Medieval Lawyers' Search for Deterrence, in POPES, TEACHERS, AND CANON LAW IN THE MIDDLE AGES 212 (James R. Sweeney & Stanley Chodorow eds., 1989).
112. Casus et Judicia, no. 82, in CASUS PLACITORUM AND REPORTS OF CASES IN THE KING'S COURTS, 1272-1278, 69 Selden Society lxxxiv (William H. Dunham, Jr., ed., 1952).
113. Mich. 22 Edw. 4, pl. 2, fol. 22, 23 (K.B. 1482) (common nuisances).
114. Mich. 35 Hen. 6, pl. 24, fol. 14, 15 (1456) ("every Christian male").
115. See, e.g., Mich. 7 Hen. 6, pl. 21, fol. 13, 14 (K.B. 1428).
116. Mich. 11 Hen. 4, pl. 24, fol. 11 (1409) (stating that anyone could sue on behalf of the king); Mich. 5 Edw. 4, Long Quinto fol. 141, 142 (Exch. Ch. 1465) (equating indictment with a "popular action"). Popular actions, now known as qui tam actions, were statutory offenses that could be prosecuted by any person and resulted in fines shared by the prosecutor and the king. Mich. 13 Hen. 7, pl. 1, fol. 4, 8 (1497).
117. CASUS PLACITORUM no. 59, 69 S.S. 13 (c. 1260); Kent Eyre, 6-7 Edw. 2, 24 S.S. 81, 83-84 (1313); Northampton Eyre, 3-4 Edw. 3, 97 S.S. 216; Fitzh. Corone pl. 353, fol. 271 (1329-1330); 42 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 5, fol. 258; Brooke Corone pl. 121, fol. 184 (1368); STAUNFORD, supra note 56, at fol. 40r; 1 MATTHEW HALE, THE HISTORY OF THE PLEAS OF THE CROWN 619 (1971) (1736).
118. Mich. 13 Edw. 3, pl. 34, R.S. 63, 65; Lib. Ass. pl. 5 & 6, fol. 39 (1339); Mich. 18 Edw. 3, pl. 5, R.S. 15 (1344).
119. Pasch. 31 Hen. 6, pl. 6, fol. 15 (1453).
120. Mich. 44 Edw. 3, pl. 35, fol. 38 (K.B. 1370); 32 Hen. 6, Fitzh. Corone pl. 279, fol. 269 (1454).
121. 40 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 40, fol. 250 (1366); 41 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 14, fol. 254 (1367); Mich. 22 Edw. 4, Fitzh. Corone pl. 44, fol. 259v (Exch. Ch. 1482).
122. 32 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 8, fol. 196 (K.B. 1358).
123. Mich. 31 Hen. 6, pl. 6, fol. 11 (1452).
124. Mich. 8 Edw. 4, pl. 1, fol. 7; Brooke Corone pl. 197, fol. 187 (1468) (Markham C.J.K.B.). See Seipp, supra note 4, at 27.
125. Pasch. 32 Edw. 1, R.S. 193, 195 (K.B. 1304); Hil. 17 Edw. 3, pl. 6, R.S. 21; Lib. Ass. pl. 1, fol. 48 (K.B. 1343).
126. Trin. 45 Edw. 3, pl. 36, fol. 25 (1371); Hil. 11 Hen. 4, pl. 6, fol. 41 (K.B. 1410); 8 Hen. 6, Stath. Corone pl. 8n, fol. 55b (1430) (note to a plea of 1347); 28 Hen. 6, Stath. Corone 117, fol. 59b (K.B. 1450); Hil. 16 Edw. 4, pl. 7, fol. 11 (K.B. 1477).
127. Pasch. 9 Hen. 5, pl. 7, fol. 2, Rogers 6, 7 (1421); Mich. 34 Hen. 6, pl. 19, fol. 9 (1455); Mich. 14 Hen. 7, pl. 8, fol. 2 (1498).
128. See Edward Powell, Jury Trial at Gaol Delivery in the Late Middle Ages: The Midland Circuit, 1400-1429, in TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE: THE ENGLISH CRIMINAL TRIAL JURY, 1200-1800, at 78, 105-09 (J.S. Cockburn & Thomas A. Green eds., 1988).
129. E.g., Mich. 17 Edw. 3, pl. 37, R.S. 213, 227 (1343).
130. Mich. 22 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. [99], fol. 107 (K.B. 1348) (prison and fine); Hil. 41 Edw. 3, Fitzh. Corone pl. 451, fol. 273v (1367) (prison). See Putnam, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at civ, cv.
