Friday, May 27, 2011

W 80

80.  Charny asks:   Men at arms have fought against each other until one of the parties is defeated.   It happens that one man at arms takes as prisoner a man at arms of the defeated party, and the prisoner surrenders to the man at arms who guards him as he can to save him.  And then comes a man at arms of the same party and affinity of the one who has taken the prisoner and says he will kill the prisoner.  The one who has taken him tells him that the prisoner has surrendered to him and tells and entreats him not to kill him.   The other does not believe him, and kills him.   The next day the one who has captured the prisoner takes the one who killed him as his prisoner and takes him without any further defiance and puts him to ransom for as much as he can.  And the other says as an excuse that the first cannot take him or ransom him in this manner, while the one who has taken him says he will do it.  How will it be judged by the law of arms?  

1 comment:

  1. Richard II Durham Ordinance:

    XIII. ITEM, if any one takes a prisoner, and another shall join him, demanding a part, threatening that otherwise he will kill him (the prisoner), he shall have no part, although the share be granted to him; and if he kills the said prisoner, he shall be in arrest to the marshal, without being delivered till he has satisfied the party, and his horses and armour shall be forfeited to the constable.