Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/517

 472

earnest, and as a serious matter of jurispru dence. Grouping together for a moment the two classes of lawsuits against animals, it may be said that France seems to have had the unquestionable honor of initiating them, and of seeing the last of them. M. Berriat St. Prix enumerates ninety-two such cases, from the excommunication pronounced by the Bishop of Laon in 11 20, against cater pillars' and field mice, to the condemnation of a cow on October 12, 1741. Boars and sows are, it need hardly be said, frequent delinquents, their offence generally being the eating of children with whom they had come in contact during their unchecked wanderings along the public roads. At Lavezurg, in 1457, a sow and her six young ones were indicted for having killed and partly eaten a child. After a trial, conducted with all due solemnity, the sow was found guilty and condemned to death, but the pigs were acquitted on account of their youth, the evil example of their mother, and the ab sence of direct proof that they had actually been concerned in the eating of the child. In 1403, a sow killed and devoured a chUd at Meulan. The sow was condemned to be hanged, and the following is the bill of costs for the sow's subsistence and execution : — "Expenses of the sow within gaol, six sols; do. the executioner who came from Paris by order of our master the Bailli and the procnreur du roi, fifty-four sols; do. for carriage of sow to execution, six sols; do. for cord to bind and drag her, two sols, eight deniers; do. for gans (sic), two deniers." The object of providing gloves for the executioner was, no doubt, that his hands should not be sullied by the destruction of a brute beast. At Basle, in 1474, a cock was tried for the crime of having laid an egg. The theologian, Felix Malleolus, records the voluminous plead ings, and it is stated to have been proved that cock's eggs were of enormous value as

an ingredient in certain mystic compounds; that a sorcerer would rather possess a cock's egg than own the philosopher's stone; and that in certain lands, Satan employed witches to hatch such eggs, whilst from them pro ceeded animals most injurious to all of the Christian faith and race. The facts of the case were admitted by the defence, but it was pleaded amongst other things that no evil animus had been proved against the cock, and that there was no instance on record of the evil one having made a compact with one of the brute creation. It would be useless to wade through the arguments. It will suffice to say that the cock was condemned to death, not as a bird, but as a sorcerer in the shape of a cock, and was, with its egg, burned at the stake with all the solemnity befitting a judicial execution. The ordinary method of procedure against animals in an ecclesiastical court was a settled and well-recognized form. It was initiated by the inhabitants of a district who had been annoyed by certain animals. The court then appointed experts to survey and report upon the damage committed. The next step was the appointment of an advocate to defend the animals and to show cause why they should not be summoned. This was followed by their citation three several times, and as they of course did not appear, judg ment was given against them by default. Then succeeded a monitoire, warning the animals to leave the district within a certain time, and it was held to be necessary that certain representatives of the incriminated species should be present in court to hear the monitoire pronounced. Thus, in a trial against leeches at Lausanne, in 145 1, a num ber of leeches were brought into court to receive their warning, which admonished them to leave the district within three days. The leeches did not leave, and the exorcism was consequently pronounced. In this case