lect09-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！








It　is　not　everybody　who；　when　his　blood　is　hot；　will　submit　to






have　a　quarrel　referred　to　a　third　person　present；　much　less　to　a






third　person　absent；　but　he　will　constantly　do　so；　if　he　lays　a






wager　on　it；　and　if；　besides　being　found　in　the　right；　he　has　a






chance　of　receiving　the　amount　staked。　And　this　I　suppose　






differing；　I　own；　from　several　high　authorities　　to　be　the　true






significance　of　the　Sponsio　and　Restipulatio；　which　we　know　to






have　been　of　the　essence　of　the　ancient　Roman　Condictio；　and　of






the　agreement　to　appear　before　the　Praetor　in　thirty　days。　The






Legis　Actio　Sacramenti　assumes　that　the　quarrel　is　at　once






referred　to　a　present　arbitrator；　the　Condictio　that　the






reference　is　to　the　decision　of　an　arbitrator　after　thirty　days'






interval；　but　meantime　the　parties　have　entered　into　a　separate






wager　on　the　merits　of　their　dispute。　We　know　that　the　liability






to　an　independent　penalty　attached　to　the　suitor　by　Condictio






even　when　it　had　become　one　of　the　most　important　Roman　actions；






and　that　it　was　still　exacted　in　the　age　of　Cicero。






　　　　There　is　yet　another　primitive　contrivance　by　which；　in　the






absence　of　a　present　arbitrator；　a　quarrel　may　be　prevented　from






issuing　in　bloodshed。　The　claimant　willing　to　go　to　arbitration






may；　in　the　absence　of　his　adversary；　or　if　he　be　the　stronger；






in　his　presence；　take　forcible　possession　of　his　moveable






property　and　detain　it　till　he　too　submits。　I　believe　this　to






have　been　the　true　primitive　office　of　the　Pignoris　Capio；　though






the　full　evidence　of　my　opinion　will　not　be　before　you　till　I






have　tracked　the　same　institution　through　the　twilight　of　other






legal　systems。　Among　the　Romans；　even　at　the　date　of　the　Twelve






Tables；　it　had　become　（to　employ　Mr　Tylor's　phrase）　a　mere






survival；　confined　to　cases　when　the　denial　of　justice　was






condemned　by　superstition　or　by　a　sense　of　the　sternest　public






emergency；　and　this　was　a　consequence　of　the　exceptionally　rapid






development　of　Roman　law　and　procedure；　and　of　the　exceptionally






early　date　at　which　the　Roman　tribunals　became　the　organs　of　the






national　sovereignty。　You　will　see　hereafter　how　much　reason






there　is　for　thinking　that　the　progress　of　most　societies　towards






a　complete　administration　of　justice　was　slow　and　gradual；　and






that　the　Commonwealth　at　first　interfered　through　its　various






organs　rather　to　keep　order　and　see　fair　play　in　quarrels　than






took　them；　as　it　now　does　always　and　everywhere；　into　its　own






hands。　To　this　period；　long　forgotten　among　the　Romans；　those






peculiar　rules　pointed　back　which　survived　along　with　the






Pignoris　Capio；　and　which　provided　for　its　exercise　out　of　court






and　during　the　judicial　vacation。






　　　　I　turn　to　the　Teutonic　societies　for　vestiges　of　a　practice






similar　to　that　which　the　Romans　called　Pignoris　Capio。　They　seem






to　be　quite　unmistakeable　in　that　portion　of　our　own　English　law






which　is　concerned　with　the　power　of　Distraint　or　Distress　and






with　the　connected　legal　remedy　known　as　Replevin。　The　examples






of　the　right　to　distrain　another　man's　property　which　are　most






familiar　to　you　are；　I　dare　say；　the　landlord's　right　to　seize






the　goods　of　his　tenant　for　unpaid　rent；　and　the　right　of　the






lawful　possessor　of　land　to　take　and　impound　stray　beasts　which






are　damaging　his　crops　or　soil。　The　process　by　which　the　latter






right　is　made　effectual　retains　far　more　of　the　ancient






institution　than　does　distress　for　rent。　For　the　peculiar　power






