63. Charny asks: A man at arms puts another to ransom to be paid over three or four installments; and the prisoner promises to do all in his power fulfill it, or to return. The prisoner comes at the first term and pays up; at the second term he returns to prison because he can't pay. The master imposes a very big ransom which he did not impose before because the prisoner wasn't able to pay the second installment. The prisoner says that his ransom ought not to increase. Many good arguments are given on either side. How will it be judged by the law of arms?
No comments:
Post a Comment