According to Jewish law, “If an ox gore a man or a woman that they die,
then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten: but
the owner of the ox shall be quit.” After giving this command, Moses
proceeds to enforce the doctrine of the responsibility of the beast’s
owner, and to ensure his punishment, should he wittingly let a dangerous
animal run loose; also to make provision for his security under some
extenuating circumstances. These commands were carried into the laws of
mediæval Europe; the jurists, at the same time, introducing refinements of
their own, and enforcing them in numerous cases, which afford matter for
curious inquiry, and are full of technicalities and peculiarities, at once
amusing and instructive, as throwing light on the customs and habits of
thought in those times.
Now take the case of a child injured by a sow, or a man killed by a bull:
the trial was conducted in precisely the same manner as though sow and
bull were morally criminal. They were apprehended, placed before the
ordinary tribunal, and given over to execution.
Again: an inroad of locusts or snails takes place. Common law is helpless,
it may pronounce judgment, but who is to execute its decrees? Temporal
power being palpably unavailing, the spiritual tribunal steps in; the
decision of the magistrates being useless, perhaps excommunication may
suffice. This, then, was an established maxim. If the criminal could be
reached, he was handed over to the ordinary courts of justice; if,
however, the matter was beyond their control, he fell within the
jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts. Poor culprit, not a loophole left
by which to escape!
Let us consider the manner of proceeding under the former circumstance. A
bull has caused the death of a man. The brute is seized and incarcerated;
a lawyer is appointed to plead for the delinquent; another is counsel for
the prosecution. Witnesses are bound over, the case is heard, and sentence
is given by the judge, declaring the bull guilty of deliberate and wilful
murder; and, accordingly, that it must suffer the penalty of hanging or
burning.
The following cases are taken from among numerous others, and will afford
examples:
A.D. 1266. A pig burned at Fontenay-aux-Roses, near Paris, for having
devoured a child.
1386. A judge at Falaise condemned a sow to be mutilated in its leg
and head, and then to be hanged, for having lacerated and killed a
child. It was executed in the square, dressed in man’s clothes. The
execution cost six sous, six deniers, and a new pair of gloves for the
executioner, that he might come out of the job with clean hands.
1389. A horse tried at Dijon, on information given by the magistrates
of Montbar, and condemned to death, for having killed a man.
1499. A bull was condemned to death at Cauroy, near Beauvais, for
having in a fury “occis” a little boy of fourteen or fifteen years
old.
A farmer of Moisy let a mad bull escape. The brute met and gored a man so
severely that he only survived a few hours. Charles, Count de Valois,
having heard of the accident whilst at his château of Crépy, ordered the
bull to be seized and committed for trial. This was accordingly done. The
officers of the Count de Valois gathered all requisite information,
received the affidavits of witnesses, established the guilt of the bull,
condemned it to be hanged, and executed it on the gibbet of
Moisy-le-Temple. The death of the beast thus expiated that of the man. But
matters did not stop here. An appeal against the sentence of the Count’s
officers was lodged before the Candlemas parliament of 1314--drawn up in
the name of the Procureur de l’Hôpital at Moisy, declaring the officers to
have been incompetent judges, having no jurisdiction within the confines
of Moisy, and as having attempted to establish a precedent. The parliament
received and investigated the appeal, and decided that the condemnation of
the bull was perfectly just, but found that the Count de Valois had no
judicial rights within the territory of Moisy, and that his officers had
acted illegally in taking part in the affair.
Here is a list of the expenses incurred on the occasion of a sow’s
execution for having eaten a child:--