When a challenge of false judgment
was brought against the lord's court, the lord appeared in person before
his paramount to defend the judgment of his court. In like manner, in
the appeal of default of justice, the party summoned before the lord
paramount brought his lord along with him, to the end that if the
default was not proved, he might recover his jurisdiction.
[245]
In process of time as the practice observed in these two particular
cases became general, by the introduction of all sorts of appeals, it
seemed very extraordinary that the lord should be obliged to spend his
whole life in strange tribunals, and for other people's affairs. Philip
of Valois ordained
[246]
that none but the bailiffs should be summoned;
and when the usage of appeals became still more frequent, the parties
were obliged to defend the appeal: the deed of the judge became that of
the party.
[247]
I took notice that in the appeal of default of justice,
[248]
the
lord lost only the privilege of having the cause tried in his own court.
But if the lord himself was sued as party,
[249]
which became a very
common practice,
[250]
he paid a fine of sixty livres to the king, or to
the paramount, before whom the appeal was brought. Thence arose the
usage, after appeals had been generally received, of making the fine
payable to the lord upon the reversal of the sentence of his judge; a
usage which lasted a long time, and was confirmed by the ordinance of
Rousillon, but fell, at length, to the ground through its own absurdity.