131. Hil. 4 Edw. 2, pl. 24, 26 S.S. 44 (1311).
132. Hil. 21 Edw. 3, pl. 24, fol. 18 (1347); 27 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 18, fol. 135 (1353); Pasch. 7 Edw. 4, pl. 11, fol. 4 (1467); Pasch. 31 Hen. 6, pl. 6, fol. 15 (1453) (acquittal of felony was a valid defense to indictment of trespass).
133. Northampton Eyre, 3-4 Edw. 3, 98 S.S. 693 (1329-1330) (Scrope, C.J.). See Plucknett, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at clvii-clviii. On one or two rare occasions, courts even attempted to award damages on indictments of trespass. E.g., Hil. 21 Edw. 3, pl. 24, fol. 18 (1347). See Plucknett, PROCEEDINGS, supra note 2, at clviii-clix.
134. See John S. Beckerman, Procedural Innovation and Institutional Change in Medieval English Manorial Courts, 10 LAW & HIST. REV. 197, 226-48 (1992).
135. BRACTON, 154b (2:437), 155 (2:438), 439 (4:364); THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 133.
136. See Beckerman, supra note 117, at 246; see also supra note 116.
137. Victims had other options, of course. Every trespass or felony was also a sin, and victims could bring their accusations to church courts where their wrongdoers would have to swear solemn oaths supported by six or twelve neighbors, or else submit to a public penance. See R.H. Helmholz, Crime, Compurgation and the Courts of the Medieval Church, 1 LAW & HIST. REV. 1, 8-18 (1983). Those widely suspected of wrongdoing could also initiate church court proceedings to clear their names. Id. at 21-23.
138. GLANVILL, I, 32, at 21; BRACTON, 104b (2:298), 120b (2:340), 142b (2:402); Mich. 11 Hen. 4, pl. 24, fol. 11 (1409).
139. Kent Eyre 6-7 Edw. 2, 24 S.S. 139 (1313); Northampton Eyre, 3-4 Edw. 3, 97 S.S. 184 Fitzh. Corone pl. 306 (1329-1330); Mich. 7 Hen. 4, pl. 4, fol. 27 (K.B. 1405).
140. Hil. 15 Edw. 3, pl. 47, R.S. 367 (1341) (one year in prison and damages to defendant); Mich. 15 Edw. 3, pl. 4, R.S. 297 (K.B. 1341) (prison until made fine to king, damages to defendant); 41 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 8, fol. 253 (K.B. 1367) (prison until made fine, damages to defendant). See Kerr, supra note 29, at 364-65.
141. BRACTON, 144 (2:407); Kent Eyre, 6-7 Edw. 2, 24 S.S. 141 (1313). Cf. 37 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 9, fol. 217 (K.B. 1363) (punishing plaintiff for collusive false appeal). See Kerr, supra note 29, at 368-69.
142. BRITTON, 1:130.
143. BRACTON, 139b (2:393), 142b (2:402); BRITTON, 1:57. E.g., Pasch. 32 Edw. 1, R.S. 171 (K.B. 1304); Hil. 15 Edw. 3, pl. 47, R.S. 367 (1341); Hil. 8 Edw. 4, pl. 7, fol. 24 (K.B. 1469); Trin. 22 Edw. 4, pl. 44, fol. 19 (K.B. 1482).
144. Pasch. 12 Ric. 2, pl. 3, Ames 145 (K.B. 1389); Mich. 11 Hen. 4, pl. 36, fol. 16 (K.B. 1409); Hil. 13 Hen. 4, Fitzh. Corone pl. 266, fol. 268v (1412). Cf. Hil. 11 Hen. 4, pl. 23, fol. 48 (1410) (allowing pardon).
145. Mich. 9 Hen. 4, pl. 26, fol. 34 (1407) (following a compromise of appeal with prosecution at king's suit).
146. Pasch. 8 Hen. 4, pl. 7, fol. 22 (1407); Mich. 2 Ric. 3, pl. 18, fol. 9 (Exch. Ch. 1484).
147. Compounding by making an agreement not to prosecute a person for telony was a misdemeanor and against public policy. See 1 HALE, supra note 100, at 619; 1 JAMES F. STEPHEN, A HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND 502 (London, Macmillan & Co. 1883).
