Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume I.djvu/632

596 APPEAL nal causes from all the inferior jurisdictions, except where the court for crown cases re- served has the final decision; and in chancery cases it hears appeals from all the English and Irish equity courts. By recent statutes ap- peals may also be taken to the house of lords from the probate courts of England and Ire- land. There have been lately some emphatic complaints made about the weakness of the house of lords as an appellate court. Its de- cisions upon appeals are practically left entirely to the law lords, and it has not unfrequently happened that two or three of these have re- versed judgments which had been sustained by a majority of the judges of the courts be- low. In one case of a recent date the prevailing judgment of the house of lords, given in fact by two persons only, coincided with the opinion of only four judges below, while the defeated party had had altogether seven judges in his favor. In another case the party who succeeded in the house of lords had had in the course of the suit through all the courts only four judges in all in his favor, while his opponent had had eight. Another supreme appellate tribunal is that of the queen in council. The judicial functions of the crown are however in fact delegated to the judicial committee of the privy council. This court revises judgments of the colonial courts throughout the empire, and sentences of the ecclesiastical and admiralty courts. The committee after consideration make their re- port to the crown, and its approval is signified by an order in council. In France, incorrect decisions are also held in check by a system of appeals. The first regularly organized tribu- nals of appeal in France were about the reign of Louis IX. The French right of appeal, especially in criminal cases, seems to American or English observers to be often frivolously ex- ercised. The French courts of appeal may dis- charge or amend the judgments of the courts below, and may reduce or increase punishments or the pecuniary awards of juries. The theo- ry of the French appeal seems to be a submis- sion of the facts as stated in the proceedings to the court of appeal, to whose judgment all deductions whatsoever are referred. Appeals from justices of the peace lie to the tribunals of first instance, composed of from three to twelve judges, divided into chambers of civil and criminal jurisdiction. The decisions of these tribunals and of the tribunals of com- merce are reviewed in 27 higher courts, taking their names from the cities where they are established. Each of thes.e courts is composed of at least 24 judges, and is usually divided into three chambers, one having cognizance of civil causes, one of criminal accusations, and one of police matters. In the civil chambers seven judges, and in the chamber of criminal accusations five judges must concur. On very important or difficult questions two of the chambers combine, and the decision must be concurred in by 14 judges. Appeals from these courts go to the court of cassation. This court has 49 judges, and may on appeal annul the judgments of any of the inferior courts for any error of law apparent on the face of the proceedings. No new evidence is received in this court, while on appeals from the courts of first instance the proofs may be changed to any extent. In Germany, the system of appeal was commenced in 1496, and is now greatly elaborated ; the courts are of the first, second", and third instance. The appeals may be based either on matters of law or fact. Each king- dom has its own tribunals, and the smaller principalities are associated together in districts for the purposes of courts of appeal. The proceedings of the German courts, like those of the English court of chancery, are exces- sively prolix and tedious, and entirely in writ- ing, the arguments only being oral, and their es- sence being contained in the pleadings, as de- ductions from the facts. Besides the sense in which we in modern parlance use the word appeal, proceedings of historical interest known as appeals were formerly recognized in English law, wherein the term was used as derived from the French appeler, to summon or to challenge. An offender on his trial might by permission of the court confess the charge, and 44 appeal " another person as the instigator or accomplice of his crime, who thereupon might be put on his trial, or fight his accuser. If he was acquitted, or if he conquered, the accuser was hanged on his own confession ; if convict- ed or vanquished, the accuser was pardoned, as for service done to the state. Sir Matthew Hale denounced this practice, and it fell into disuse, although by various statutes now re- pealed the indemnity, and even the reward of approvers, was long maintained. A party in- jured by a felony, his widow or heirs, might also appeal the offender for the price of blood, and subsequently for the purpose of punish- ment. This was distinct from a crown prose- cution. The appellee, the person accused, could then demand his wager of battle, which the accuser, if a peer, a citizen of London, the widow, a priest, an infant, or person above 60, might decline. The appellant might also de- cline to fight if the evidence which he adduced raised a very violent presumption of the guilt of the appellee. The combat commenced by the appellee throwing down his glove, which was lifted by the appellant, whereupon each party affirmed categorically by an oath the truth of the accusation and denial, concluding, "and this I will prove against thee by my body." Thereupon the parties must proceed to fight, with club and buckler, in the presence of the court, from sunrise to the appearance of the stars in the evening. If the appellant was van- quished, the appellee was acquitted, and had his action against the appellant, who was there- upon declared infamous; if the appellee was vanquished, he was hanged forthwith. The last occasion on which the appeal of felony and wager of battle were resorted to in England