the spirit of laws-第152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！


ined　the　battle　was　obliged　to　fight　likewise　against　the　adverse　party：　not　in　order　to　know　whether　the　judgment　was　good　or　bad　（for　this　judgment　was　out　of　the　case；　being　reversed　by　the　combat）；　but　to　determine　whether　the　demand　was　just　or　not；　and　it　was　on　this　new　point　they　fought。　Thence　proceeds　our　manner　of　pronouncing　decrees；　〃The　court　annuls　the　appeal；　the　court　annuls　the　appeal　and　the　judgment　against　which　the　appeal　was　brought。〃　In　effect；　when　the　person　who　had　made　the　challenge　of　false　judgment　happened　to　be　overcome；　the　appeal　was　reversed：　when　he　proved　victorious；　both　the　judgment　and　the　appeal　were　reversed；　then　they　were　obliged　to　proceed　to　a　new　judgment。

This　is　so　far　true　that；　when　the　cause　was　tried　by　inquests；　this　manner　of　pronouncing　did　not　take　place：　witness　what　M。　de　la　Roche　Flavin　says；＇252＇　namely；　that　the　chamber　of　inquiry　could　not　use　this　form　at　the　beginning　of　its　existence。

34。　In　what　Manner　the　Proceedings　at　Law　became　secret。　Duels　had　introduced　a　public　form　of　proceeding；　so　that　both　the　attack　and　the　defence　were　equally　known。　〃The　witnesses；〃　says　Beaumanoir；＇253＇　〃ought　to　give　their　testimony　in　open　court。〃

Boutillier's　commentator　says　he　had　learned　of　ancient　practitioners；　and　from　some　old　manuscript　law　books；　that　criminal　processes　were　anciently　carried　on　in　public；　and　in　a　form　not　very　different　from　the　public　judgments　of　the　Romans。　This　was　owing　to　their　not　knowing　how　to　write；　a　thing　in　those　days　very　common。　The　usage　of　writing　fixes　the　ideas；　and　keeps　the　secret；　but　when　this　usage　is　laid　aside；　nothing　but　the　notoriety　of　the　proceeding　is　capable　of　fixing　those　ideas。

And　as　uncertainty　might　easily　arise　in　respect　to　what　had　been　adjudicated　by　vassals；　or　pleaded　before　them；　they　could；　therefore；　refresh　their　memory＇254＇　every　time　they　held　a　court　by　what　were　called　proceedings　on　record。＇255＇　In　that　case；　it　was　not　allowed　to　challenge　the　witnesses　to　combat；　for　then　there　would　be　no　end　of　disputes。

In　process　of　time　a　private　form　of　proceeding　was　introduced。　Everything　before　had　been　public；　everything　now　became　secret；　the　interrogatories；　the　informations；　the　re…examinations；　the　confronting　of　witnesses；　the　opinion　of　the　attorney…general；　and　this　is　the　present　practice。　The　first　form　of　proceeding　was　suitable　to　the　government　of　that　time；　as　the　new　form　was　proper　to　the　government　since　established。

Boutillier's　commentator　fixes　the　epoch　of　this　change　to　the　ordinance　in　the　year　1539。　I　am　apt　to　believe　that　the　change　was　made　insensibly；　and　passed　from　one　lordship　to　another；　in　proportion　as　the　lords　renounced　the　ancient　form　of　judging；　and　that　derived　from　the　Institutions　of　St。　Louis　was　improved。　And　indeed；　Beaumanoir　says＇256＇　that　witnesses　were　publicly　heard　only　in　cases　in　which　it　was　allowed　to　give　pledges　of　battle：　in　others　they　were　heard　in　secret；　and　their　depositions　were　reduced　to　writing。　The　proceedings　became；　therefore；　secret；　when　they　ceased　to　give　pledges　of　battle。

35。　Of　the　Costs。　In　former　times　no　one　was　condemned　in　the　lay　courts　of　France　to　the　payment　of　costs。＇257＇　The　party　cast　was　sufficiently　punished　by　pecuniary　fines　to　the　lord　and　his　peers。　From　the　manner　of　proceeding　by　judicial　combat　it　followed；　that　the　party　condemned　and　deprived　of　life　and　fortune　was　punished　as　much　as　he　could　be：　and　in　the　other　cases　of　the　judicial　combat；　there　were　fines　sometimes　fixed；　and　sometimes　dependent　on　the　disposition　of　the　lord；　which　were　sufficient　to　make　people　dread　the　consequences　of　suits。　The　same　may　be　said　of　causes　that　were　not　decided　by　combat。　As　the　lord　had　the　chief　profits；　so　he　was　also　at　the　chief　expense；　either　to　assemble　his　peers；　or　to　enable　them　to　proceed　to　judgment。　Besides；　as　disputes　were　generally　determined　at　the　same　place；　and　almost　always　at　the　same　time；　without　that　infinite　multitude　of　writings　which　afterwards　followed；　there　was　no　necessity　of　allowing　costs　to　the　parties。