148. See Christopher Whittick, The Role of the Criminal Appeal in the Fifteenth Century, in LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN BRITISH HISTORY 55, 63-65 (J.A. Guy & H.G. Beale eds., 1984). Some appeals were compromised in the early thirteenth century. See Doris M. Stenton, Introduction to THE EARLIEST LINCOLNSHIRE ASSIZE ROLLS, A.D. 1202-1209, 22 Lincoln Record Society lix, lx-lxi (1926).
149. See Christopher Whittick, The Role of the Criminal Appeal in the Fifteenth Century, in LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN BRITISH HISTORY 55, 63-65 (J.A. Guy & H.G. Beale eds., 1984). Some appeals were compromised in the early thirteenth century. See Doris M. Stenton, Introduction to THE EARLIEST LINCOLNSHIRE ASSIZE ROLLS, A.D. 1202-1209, 22 Lincoln Record Society lix, lx-lxi (1926).
150. See Whittick, supra note 131, at 63.
151. See J.M. Kaye, The Making of English Criminal Law: (1) The Beginnings - A General Survey of Criminal Law and Justice Down to 1500, 1977 CRIM. L. REV. 4, 8.
152. GLANVILL, I, 1, at 3. The same sentence opens the first book of Regiam Majestatem, an update of Glanvill that became a book of authority in Scots Law. REGIAM MAJESTATEM AND QUONIAM ATTACHIAMENTA, 11 Stair Society 59 (Lord Cooper ed. & trans., 1947).
153. GLANVILL, I, 3, at 4.
154. GLANVILL, I, 2, at 3. Glanvill repeated that pleas alleging breaches of the king's peace were criminal pleas. Id., I, 31, at 20; I, 32, at 21; II, 3, at 25. See also id., X, 5, at 119-20 (pleas of breach of the king's peace "belong to the king").
155. In Roman law, injuria was an insult, an offense to honor. Bracton seems to have used the term more broadly, in a sense consistent with its English cognate. See, e.g., BRACTON, 378 (4:184).
156. BRACTON, 114b (2:323-24), 140b (2:396), 145b (2:411), 150b (2:425), 155 (2:437-38), 179 (3:56), 401b (4:250), 406b-407 (4:265), 439 (4:363).
157. In 1292, mirroring Bracton's terminology, a clerk recorded in the rolls of the King's Bench that an action was brought civilly rather than criminally because it sought £300 damages, rather than judgment of life and member. 2 SELECT CASES IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH UNDER EDWARD I, supra note 41, 57 S.S. 134. In the same roll, however, is an echo of Glanvill's earlier division. The clerk described a writ for knocking down a fence with force and arms against the peace for £20 damages as an actio injuriarum and differentiated it from a claim of a right to land, which the clerk called a civil action. Id. at 136.
158. The few exceptions I have found in published Year Book reports before 1500 were references to church courts dealing with clerics accused of "crime," for example in Kent Eyre, 6-7 Edw. 2, 24 S.S. 79 (1313) and Trin. 12 Edw. 2, pl. 29(b), 81 S.S. 122 (1319); a stray use of the word "crime" in Mich. 1 Hen. 4, pl. 2, fol. 1 (K.B. 1399); and a quotation from Bracton contrasting "criminal" and "civil" actions in Mich. 9 Hen. 4, pl. 8, fol. 2, 3 (1407). Three statutes before 1500 included the word "crime," all in reference to proceedings involving the clergy. 43 Hen. 3, Provisions ch. 27, 1 Stat. Realm 8, 11 (1259); 18 Edw. 3, stat. 3, ch. 1, 1 Stat. Realm 302 (1344); 1 Ric. 2, ch. 3, 2 Stat. Realm 1 (1377).
159. E.g., CHRISTOPHER ST. GERMAN, DOCTOR AND STUDENT, 91 Selden Society 266 (T.F.T. Plucknett & J.L. Barton eds., 1974) (c. 1530); STAUNFORD, supra note 56, at fols. 28r, 83v (1557) (quoting BRACTON); WILLIAM LAMBARDE, EIRENARCHA 66 (1581). A precursor was JOHN FORTESCUE, DE LAUDIBUS LEGUM ANGLIE 48, 58, 62 (S.B. Chrimes ed. & trans., 1949) (c. 1470).
160. E.g., CHRISTOPHER ST. GERMAN, DOCTOR AND STUDENT, 91 Selden Society 266 (T.F.T. Plucknett & J.L. Barton eds., 1974) (c. 1530); STAUNFORD, supra note 56, at fols. 28r, 83v (1557) (quoting BRACTON); WILLIAM LAMBARDE, EIRENARCHA 66 (1581). A precursor was JOHN FORTESCUE, DE LAUDIBUS LEGUM ANGLIE 48, 58, 62 (S.B. Chrimes ed. & trans., 1949) (c. 1470).