of　the　landlord　to　distrain　for　rent；　while　it　remains　an






extrajudicial　remedy；　has　been　converted　into　a　complete　remedy






of　its　kind　by　a　series　of　statutes　comparatively　modern。　It　has






always；　however；　been　the　theory　of　the　most　learned　English






lawyers　that　distress　is　in　principle　an　incomplete　remedy；　its






primary　object　is　to　compel　the　person　against　whom　it　is






properly　employed　to　make　satisfaction。　But　goods　distrained　for






rent　are　nowadays　not　merely　held　as　a　security　for　the






landlord's　claim；　they　are　ultimately　put　up　for　sale　with






certain　prescribed　formalities；　the　landlord　is　paid　out　of　the






proceeds；　and　the　overplus　is　returned　to　the　tenant。　Thus　the






proceeding　has　become　merely　a　special　method　by　which　payment　of






rent；　and　certain　other　payments　which　are　placed　on　the　same






footing；　are　enforced　without　the　help　of　a　Court　of　Justice。　But






the　distraint　of　cattle　for　damage　still　retains　a　variety　of






archaic　features。　It　is　not　a　complete　remedy。　The　taker　merely






keeps　the　cattle　until　satisfaction　is　made　to　him　for　the






injury；　or　till　they　are　returned　by　him　on　an　engagement　to






contest　the　right　to　distrain　in　an　action　of　Replevin。






　　　　The　practice　of　Distress　　of　taking　nams；　a　word　preserved






in　the　once　famous　law…term　withernam　　is　attested　by　records






considerably　older　than　the　Conquest。　There　is　reason　to　believe






that　anciently　it　was　resorted　to　in　many　more　cases　than　our






oldest　common…law　authorities　recognise；　but　about　the　reign　of






Henry　the　Third；　when　it　was　confined　to　certain　specific　claims






and　wrongs；　the　course　of　the　proceeding　was　as　follows：　The






person　assuming　himself　to　be　aggrieved　seized　the　goods　（which






anciently　were　almost　always　the　cattle）　of　the　person　whom　he






believed　to　have　injured　him　or　failed　in　duty　towards　him。　He






drove　the　beasts　to　a　pound；　an　enclosed　piece　of　land　reserved






for　the　purpose；　and　generally　open　to　the　sky。　Let　me　observe　in






passing　that　there　is　no　more　ancient　institution　in　the　country






than　the　Village…Pound。　It　is　far　older　than　the　King's　Bench；






and　probably　older　than　the　Kingdom。　While　the　cattle　were　on






their　way　to　the　pound　the　owner　had　a　limited　right　of　rescue






which　the　law　recognised；　but　which　he　ran　great　risk　in






exercising。　Once　lodged　within　the　enclosure；　the　impounded






beasts；　when　the　pound　was　uncovered；　had　to　be　fed　by　the　owner






and　not　by　the　distrainor；　nor　was　the　rule　altered　till　the






present　reign。　The　distrainor's　part　in　the　proceedings　ended　in






fact　with　the　impounding；　and　we　have　to　consider　what　courses






were　thereupon　open　to　the　person　whose　cattle　had　been　seized。






Of　course　he　might　submit　and　discharge　the　demand。　Or　he　might






tender　security　for　its　acquittal。　Or　again　he　might　remain






obstinate　and　leave　his　beasts　in　the　pound。　It　might　happen；






however；　that　he　altogether　denied　the　distrainor's　right　to






distrain；　or　that　the　latter；　on　security　being　tendered　to　him






for　the　adjustment　of　his　claim；　refused　to　release　the　cattle。






In　either　of　these　casts　the　cattle…owner　（at　least　at　the　time






of　which　we　are　speaking）　might　either　apply　to　the　King's






Chancery　for　a　writ　commanding　the　Sheriff　to　'make　replevin；'　or






he　might　verbally　complain　himself　to　the　Sheriff；　who　would　then






proceed　at　once　to　'replevy。'　The　process　denoted　by　this　ancient






phrase　consisted　of　several　stages。　The　Sheriff　first　of　all






demanded　a　view　of　the　impounded　cattle；　if　this　were　refused