Friday, May 27, 2011
49. Charny asks: A captain of men at arms in a castle sends a man at arms from his hired soldiers from the said castle out of the castle for the common needs of the castle and of the companions of the captain of the country to have the pillage of the said garrison. And the garrison remains and the said man at arms remains in the city where the captain of the country is, to await the pillage. And as it happens that the captain of the country rides out and the said man at arms with him so that they encounter their enemies in the field, and as it is they come to close combat with their enemies. Part of the garrison of the castle from which the man at arms has left know about this expedition, so they move up to the place of battle without the knowledge of the captain of the country. And their enemies are defeated, and the men at arms who have overcome them gain prisoners and plenty of goods and take possession of the field. The captain of the country goes back to the city from which he left and the same evening also the man at arms mentioned above who was with him for the business of the pillage aforesaid. And the men of the garrison of the castle mentioned above return to the said castle with all their gains. The said man at arms returns to the same castle the next day from the business and claims a share of the booty with the other companions of the castle who have been in the affair, since an ordinance had been made in the castle that none should have a share of booty except those who rode out. And those in the garrison say no. Many good reasons are given on either side. How will it be judged by the law of arms?
Posted by Steve Muhlberger at 5:26 PM