Friday, May 27, 2011
77. Charny asks: A man at arms is taken by his enemies in a set battle, and he who has taken him and to whom he has surrendered himself leads him to his lodgings, then puts a ransom on him and sets a term to pay his ransom, and makes him swear that he will not arm himself nor carry arms before he has completed his ransom. And the prisoner departs according to his agreement to raise the ransom and during the term and settlement he arms himself with his people and it happens that he fights against those whose prisoner he was before. And again they are defeated and it happens that the aforesaid prisoner is taken by another of the party of his master to whom he was prisoner before and leads him off to safety. And when evening comes the first master of the said prisoner demands the prisoner for himself and says that he ought not to be the prisoner of the other before he is quits with him. And the other says that he has taken the prisoner as a man at arms and by force of arms and that he ought to remain his prisoner, with other good arguments on one side and the other. How will it be judged by the law of arms?
Posted by Steve Muhlberger at 3:51 PM