28.31. 31. The same Subject continued.
The villain could not bring a
challenge of false judgment against the court of his lord. This we learn
from Dfontaines,
[239]
and he is confirmed moreover by the
Institutions.
[240]
Hence Dfontaines says,
[241]
"between the lord and his
villain there is no other judge but God."
It was the custom of judicial combats that deprived the villains of
the privilege of challenging their lord's court of false judgment. And
so true is this, that those villains
[242]
who by charter or custom had a
right to fight had also the privilege of challenging their lord's court
of false judgment, even though the peers who tried them were
gentlemen;
[243]
and Dfontaines proposes expedients to gentlemen in order
to avoid the scandal of fighting with a villain by whom they had been
challenged of false judgment.
[244]
As the practice of judicial combats began to decline, and the usage
of new appeals to be introduced, it was reckoned unfair that freemen
should have a remedy against the injustice of the courts of their lords,
and the villains should not; hence the parliament received their appeals
all the same as those of freemen.
Footnotes
[239]
Chapter 21, arts. 21, 22.
[242]
Ibid., 22, art. 7. This article, and the 21st of the 22nd
chapter of the same author, have been hitherto very badly explained.
Defontaines does not oppose the judgment of the lord to that of the
gentleman, because it was the same thing; but he opposes the common
villain to him who had the privilege of fighting.
[243]
Gentlemen may always be appointed judges. Ibid., chap. 21, art. 48.
[244]
Ibid., chap. 22, art. 14.
