Friday, May 27, 2011
74. Charny asks: A man at arms has taken another in war; it happens that the master has set a certain ransom with the agreement of the prisoner, either to pay on a set day or to return to his captivity on that day. And one of the party of the prisoner's master takes himself to the master as pledge to pay for the prisoner or instead of him surrender himself on the set day. And in the meantime it is made known by the counsel of the pledges that the prisoner is divested himself of all his heritage, all that he had, into the hands of his heirs. And then the pledge leads back the prisoner on the agreed day and asks the prisoner's master that he be released from his status as pledge. The master says no, for he has not fulfilled his captivity as he agreed to do. Many good reasons are given on either side. How will it be judged by the law of arms?
Posted by Steve Muhlberger at 4:00 PM