The　custom　of　appeals　naturally　introduced　that　of　giving　costs。　Thus　Défontaines　says；＇258＇　that　when　they　appealed　by　written　law；　that　is；　when　they　followed　the　new　laws　of　St。　Louis；　they　gave　costs；　but　that　in　the　ordinary　practice；　which　did　not　permit　them　to　appeal　without　falsifying　the　judgment；　no　costs　were　allowed。　They　obtained　only　a　fine；　and　the　possession　for　a　year　and　a　day　of　the　thing　contested；　if　the　cause　was　remanded　to　the　lord。

But　when　the　number　of　appeals　increased　from　the　new　facility　of　appealing；＇259＇　when　by　the　frequent　usage　of　those　appeals　from　one　court　to　another；　the　parties　were　continually　removed　from　the　place　of　their　residence；　when　the　new　method　of　procedure　multiplied　and　prolonged　the　suits；　when　the　art　of　eluding　the　very　justest　demands　became　refined；　when　the　parties　at　law　knew　how　to　fly　only　in　order　to　be　followed；　when　plaints　were　ruinous　and　defence　easy；　when　the　arguments　were　lost　in　whole　volumes　of　words　and　writings；　when　the　kingdom　was　filled　with　limbs　of　the　law；　who　were　strangers　to　justice；　when　knavery　found　encouragement　at　the　very　place　where　it　did　not　find　protection；　then　it　was　necessary　to　deter　litigious　people　by　the　fear　of　costs。　They　were　obliged　to　pay　costs　for　the　judgment　and　for　the　means　they　had　employed　to　elude　it。　Charles　the　Fair　made　a　general　ordinance　on　that　subject。＇260＇

36。　Of　the　public　Prosecutor。　As　by　the　Salic；　Ripuarian；　and　other　barbarous　laws；　crimes　were　punished　with　pecuniary　fines；　they　had　not　in　those　days；　as　we　have　at　present；　a　public　officer　who　had　the　care　of　criminal　prosecutions。　And；　indeed；　the　issue　of　all　causes　being　reduced　to　the　reparation　of　injuries；　every　prosecution　was　in　some　measure　civil；　and　might　be　managed　by　any　one。　On　the　other　hand；　the　Roman　law　had　popular　forms　for　the　prosecution　of　crimes　which　were　inconsistent　with　the　functions　of　a　public　prosecutor。

The　custom　of　judicial　combats　was　no　less　opposite　to　this　idea；　for　who　is　it　that　would　choose　to　be　a　public　prosecutor　and　to　make　himself　every　man's　champion　against　all　the　world？

I　find　in　the　collection　of　formulas；　inserted　by　Muratori　in　the　laws　of　the　Lombards；　that　under　our　princes　of　the　second　race　there　was　an　advocate　for　the　public　prosecutor。＇261＇　But　whoever　pleases　to　read　the　entire　collection　of　these　formulas　will　find　that　there　was　a　total　difference　between　such　officers　and　those　we　now　call　the　public　prosecutor；　our　attorneys…general；　our　king's　solicitors；　or　our　solicitors　for　the　nobility。　The　former　were　rather　agents　to　the　public　for　the　management　of　political　and　domestic　affairs；　than　for　the　civil。　And；　indeed；　we　did　not　find　in　those　formulas　that　they　were　entrusted　with　criminal　prosecutions；　or　with　causes　relating　to　minors；　to　churches；　or　to　the　condition　of　any　one。

I　said　that　the　establishment　of　a　public　prosecutor　was　repugnant　to　the　usage　of　judicial　combats。　I　find；　notwithstanding；　in　one　of　those　formulas；　an　advocate　for　the　public　prosecutor；　who　had　the　liberty　to　fight。　Muratori　has　placed　it　just　after　the　constitution　of　Henry　I；　for　which　it　was　made。＇262＇　In　this　constitution　it　is　said；　〃That　if　any　man　kills　his　father；　his　brother；　or　any　of　his　other　relatives；　he　shall　lose　their　succession；　which　shall　pass　to　the　other　relatives；　and　his　own　property　shall　go　to　the　exchequer。〃　Now　it　was　in　suing　for　the　estate　which　had　devolved　to　the　exchequer；　that　the　advocate　for　the　public　prosecutor；　by　whom　its　rights　were　defended；　had　the　privilege　of　fighting：　this　case　fell　within　the　general　rule。

We　see　in　those　formulas　the　advocate　for　the　public　prosecutor　proceeding　against　a　person　who　had　taken　a　robber；　but　had　not　brought　him　before　the　count；＇263＇　against　another　who　had　raised　an　insurrection　or　tumult　against　the　count；＇264＇　against　another　who　had　saved　a　man's　life　whom　the　count　had　ordered　to　be　put　to　death；＇265＇　against　the　advocate　of　some　churches；　whom　the　count　had　commanded　to　bring　a　robber　before　him；　but　had　not　obeyed；＇266＇　against　a