Page:The history of medieval Europe.djvu/245

THE FRANKISH STATE AND CHARLEMAGNE 205 -lis realm written down where that had not already been jione. Even in the folk-courts procedure had now altered much rom that of the early Germans. It was less harsh and more equitable. Not only had its formalities been changes Christianized, but set forms had become of less in judicial importance. There was also now less self-help by |:he parties to the suit and more control was exercised by the ipublic authorities. The summons to court was now by IDrder of king or count ; in the conduct of the trial the liti- gants did less and the presiding magistrate did more ; at the 2nd of the trial the party who had shown better proof re- ceived from the court a certificate attesting this fact, though ihe was still left to execute the sentence himself. Evidence now began to be used to decide the case instead of merely baths and ordeal. Written records were often presented in court, and, while a private document had to be verified by jceremonial witnesses and might be opposed by the other iside's presenting witnesses or by piercing it with a sword as a challenge to the ordeal by combat or wager of battle, a royal charter could not be so contested. Oath-helpers now must hold a certain amount of property and must come from the neighborhood rather than from the kindred. It was possible to appeal from the folk-court to the king's court, where still more informal, s ensib le, and equitable methods of procedure were now in vogue. Royal influence was further seen in the sworn inquest, an institution which could be employed only by the king, or by his mis si and counts with his express permission. The sworn This method was inherited from the late Roman in q uest Empire and was employed for administrative as well as judicial purposes. It consisted in summoning a number of persons from the locality in question, who were bound by oath to tell what they knew concerning crimes committed there or a corrupt official or any similar matter. Sometimes these sworn witnesses gave their testimony collectively, sometimes they were questioned singly. This was a good method for the government in gathering information, but it