CHAP. XXXII.: The same Subject continued.

WHEN an appeal of false judgment was brought against the lord’s court, the lord appeared in person before his paramount, to defend the judgment of his court, In like manner, Défontaines, chap. 21. art. 33. ^†769 in the appeal of default of justice, the party summoned before the lord paramount, brought his lord along with him, to the end that if the default was not proved, he might recover his jurisdiction.

In process of time, as the practice observed in those two particular cases was become general, by the introduction of all sorts of appeals, it seemed very extraordinary that the lord should be obliged to spend his whole life in strange tribunals, and for other people’s affairs. Philip of Valois In the year 1332. ^†770 ordained, that none but the bailiffs should be summoned; and when the usage of appeals became still more frequent, the parties were obliged to defend the appeal: the fact See the situation of things in Boutillier’s time, who lived in the year 1402. Somme rurale, book 1. p. 19 and 20. ^†771 of the judge became that of the party.

I took notice that in the See chap. 30. ^†772 appeal of default of justice, the lord lost only the privilege of having the cause tried in his own court. But if the lord himself was sued as a party, Beaumanoir, chap. 61. pag. 312, and 318. ^†773 which was become a very common practice, Ib. ^†774 he paid a fine of sixty livres to the king, or to the paramount, before whom the appeal was brought. From thence arose the usage, after appeals had been generally received, of fining the lord upon the amendment of the sentence of his judge; an usage which lasted a long time, and was confirmed

by the ordinance of Rousillon, but fell, at length, to the ground, through its own absurdity.