Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1871-01-25
sroRIEs OF TRIAL BY BATTLE.
curious old Customs.

dOte and incident, appears IN an Eng
fish magazine under the title OF Ira
by Battle" We CLEAN from the writers
naees some interesting passages. Fen
dai TRIALS ON the Continent were things
ot violence from beginning to end The
very halls of justice there had fighting
hook 'In those of all the seigneurs,
eeelesiastic as well as laic, says wri
Ter Of the eighteenth century tSt. Folk
athe figures Of two champions, com
pletely armed and ready to encounter
were seen in the placcwhere the crueifix
with us the royal arms now stands.
Rageneau reports that there were two
such figures in the justice hall of the
chapter of ST. Meri. Sauval says:
am much deceived If have not myself
seen them in the two chambers of re
quests Of the Palaise, before they were
painted, gilded aud ornaInented as they
are at present; and think that behind
the crucifix of one Of these chambers
there still remains a considerable por-
ton, if not thewhole Of the figure OF one
of these champions. The feudal court
was composed of the seignGur--who
might have been bishop or an abbot as
well as noble-or his bailifi, and OF
not less. than four of his feudatories or
peers. i4plf ga.fV
Contempt of court was not dealt with
then as now. The president OF the court
could compel anybody who disregarded
his authority to fight him. AT Bourges,
for instance, we learn from the charter
which abolished this peculiar method OF
maintaining judicial authority in that
quarter (ll45), that if the provost had
summoned any person who refused to
appear. the next proceeding Of the func-
tionary was, to address the obstinate in
dividnal in the following form: | sent
for thee and thou didst not think It
worth thy while to come. demand,
therefore, the satisfaction of the duel for
this contempt And doubtless the pro-
yost must have found it great satistac-
ton when some peculiarly ugly customer
gave him a sound -thwacking in addition
TO despising his behests. The duel was
especially designed for those capital
cases in which there was just cause for
suspicion against the party accused, but
not sufficient evidence to procure his
conviction. But in France at least =
which meant not only France proper,
but also French-speaking Switzerland,
Savoy. the Sicilies and Flanders, in
short fully third of medieval Christen-
DON'T was hardly possible to conduct
any action at law without having re-
course to it.
CURIOUS COMBAT IN ENGLAND.
A curious judicial combat was fought
in London, July IA, 1880. The wife of
the appellant, Sir John Anneslie, was a
near relative of the renowned Chandos,
and had inherited from him large do
mains won and held by the sword in
France. The old warrior had iutrusted
Harrington, one of his squires, with the
government of an important castle, and
this squire had been continued in his
command by Anneslie and his dame.
The castle in question was one of the
many that fell before the sweeping march,
and. as French historians delight to re-
count, the proves of Dugueselin. This
duel, however, throws light on Dugues-
clint conuuests, in which other means a
little less glorious than military skill and
valor are seen to play an important part.
A BUTCHERY IN IRELAND. :
A butcherly instance Of the duel took
place in Dublin, September, 1888. league
McGilpatrick 0Connor, q semi-wild
chief from Connaught, accused Conner
Mccormick 0'Connor, another wild chief
from the same province, before the Lord
Justices and the Council, of killing and
numbering his men, they being then
under protection. This the appellant
declared had been done by the simple
plan of firing their lodgings at midnight,
and assailing them as they issued from
the flames. The defendant admitted the
deed, justified it on the plea that the
slain men were rebels, and offered to
prove his assertion by battle. He thus
very completely turned the tables on his
foe. Rebellion was greater crime in
the eyes of the Lords Justices than muir
der, and the original complainant was at
once transformed into the defendant.
One of the Lords Justices was Arch
bishop Lotus, but this worthy prelate,
far from advocating peace by word and
example, not only gave his fat for the
duel, but presided there in person, along
with bis coadjutor, Sir Henry Wallop.
The quarrel was decided in the Castle
yard, on foot; the weapons sword, dag
ger, and large, and the usual defensive
armor. Having first been stripped TO
their shirts, and carefully searched for
amulets by Mr.. Secretary Fenton, the
champions encountered. The homicide
proved the better man-atarms, and
wounded the other 0'Connor twice in
the leg, and once in the eye. Finding
the day go against him, the latter at
tempted to close, and to his misfortune
succeeded. His antagonist proved 4hite
as superior in strength as in skill, got
his head into chancery and pummelled
with the hilt of his sword until he had
knocked off his helmet. This done, the
victor hammered away at the bare head,
until. as an Hibernian author strangely
phrases it, he had knocked the seven
senses ont Of il" Having achieved this
extraordinary feat, Conner Mccormick
OConnor hacked of the victim head
with the victims own sword, and pre-
scented the dainty morsel to the Lords
Justices. who ordered it forthwith TO be
stuck on pole for general contempla-
ton and edifcation.
PLEBEIASs AND MOBILES
The duel was nearly as common among
plebeians in the good old time as it was
among gentlemen. Both classes mostly
baltled with men Of their own order, but
not exclusively. A plebeian, for fitting
provocation, might challenge a gentle
man; and gentleman a plebeIan. But
the regulations of the duel were not ia
vorable TO such encounters. When the
plebeian challenged the gentleman, the
latter might appear mounted and armed;
while his antagonist had to fight on foot
in a wooden shirt, with wooden shield
and club. And when the gentleman
challenged the peasant he was compelled.