Trials Against Animals

Lawsuits animals were trials in which the accused was an animal who saw himself accused of an offense, a crime or injury as he was a human being, in principle only subject of law or law.

Thus, in the Middle Ages and well beyond, were condemned to the gallows or the stake of cows , or pigs. Similarly, the Church extended his excommunication of men to animals: rats , flies , grasshoppers , moles , fish , and any member of the fauna could succumb.

The crimes committed by the beasts were, like those of humans, of two kinds. And the procedure for civil proceedings, if one may say, was quite different from the procedure in criminal cases.

Jurisdiction

The procedure practiced against animals and the punishment that they were subjected were essentially the same as those used in respect of man.

Not since the ^thirteenth century to meet the written judgments against animals. Chroniclers have recounted the trials of this kind from the ^eleventh century , but this case does not appear to date in France in 1226 , when a pig was burned alive at Fontenay-aux-Roses to have devoured a young child.

Jean Duret , king's advocate, had the Seneschal and presidial of Moulins. He wrote in 1673 : "If the beasts do not just hurt, kill or eat but the dead man Eschete, and condemns it does, to be hanged and estrangles to lose memory of the enormity of the deed . All procedural formalities were observed, the award was served on the animal itself in prison, after which the executioner was called, sometimes from afar, to proceed with the execution .

The execution of these judgments are made publicly and with the same solemnity as the criminals. Generally the pet owner and the father of the victim, if it were a child, were required to attend. Enforcement costs were borne by the master of the beast. And those costs were not insignificant .

It sometimes inflicted on the animal's eye for an eye ^, . The death penalty was still pending against any animal that had been used for the performance by a person of some shameful acts (bestiality). In this case, it was the ordeal of fire. The man himself was burnt with his accomplice. The mere attempt, non-performance was sufficient to convict the guilty to death . There were hints in the application of punishment. Some judgments were that strangulation would take place before the fire . The manner of death was indeed considered as very important, and it is not coincidence that he was chosen .

The civil courts

Against these criminal trials, there were civil proceedings. These were directed against all kinds of vermin and noxious, such as caterpillars, rats, moles, voles, etc..

People who had to complain about damage done by animals, and who could not avert the scourge by their prayers, choose an attorney to represent them in court, and addressed their grievances as a query to the ecclesiastical judge. This petition contained an accurate description of places destroyed, and the value and nature of damage. In addition, to avoid any possible error on the personality of the guilty and to prevent them to plead, then the invalidity of the subpoena, the request must provide a detailed record of devastating animal. The judge then authorized the subpoena of the perpetrators. A sergeant or bailiff went to the scene where there were animals and assigned to appear personally before the magistrate, his times and dates, only to be ordered to vacate the premises, and not earlier than in the thorns of law. This assignment should be repeated three times, after which the animals were declared in default. Then the judge called their guardian, which usually took with him a lawyer who took the oath to present their defense with zeal and integrity.

All the springs of the controversy were at stake in these affairs. Purposes of inadmissibility, dilatory exceptions, deferrals, Nullity, everything was invoked, under the laws of a formal procedure to excess .

The debates in some countries were contradictory .

At the request of defense counsel, the court appointed experts. They assessed the damage and prepare a report. But all this took a long time. Also, to expedite the solution of the case, the plaintiffs offered their opponents sometimes a parcel of land where they could take refuge and live in peace .

The animals, usually between the inertial force, the ecclesiastical judge they fulminated against the monitory which were to precede excommunication. If this last warning was still no effect, the highest authority solemnly pronounced the curse and excommunication animal pests.

The first of these excommunications dating back to ^twelfth century .

Some cases show that the Church opposed to pest damage, here are the main ones:

• In 1498, the vicars of Autun mend the priests of the diocese to require some sort of weevil during services and processions to stop their destruction and to excommunicate them.
• Twenty years later, the official publishes an award against weevils and grasshoppers that ravaged the territory of Milliere in the Cotentin.
• In 1554, leeches were excommunicated by the bishop of Lausanne , because they destroy the fish.
• In 1585, Nicolas Chorier (1612-1692), historian potatoes, reported that the vicar general of Valencia directs the tracks before it, gives them a lawyer to defend himself and finally ordered them to leave the diocese.

The secular power is no exception: in 1690, a judge of a district of Auvergne appoints a curator to caterpillars. The cause is contradictorily argued the judge and urges them to retreat into the small ground indicated in a decision there to end their miserable existence.

The ruling, which ordered the excommunication prescribed at the same time, prayers, processions, penances and payment of a tithe. The execution of the sentence being carried out by means of exorcism , whose entreaties of ritual varied infinitely. But the excommunication of the animals was not necessarily preceded by a trial . In these times, it seems that animals, like men were much more friendly than today's ecclesiastical authority ^{, ,} . However, it is not always true .

These animals were sometimes sentenced to death for the crime of witchcraft ^, .

These practices were not without arousing criticism from enlightened minds and even sometimes from members of the clergy . These strange manners were still a bright future. They persisted in all countries of Christendom until the end of the ^seventeenth century. For France, we know a hundred judgments and excommunications relating to animals. The seventeenth century would count alone forty. The last was delivered in 1741 against a cow.

References

Leave a Reply