Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 01.pdf/212

Rh of his head, let him make 'bōt' for it with viii. shillings; if it be the canine tooth, let iv. shillings be paid as ' bot.' A man's grinder is worth xv. shillings.

"If a man's windpipe be pierced, let 'bōt' be made with xii. shillings.

"If a man strike out another's eye, or his hand or his foot off, there goeth like 'bōt' to all; vi. pennies and vi. shillings and ix. shillings, and the third part of a penny.

"If a man's tongue be done out of his head by may be another man's deeds, that shall be like as eye-'bōt.'

"If a man be wounded on the shoulder so that the joint oil flow out, let 'bōt' be made with xxx. shillings.

"If the arm be broken above the elbow, there shall be xv. shillings as 'bōt.'

"If the arm shanks be both broken, the 'bōt' is xxx. shillings.

"If a man break another man's rib within the whole skin, let x. shillings be paid as 'bōt;' if the skin be broken, and bone be taken out, let xv. shillings be paid as 'bōt.'

"If the thumb be struck off, for that shall be xxx. shillings as 'bōt.'"

Almost every conceivable injury to a man's person is provided for in this curious set of laws, with valuations fixed as in the instances above cited.

Theft and robbery appear to have been esteemed by our Saxon forefathers as the most enormous of crimes; theft was accordingly rendered a highly expensive pursuit. By one of the earliest of the Anglo-Saxon laws, the compensation to the injured party was threefold, and to the king the forfeiture of all the offender's goods. The punishment bore some proportion, however, to the station in life of the offender; for if not a freeman, he was subject to a twofold retribution only. By a subsequent law, a freeman taken with the thing stolen in his hand was completely at the mercy of the king, who might kill him, sell him, or receive his "were." (It assumed, therefore, that if the man was worth much, his Majesty's royal clemency was usually extended to the sparing of the wretch's life.)

The amputation of the hand and foot of the thief was afterward added to his other punishments,—a considerable drawback, no doubt, on the facilities and pleasures of hand-craft and foot-pad occupations.

If the standard of morality existing among our Saxon forefathers is to be fixed by reference to nothing more than their legislative zeal on this subject, it must be admitted that a comparison between the moral state of themselves and their successors would tend but little to the credit of the latter. In awarding punishment for offences involving immorality, the Anglo-Saxons did not depart from their grand principle of pecuniary retribution,—in fixing which they regarded, as a matter of course, the station of the female, or, to speak more correctly, the rank of her lord, husband, or father. The penalty in some offences of this nature was as high as that for killing a freeman, and in some cases even more.

PETER BENNETT'S CASE.

OME years ago, a doctor named Royston, down in Georgia, had sued Peter Bennett for his bill, long overdue, for attending the wife of the latter. Alex. H. Stephens was on the Bennett side, and Robert Toombs, then Senator of the United States, was for Dr. Royston. Mr. Stephens told his client that the physician had made out his case, and as there was nothing wherewith to rebut or offset the claim, the only thing left to do was to pay it.

"No," said Peter; "I hired you to speak to my case, and now speak."

Mr. Stephens told him there was nothing to say; he had looked on to see that it was made out, and it was.