Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 392  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] has been vanquished they will depart quit of the appeal by judgment, for where
[002] there is no principal there is no accessory,1 nor ought counsel to be harmful when
[003] the wrongful act is without effect,2 nor ought they3 to answer the other appellors
[004] for the same deed for which he has once made his defence against one.4

If the person appealed as principal is vanquished let proceedings then first be taken against accessories and instigators.

[006] If the appellee has been vanquished those appealed as accessories and instigators
[007] are then first bound to answer,5 and will no longer be replegiable, for when the
[008] principal is convicted it may then be presumed that there were accessories and
[009] instigators. Let them therefore answer on the same day, and let the duel be waged
[010] on that day between the first appellor and the [first] accessory or instigator,
[011] according to the order in which they are placed in the appeal, provided that the
[012] accessory comes first and the instigator later, because giving assistance in whatever
[013] way involves an act which instigating does not. But why cannot the other
[014] appellors, those other than the first and chief appellor, putting him aside, join the
[015] duel with those appealed as accessories and instigators? [The reason],6 so it seems,
[016] is this: giving assistance and instigating are (so to speak) the accompaniments of
[017] the principal deed and are so conjoined and connected with it that they are not
[018] separable [and may not be pursued by different persons],7 for the wound, the
[019] assistance and the instigation together form a single deed: there would be no
[020] wound had there been no assistance, and neither wound nor assistance without the
[021] instigation.

Where several appeal one for a death resulting from several wounds.

[023] It sometimes happens that several appeal one of another's death resulting from
[024] several deeds and different mortal wounds, [there are then several different appeals
[025] because of the number of deeds, and hence each may appeal the one as principal of
[026] one mortal wound and several others as accessories8 and instigators,] 9for an
[027] appellor other than the first may appeal him of a second mortal wound and a second
[028] deed in the same way as the first, and so in order, with respect to different wounds,
[029] a third of a third, and a fourth of a fourth10 and so on. [Enough has been said of the
[030] words of the appeal.] But since the appellee cannot answer all the appellors at one
[031] and the same time, though he is bound to answer them all as principal, he must
[032] therefore answer one first and the others afterwards, in turn successively. Let him
[033] therefore answer A. who is the first.


1. Supra 361, infra 400, 407

2. Supra 334, 342, 361, infra iii, 42

3. ‘debent’

4. Supra 388, 391, infra 400

5. Supra 361, 389, infra 400, 401

6. ‘Et est ratio,’ as V, but no MS. authority

7. Infra 401, 413

8. ‘de forcia’

9-10. Reading: ‘Poterit enim alius a primo [appellante] appellare alium ... tertius [de] tertia et quartus quarta’

Contact: specialc@law.harvard.edu
Page last reviewed April 2003.
© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College