In the distant times of the Middle Ages, trials often took place, in which various insects, rats, roosters, pigs and other smaller brothers occupied the dock. Oddly enough, these lawsuits did not surprise anyone.
I, Benedict of Monferrato, Bishop of Lausanne, having heard the complaint against the bugs, acknowledge and certify that the complaint is well founded and that these bugs are subject to a spell. I call upon them my curse, demand obedience from them and anathematize them, so that they leave all fields and lands and go away.
A similar verdict passed to pest beetles in 1478 by the church authorities of the city of Bern (Switzerland) now seems rather absurd.
As a rule, such "cases" were dealt with by the ecclesiastical authorities, since the lay judges believed that, when passing a conviction, they could hardly contribute to its correct execution. But the priests do not need to "come to an agreement" with the Almighty and thus guarantee the deserved punishment for the convicted.
Another thing is that the ministers of the church themselves were aware of their powerlessness, and therefore did not at all seek to pass convictions. The hearing of "atrocious" cases sometimes dragged on for many years. For example, the lawsuit started by the community of Saint-Julien (France) against garden pests, which began in 1445, lasted more than forty years at short intervals. Moreover, in this dispute, the "defendants" - pest beetles in the end defeated people.
Back in the 13th century, the inhabitants of the city of Chur (Switzerland) started a process against small green bugs, better known as spanish flies. The judge, who was examining the case of the spanish flies, provided them with a lawyer at public expense. A brilliant speech by a lawyer who somehow proved the usefulness of these insects to the court ended with the flies, like people, gaining ownership of the land.
Promotional video:
In the province of Savoie (France), since the 16th century, a tradition has been practiced according to which caterpillars and other insects, in the event of serious damage to the crop, were excommunicated. On the appointed day, the priest went to the field damaged by the enemies, where he listened to the speeches of the defenders and accusers.
Lawyers referred to the fact that God created insects earlier than humans, and therefore they have a preferential right to the gifts of nature. The prosecutors pressed more on the ruin of the peasants as a result of the invasion of malicious creatures. After carefully listening to the debate of both parties, the priest usually agreed with the accusers and solemnly excommunicated the insects from the church.
Another amazing lawsuit was initiated at the beginning of the 16th century in Autuns (Burgundy). It so happened that the ubiquitous rats destroyed most of the harvest, and angry local residents decided to hold them accountable.
Official summons were drawn up in the local bishopric. A specially appointed official, for several days, going around barns and bins, loudly read out rat rights and obligations there.
It goes without saying that on the day appointed by the court, the animals did not appear at the hearing of their "case". Residents were already ready to celebrate the victory, but lawyer Bartholomew de Chassenet stood up for the rodents, who, thanks to this "rat" process, made himself a big name in the future.
First of all, the lawyer said that the summons prepared by the Episcopal Court were too general. In view of the fact that every rat living not only in Authen itself, but also in its suburbs, bears responsibility for the ruined crop, the summons must be drawn up individually and officially read out to each rodent separately.
Strange as it may seem, but these arguments were taken into account by the court. The nearby priests received strict instructions from the bishop: to talk to each rat separately, to call her to account and oblige him to appear in court at a strictly appointed time. Of course, the village priests could not disobey the order of their master. However, we agree that it is quite difficult to fulfill such an assignment, to put it mildly.
Be that as it may, but on the next appointed day, the rats again did not appear, thus showing disrespect both for the court itself and for the church authority, which creates this court. The angry bishop again turned to Chassenet with a demand either to admit the case hopelessly lost, or to somehow explain the shameless behavior of his clients.
It is known that Bartholomew de Chassenet brilliantly got out of this delicate situation. He stated that in view of the summons of all his clients, young and old, healthy and sick, to the court, they must make great preparations, and first of all demanded another extension of the term. Then the rat defender began to challenge the legality of the call itself.
He argued to the Episcopal Court that the summons should serve as his wards a kind of protective letters and that the rats are ready at any moment to appear at the hearing, but they are stopped only by one thing - the presence of cats on the route. Rodents are simply worried about their lives, and therefore do not dare to leave their holes in order to appear before the eyes of the bishop and his entourage.
Chassene said:
Let the plaintiffs make a commitment, under threat of a large monetary fine, that their cats will not disturb my clients, and the demand to appear in court will be immediately enforced.
The arguments of the gallant lawyer were recognized as fair. The court not only granted the rats a two-week reprieve, but also offered special benefits to pregnant rodents and infant rats.
But the inhabitants of Authen and its environs did not dare to take responsibility for the behavior of their domestic predators, and the case "Oten v. Rats" as a result was postponed indefinitely, and then completely lost.
It should be noted that animals did not always occupy places in the dock. There were cases when the smaller brothers were summoned to court as witnesses.
In the Middle Ages, in some countries there was a law according to which if a burglar broke into a private house from sunset to sunrise and the owner killed him, then this murder was not considered a crime. However, the trial was nevertheless carried out - after all, it could have happened that the malicious owner deliberately lured his victim into the house at night, and then killed her, ostensibly for self-defense.
However, it was easy enough for the killer to prove his innocence. According to the laws that reigned then, it was enough to bring to court any "witness" of the crime living in the house: a cat, a dog, a pig, a bird or even a mouse. In the presence of the judges and the animal witness, the killer had to loudly declare his innocence.
It was believed that if the owner of the house was guilty, then higher powers would force the animal to speak so that the crime would not go unpunished. However, the beasts never refuted the words of their master, and the criminal was released on all four sides.
Konstantin Karelov