University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
expand section18. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
collapse section23. 
expand section23.1. 
expand section23.2. 
expand section23.3. 
expand section23.4. 
expand section23.5. 
expand section23.6. 
expand section23.7. 
 23.8. 
 23.9. 
 23.10. 
expand section23.11. 
collapse section23.12. 
  
  
expand section23.13. 
expand section23.14. 
 23.15. 
expand section23.16. 
expand section23.17. 
 23.18. 
expand section23.19. 
expand section23.20. 
expand section23.21. 
expand section23.22. 
 23.23. 
 23.24. 
expand section23.25. 
 23.26. 
expand section23.27. 
 23.28. 
expand section23.29. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
expand section26. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
expand section29. 
expand section30. 
expand section31. 

28.26. 26. On the judiciary Combat between one of the Parties and one of
the Witnesses.

Beaumanoir informs us [160] that a person who saw a witness going to swear against him might elude the other by telling the judges that his adversary produced a false and slandering witness; and if the witness was willing to maintain the quarrel, he gave pledges of battle. The inquiry was no longer the question; for if the witness was overcome, it was decided that the adversary had produced a false witness, and he lost his cause.

It was necessary that the second witness should not be heard; for if he had made his attestation, the affair would have been decided by the deposition of two witnesses. But by staying the second, the deposition of the first witness became void.

The second witness being thus rejected, the party was not allowed to produce any others, but he lost his cause; in case, however, there had been no pledges of battle, he might produce other witnesses.

Beaumanoir observes [161] that the witness might say to the party he appeared for, before he made his deposition: "I do not care to fight for your quarrel, nor to enter into any debate; but if you are willing to stand by me, I am ready to tell the truth." The party was then obliged to fight for the witness, and if he happened to be overcome, he did not lose his cause, [162] but the witness was rejected.

This, I believe, was a modification of the ancient custom; and what makes me think so is that we find this usage of challenging the witnesses established in the laws of the Bavarians [163] and Burgundians [164] without any restriction.

I have already made mention of the constitution of Gundebald, against which Agobard [165] and St. Avitus [166] made such loud complaints. "When the accused," says this prince, "produces witnesses to swear that he has not committed the crime, the accuser may challenge one of the witnesses to a combat; for it is very just that the person who has offered to swear, and has declared that he was certain of the truth, should make no difficulty of maintaining it by combat." Thus the witnesses were deprived by this king of every kind of subterfuge to avoid the judiciary combat.

Footnotes

[160]

Chapter 61, p. 315.

[161]

Chapter 6, p. 40.

[162]

But if the battle was fought by champions, the champion that was overcome had his hand cut off.

[163]

Tit. 16, section 2.

[164]

Tit. 45.

[165]

"Letter to Louis the Debonnaire."

[166]

"Life of St. Avitus."