LEGAL ANTIQUITIES.
When pleading was scarcely developed, the courts used to hear suits against animals. The fondness for imaginary trials in the Middle Ages took a practical shape. By the old law of France, if a vicious animal killed a person, and it was proved that the owner knew of its propensity to attack people and suffered it to go at large, he was hanged and the animal also. In 1314, a bull having killed a man by tossing him with its horns, it was brought before the judges in the province of Valois, and indicted as a criminal, and after several witnesses had given evidence, it was condemned to be hanged. This sentence was confirmed by an order of Parliament, and carried into effect. And we are told that an unfortunate pig which had chanced to kill a child in Burgundy, was in like manner solemnly tried in court and suffered the same punishment. So late as 1650, the French law books treated of the proper procedure against animals, such as rats, locusts, flies, eels, and leeches, and the mode of appointing counsel to defend them. In Switzerland criminal prosecutions were often brought against worms.
Nicholas Chorier, a French historian, mentions that in 1584 heavy rains brought on a vast number of caterpillars. The walls, windows, and chimneys were covered with them. The Grand Vicar of Valence cited the caterpillars before him; he appointed a proctor to defend them. The cause was solemnly argued, and he sentenced them to quit the diocese. But they did not obey. It was discussed whether to proceed against these animals by anathema and imprecation, or, as it was expressed, by malediction and excommunication. But two priests and two theologians, having been consulted, changed the opinions of the Grand Vicar, so that afterwards nothing was made use of but adjuration, prayers, and sprinkling holy water. The life of these animals is short; and these ceremonies, having continued several months, received the credit of having miraculously exterminated them.
The famous French lawyer, Chassanee, first established his fame by defending the rats in a process that had been instituted against them in the diocese of Autun. The rats did not appear at the first citation, and their advocate suggested that they had not all been summoned, but only those in a few localities; the proper way was to summon all the rats in every parish. This was held a good plea, and therefore all the rats were duly summoned. They did not, however, attend; but their advocate suggested that many of them were old and sick, and an extension of time should be given. This was again allowed, but the rats did not come into court at the extended time. The advocate then pleaded as the next excuse, that the rats were most anxious to come, but as there were many cats on their way to court, they were entitled to protection in going and coming, otherwise they were afraid to venture out of their holes. Therefore security must be given that the cats would not molest the litigants. The court allowed that this was reasonable; but the owners would not undertake to be bound for the good behavior of their cats, and so the next appointment of sitting of the court fell through, and the hearing was adjourned sine die.—Curiosities of Law and Lawyers.
The reign of Richard III. was a remarkable epoch in the legislative annals of England; not only from the statutes being thenceforth in English, but likewise from their having been the first which were ever printed. We accordingly find in these laws exceptions in favor of scriveners (employed in copying books), alluminors (illuminators), printers, and readers of books. Books were then so excessively dear that Daines Barrington conjectures the readers above mentioned were booksellers, who received money from an audience who were either incapable themselves of reading, or otherwise could not afford to purchase the books.
FACETIÆ.
A party brought a suit for divorce before a justice of the peace. When the case came up for trial the defendant pleaded the want of jurisdiction. The justice put on his specs, and after careful examination of the statute concluded that he had jurisdiction in all cases where the value of the property did not exceed one hundred dollars. So he told the plaintiff he would have to file an affidavit stating that his wife and children did not exceed the value of one hundred dollars; which was done, and the divorce forthwith granted.
