| 1348.263ass |
1348 |
King's Bench |
Indictment for homicide and receipt of felon |
Enditment
Corone
Charters de pardon |
|
22 |
Edw. 3 |
Lib. Ass. 55 |
97b-98a |
Thorp, William de CJKB
the inquest
Thorp, William de CJKB
Thorp, William de CJKB
the Court (mentioned)
the Court
the Court
the Court |
Rex |
|
|
|
|
Vescy, H., homicide victim
R., received felon
Rokby, Sir T. of, Sheriff of York
C., J. of, sheriff's assignee |
C.
the whole Council (tout le councel) |
|
Fitzherbert Corone 179
Brooke Corone 87
Brooke Charters de pardon 31 |
related case 1348.285ass = 22 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. 77, fols. 102a-102b (presentment for conspiracy for procuring indictment of H. of C. for death of H. of Vescy)
3 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. 15
33 Hen. 6, fol. 18
34 Hen. 6, fol. 16
Stanford Pleas of the Crown fols. 184.C., 188, 189.I.
2 Edw. 3, fol. 33
35 Hen. 6, fol. 58
4 Hen. 7, fol. 2
19 Hen. 6, fol. 66
9 Edw. 4, fol. 30
26 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. 23, 32
4 Hen. 7, fol. 12
9 Edw. 4, fol. 28
5 Hen. 7, fols. 4, 5
Post pl. 56, 1348.264ass = 22 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. 56, fol. 98a
2 Edw. 4, fol. 7 |
|
| H. de Compton fuit endite, &c. quil Felon' occist H. Vescy a C. a certein jour l'an xiiij le Roy qui ore est, & auxi |
31 |
|
Thomas of Rokeby was Sheriff of York from 3 Nov. 1335 to 24 Mar. 1337 and from 7 Oct. 1342 to 25 Jul. 1349. |
| H. of Compton was indicted that he had feloniously killed H. Vescy at C. on a certain day in the 14th year of the present king, and also that he had received one R., who was outlawed for felony, knowing etc., of which he was now arraigned. H. said that this same H. V. died in the 9th year of the present king, and he said that H. V. and others were indicted in the 9th year of the present king before Sir Thomas of Rokeby, Sheriff of York, of various felonies, and that the sheriff had assigned the same H. (J.) of C. by a commission, which he put forward now to the Court, to attach and take the said H. and the other robbers (larrons). This same H. of C. with others came to the place and there found the said H. and the other robbers, and showed them the warrant that he had to attach them, and told them to surrender to the peace, and they did not want to surrender, but stood to defend themselves and killed and wounded several men (gents), and in this fight H. was killed. And he did not understand that the king would prosecute him for his death. Thorp CJKB said that everything would be inquired by the jury (Enquest), and he recited all as he had said. Therefore the jury should tell the Court if H. V. had died in the ninth year of the present king, and not the 14th year, as the indictment said, and if there was not any other H. V. whom he killed in the 14th year, and also if he could have been taken without his death, so that he killed him of his own will, and if they found these matters, then they should speak of his lands and chattels. The jury ( l'enquest) said as H. had alleged, and that there was no other H. V. than this one, and that he could not have been taken in another way. Thorp CJKB told the jury to say what chattels H. V. had, and they said that he did not have any chattels. Thorp CJKB told the defendant that the jury had acquitted him of this deed, and the Court acquitted him, and Thorp CJKB told him that when a man killed another by a warrant, he could well avow the fact, and the Court would acquit him completely (nettement) without waiting for the king's grace by his charter (pardon) in this case, and also in many cases a man could kill another without prosecution (impechement), as if robbers came to rob a man, or to burgle his house, he could kill them safely if he could not take them. And note what happened to a gaoler who came to the gaol with a hatchet in his hand, and then the prisoners had broken their irons and were all ready to kill him, and they wounded him badlly, but he killed two of them with the hatchet in his hand, and then escaped, and it was adjudged in this case by the whole Council that he had only done well (bien fait). Item, he said that each man of the people (could) take thieves (larrons) for larceny, and felons for felony, and if they would not surrender to the peace but stood to their defence, or fled, in such case he could kill them without blame. And H. said, as to the other point of which he was arraigned, that he did not understand that the Court would compel him to answer to this indictment before he was apprised whether the said R. was outlawed as the indictment said, or not. Therefore, as to this, the Court assigned him another day, (Latin begins) so that in the meantime etc. (Latin ends). On that day the Court commanded him to find surety to answer to the king, in the event that he wanted to prosecute him for this. (Latin begins) And he did so (Latin ends). The Court commanded him to go away (aler a Dieu), because neither they nor the party could find anything of this outlawry. |
|
|
Jenkins 23 (1st century, case 42 (not 52)), 145 Eng. Rep. 17: 22 Ass. 55. Stamford, 13, Corone. 24 H. 8, cap. 25.
A gaoler who had felons in his custody, finding that the felons were breaking off their fetters, went to them with an hatchet: and they assaulted and beat him; the gaoler killed two of them with the hatchet. Resolved by all the counsel, that it was well done.
Executio juris non habet injuriam.
Quod quis ob tutelam corporis sui fecit, jure fecisse videtur. |
|
| A.K.R. Kiralfy, A Source Book of English Law (London, Sweet & Maxwell 1957), p. 27 (Rex v. Compton) (justifiable homicide) |
|
