Court of piepowders

Courts of Pyepowder Act 1477
Act of Parliament
	Parliament of England
Long title	An Act for the courts of pipowders.
Citation	17 Edw. 4 c. 2
Dates
Royal assent	26 February 1478
Other legislation
Repealed by	Statute Law Revision Act 1948
Status: Repealed

Last updated November 13, 2023

A court of piepowders was a special tribunal in England organised by a borough on the occasion of a fair or market. These courts had unlimited jurisdiction over personal actions for events taking place in the market, including disputes between merchants, theft, and acts of violence. In the Middle Ages, there were many hundreds of such courts, and a small number continued to exist even into modern times. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in 1768 described them as "the lowest, and at the same time the most expeditious, court of justice known to the law of England".^[1]

Trial and procedure

A piepowder court was held in front of the mayor and bailiffs of the borough, or the steward, if the market or fair was held by a lord. The number of justiciars often varied but was usually limited to three or four men. Punishments typically included fines and the possibility of being held in a pillory or being drawn in a tumbrel, a two-wheeled cart, in order to humiliate the offender. More serious crimes would often be reserved for the royal justices, but sometimes the jurisdiction was still held by a piepowder court.

When the time came for the trial, both parties would be summoned; typically, the defendants would be summoned an hour earlier. Here, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff with documents and witnesses often being provided as evidence. After the plaintiff made his case, the defendant then had the right to respond to the accusation and counter with evidence of his own. This method of proof was actually rather advanced for its time. When it came to evidence in other European courts, things such as compurgation, which is the defendant taking an oath over his stance and getting around twelve others to swear that they believe him, were still used in many cases.

Trials at courts of piepowders were short, quick and informal. In 12th century England and Scotland, a decision had to be made within a day and a half (before the third tide) of the accusation. If the court ruled against the defendant and the defendant could not pay the decided amount, his property could be seized, appraised, and sold to cover the costs.

Decline

Courts of piepowders existed because of the necessity for speedy justice over people who were not permanent residents of the place where the market was held. By the seventeenth century, most of their powers had effectively been transferred to the regular court system, for practical reasons rather than as a result of legislation, the standard district courts being well established. The most recent sitting of a piepowder court was in 1898, in Hemel Hempstead.

The last "active" court of piepowders, at the Stag and Hounds Public House in Bristol, was abolished by the Courts Act 1971. It had not actually sat since 1870, but a proclamation was still read in the marketplace each year. All other courts had their jurisdiction removed by the Administration of Justice Act 1977, though they may technically continue to exist even in the absence of officers, cases, or premises.

Origin of the name

There is no one standard spelling of "piepowder": the most common variant is perhaps "pie poudre" (as in Bristol). In the past, variations included "pipoulder" in the sixteenth century, "pepowder" in the fifteenth, and "pipoudre" in the fourteenth. "Piepowder" is a modern respelling of the term based on more familiar English words. Originally, it referred to the dusty feet (in French, pieds poudrés) of travellers and vagabonds, and was only later applied to the courts who might have dealings with such people.

Also, since the members of courts of "piepowder", were not sitting on a bench, but walking around in fairs, they would often get their feet dusty. This can be another explanation of the name that is given by some common law history teachers. In modern French, the word pieds-poudreux is still occasionally used for travelling beggars; it occurs, for example, in the works of Victor Hugo. Another literary reference is Ben Jonson's Bartholomew Fair , in which Justice Adam Overdo patrols the fair in disguise, saying (Act 2, Scene 1):

Many are the yeerly enormities [crimes] of this Fayre, in whose Courts of Pye-pouldres I have had the honour during the three dayes sometimes to sit as Judge.

Notes

↑ "Blackstone's Commentaries - Book the Third - Chapter the Fourth : Of the Public Courts of Common Law and Equity". Archived from the original on 20 August 2004. Retrieved 16 August 2004.

Related Research Articles

In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant. A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

A writ of prohibition is a writ directing a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits. This writ is often issued by a superior court to the lower court directing it not to proceed with a case which does not fall under its jurisdiction.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense. Inquisitorial systems are used primarily in countries with civil legal systems, such as France and Italy, or legal systems based on Islamic law like Saudi Arabia, rather than in common law systems. It is the prevalent legal system in Continental Europe, Latin America, African countries not formerly under British rule, East Asia, Indochina, Thailand, and Indonesia. Most countries with an inquisitorial system also have some form of civil code as their main source of law.

The courts of England and Wales, supported administratively by His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in England and Wales.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants having their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and so have attracted litigation even when there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, federal courts will normally lack the jurisdiction to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a party, particularly a corporation, may be subject to the jurisdiction of a state court if it has "minimum contacts" with that state. The ruling has important consequences for corporations involved in interstate commerce, their payments to state unemployment compensation funds, limits on the power of states imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the sufficiency of service of process, and, especially, personal jurisdiction.

In law, an allegation is a claim of an unproven fact by a party in a pleading, charge, or defense. Until they can be proved, allegations remain merely assertions.

American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916), was a United States Supreme Court case governing the scope of federal question jurisdiction.

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case involving strict products liability, personal injury and various procedural issues and considerations. The 1980 opinion, written by Justice Byron White, is included in the first-year civil procedure curriculum at nearly every American law school for its focus on personal jurisdiction.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.

The Stag and Hounds is a grade II listed pub in Old Market, Bristol. The oldest parts of the building date to 1483, when it was probably as a private house. The current building is predominantly from the early 18th century, when it became a pub. It was partly rebuilt in the 1960s, and refurbished in 1987. At one time the inn was flanked by houses, but the building of a dual carriageway underpass has left it isolated.

Old Market is a Conservation Area of national significance, to the east of the city centre in Bristol, England. Old Market Street and West Street form the central axis of the area, which is approximately bounded by New Street and Lawfords Gate to the north, Trinity Road and Trinity Street to the east, Unity Street and Waterloo Road to the south and Temple Way Underpass to the west.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

Market share liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case against a group of product manufacturers for an injury caused by a product, even when the plaintiff does not know from which defendant the product originated. The doctrine is unique to the law of the United States and apportions liability among the manufacturers according to their share of the market for the product giving rise to the plaintiff's injury.

In France, the correctional court is the court of first instance that has jurisdiction in criminal matters regarding offenses classified as délits committed by an adult. In 2013, French correctional courts rendered 576,859 judgments and pronounced 501,171 verdicts.

The Tolzey Court was a court with civil jurisdiction that was held in the English city of Bristol. First mentioned in 1344, it may have developed out of the borough hundred court. It was originally held in a room on Corn Street but later moved to the Bristol Guildhall on Broad Street. The court absorbed the Mayor's Court and at least one of Bristol's court of piepowders.

References

Halsbury's Laws of England: volume 12(1), paragraph 662, note 10; and volume 10, section titled "Inferior courts and tribunals and ancient courts", paragraph 851 and following.
Oxford English Dictionary, second edition.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] "Blackstone's Commentaries - Book the Third - Chapter the Fourth : Of the Public Courts of Common Law and Equity". Archived from the original on 20 August 2004. Retrieved 16 August 2004.

[1]