161. E.g., CHRISTOPHER ST. GERMAN, DOCTOR AND STUDENT, 91 Selden Society 266 (T.F.T. Plucknett & J.L. Barton eds., 1974) (c. 1530); STAUNFORD, supra note 56, at fols. 28r, 83v (1557) (quoting BRACTON); WILLIAM LAMBARDE, EIRENARCHA 66 (1581). A precursor was JOHN FORTESCUE, DE LAUDIBUS LEGUM ANGLIE 48, 58, 62 (S.B. Chrimes ed. & trans., 1949) (c. 1470).
162. E.g., CHRISTOPHER ST. GERMAN, DOCTOR AND STUDENT, 91 Selden Society 266 (T.F.T. Plucknett & J.L. Barton eds., 1974) (c. 1530); STAUNFORD, supra note 56, at fols. 28r, 83v (1557) (quoting BRACTON); WILLIAM LAMBARDE, EIRENARCHA 66 (1581). A precursor was JOHN FORTESCUE, DE LAUDIBUS LEGUM ANGLIE 48, 58, 62 (S.B. Chrimes ed. & trans., 1949) (c. 1470).
163. E.g., C. 11, q. 1, cc. 30, 31 (Gratian's dicta); X. 2.2.12 (decretal of Innocent III, 1206).
164. E.g., J. INST. 4.4.10; DIG. 47.2.93 (Ulpian ad edictum 38, interpolated); 49.5.2; CODE J. 1.29.2; 1.35.1; 3.8.3-4; 9.22.9.1; 9.22.23; 9.22.24; 9.31.1. Medieval scholars of Roman law marked this distinction. E.g., Accursius, Glossa Ordinaria, in INSTITUTIONUM IUSTINIANI, gl. ad In summa, J. INST. 4.4.10, col. 390 (Lyon 1585).
165. Roman law manuscripts used in twelfth-century England incorporated these texts See, e.g., FRANCIS DE ZULUETA & PETER STEIN, THE TEACHING OF ROMAN LAW IN ENGLAND AROUND 1200, at xxxiv, 108 (1990) (lecture notes commented on J. INST. 4.4.10); THE LIBER PAUPERUM OF VACARIUS, 44 Selden Society 281 (Francis de Zulueta ed., 1927) (text included DIG. 47.2.93); id. at 296 (text included COD. J. 9.31.1). See J.C. de Wet, Criminal Liability and Civil Liability for Wrongful Conduct - An Historical and Comparative Survey, in OPUSCULA MISCELLANEA 149, 158, 168 (J.J. Gauntlett ed., 1979).
166. Roman law manuscripts used in twelfth-century England incorporated these texts See, e.g., FRANCIS DE ZULUETA & PETER STEIN, THE TEACHING OF ROMAN LAW IN ENGLAND AROUND 1200, at xxxiv, 108 (1990) (lecture notes commented on J. INST. 4.4.10); THE LIBER PAUPERUM OF VACARIUS, 44 Selden Society 281 (Francis de Zulueta ed., 1927) (text included DIG. 47.2.93); id. at 296 (text included COD. J. 9.31.1). See J.C. de Wet, Criminal Liability and Civil Liability for Wrongful Conduct - An Historical and Comparative Survey, in OPUSCULA MISCELLANEA 149, 158, 168 (J.J. Gauntlett ed., 1979).
167. Roman law manuscripts used in twelfth-century England incorporated these texts See, e.g., FRANCIS DE ZULUETA & PETER STEIN, THE TEACHING OF ROMAN LAW IN ENGLAND AROUND 1200, at xxxiv, 108 (1990) (lecture notes commented on J. INST. 4.4.10); THE LIBER PAUPERUM OF VACARIUS, 44 Selden Society 281 (Francis de Zulueta ed., 1927) (text included DIG. 47.2.93); id. at 296 (text included COD. J. 9.31.1). See J.C. de Wet, Criminal Liability and Civil Liability for Wrongful Conduct - An Historical and Comparative Survey, in OPUSCULA MISCELLANEA 149, 158, 168 (J.J. Gauntlett ed., 1979).
168. BRACTON, 401b (4:250), 407 (4:265-66), 411 (4:278), 412b-413 (4:283), 442b (4:373). By an elaborate legal fiction, this benefit of clergy in felony cases was later extended to a broader class of first-time offenders.
169. See supra note 141.
170. Marowe, supra note 63, at 375. See also BRITTON, 1:123; THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 45, 62; 41 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 16, fol. 254 (K.B. 1367).
171. Nor between criminal and tortious states of mind. Neither prosecutions for felony nor writs of trespass allowed defendants to plead accident - i.e., lack of intent, mens rea, negligence, or fault - as a special defense. Such defendants could only plead not guilty, and juries applied whatever standards of liability they wanted. S.F.C. MILSOM, HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMON LAW 296-97 (2d ed. 1981); THOMAS A. GREEN, VERDICT ACCORDING TO CONSCIENCE 86-93, 98-100 (1985); David Millon, Positivism in the Historiography of the Common Law, 1989 Wisc. L. REV. 669, 676-80. Defendants convicted of felony for homicide by accident or self-defense could expect a pardon from the king.
172. Nor between criminal and tortious states of mind. Neither prosecutions for felony nor writs of trespass allowed defendants to plead accident - i.e., lack of intent, mens rea, negligence, or fault - as a special defense. Such defendants could only plead not guilty, and juries applied whatever standards of liability they wanted. S.F.C. MILSOM, HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMON LAW 296-97 (2d ed. 1981); THOMAS A. GREEN, VERDICT ACCORDING TO CONSCIENCE 86-93, 98-100 (1985); David Millon, Positivism in the Historiography of the Common Law, 1989 Wisc. L. REV. 669, 676-80. Defendants convicted of felony for homicide by accident or self-defense could expect a pardon from the king.
173. Nor between criminal and tortious states of mind. Neither prosecutions for felony nor writs of trespass allowed defendants to plead accident - i.e., lack of intent, mens rea, negligence, or fault - as a special defense. Such defendants could only plead not guilty, and juries applied whatever standards of
174. THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 76 (ver celi qe nad rien ne doune droit nul recovrir ne nul remedie forqe vengeaunce).
175. See Kaye, supra note 133, at 7. The victim's wealth may also have mattered. Edward Powell has written that juries of presentment deferred to influential and well-connected victims, indicting defendants on their unsupported word. See Powell, supra note 90, at 71.
176. See Kaye, supra note 133, at 7. The victim's wealth may also have mattered. Edward Powell has written that juries of presentment deferred to influential and well-connected victims, indicting defendants on their unsupported word. See Powell, supra note 90, at 71.
177. See Barbara A. Hanawalt, Fur-Collar Crime: The Pattern of Crime Among the Fourteenth-Century English Nobility, 8 J. Soc. HIST., Fall 1974, at 1, 7.
178. A treatise written about 1290, which combined a harsh critique of common law with many historical inventions and inaccuracies, nevertheless expressed this choice between appeal of felony and writ of trespass starkly in terms of vengeance or damages. THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 45, 62.
179. See FRITZ SCHULZ, HISTORY OF ROMAN LEGAL SCIENCE 140 (1946).
180. See de Wet, supra note 144, at 153-55; Michael C. Alexander, Compensation in a Roman Criminal Law, 1984 U. ILL. L. REV. 521, 536-37. Another remedy was noxal surrender. When a master was sued for acts of a slave or a parent for the acts of a child, the slave or child could be handed over the plaintiff, either to be sold for compensation or to suffer private vengeance. Id.
181. See de Wet, supra note 144, at 153-55; Michael C. Alexander, Compensation in a Roman Criminal Law, 1984 U. ILL. L. REV. 521, 536-37. Another remedy was noxal surrender. When a master was sued for acts of a slave or a parent for the acts of a child, the slave or child could be handed over the plaintiff, either to be sold for compensation or to suffer private vengeance. Id.
182. See SCHULZ, supra note 153, at 140 (criticizing Roman criminal law and procedure as "undefined, arbitrary, and authoritarian").
183. THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, constantly referred to capital felonies as mortal sins and trespasses as venial sins. The Bracton treatise also did so occasionally.
184. BRACTON, 2 (2:21-22), 171b (3:43). See MROZ, supra note 28, at 10-28, 31-32.
185. AQUINAS, supra note 27, at 2ae 2ae, qu. 108, arts. 1-3; MROZ, supra note 28, at 33-48.
186. AQUINAS, supra note 27, at 2ae 2ae, qu. 108, arts. 1-3; MROZ, supra note 28, at 33-48.
187. THE MIRROR OF JUSTICES, supra note 23, 7 S.S. 45.