Court of piepowders

Last updated

Courts of Pyepowder Act 1477
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of Edward IV of England (1461-1483).svg
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Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948
Status: Repealed
A case before the court of Pie-Poudre, at the "Hand and Shears" during the Bartholomew Fair from a drawing dated 1811 Image taken from page 949 of 'Old and New London, etc' (11189785765).jpg
A case before the court of Pie-Poudre, at the "Hand and Shears" during the Bartholomew Fair from a drawing dated 1811

A court of piepowders was a special tribunal in England organised by a borough on the occasion of a fair or market. [1] [2] [3] Such a court had unlimited jurisdiction over personal actions or events taking place at the market, including disputes between merchants, theft, and acts of violence. Many hundreds of such courts operated in the Middle Ages, and a small number continued to exist even into modern times. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in 1768 described this court as "the lowest, and at the same time the most expeditious, court of justice known to the law of England". [4]

Contents

Courts of piepowders had declined in use by the 17th century. [5]

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

  1. Gross, Charles (1906). "The Court of Piepowder". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 20 (2): 231–249. doi:10.2307/1883654. ISSN   0033-5533. JSTOR   1883654.
  2. Baker, Sir John (2003), "Local Courts", The Oxford History of the Laws of England: Volume VI: 1483–1558, Oxford University Press, pp. 291–320, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198258179.003.0016, ISBN   978-0-19-825817-9
  3. "Piepoudre court | Medieval England, Jurisdiction, Equity | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
  4. "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.
  5. "piepowder courts". Oxford Reference. Retrieved 22 September 2024.

Related Research Articles

The court of Star Chamber was an English court that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century, and was composed of privy counsellors and common-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equity (law)</span> Set of legal principles supplementing but distinct from the Common Law

In the field of jurisprudence, equity is the particular body of law, developed in the English Court of Chancery, with the general purpose of providing legal remedies for cases wherein the common law is inflexible and cannot fairly resolve the disputed legal matter. Conceptually, equity was part of the historical origins of the system of common law of England, yet is a field of law separate from common law, because equity has its own unique rules and principles, and was administered by courts of equity.

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 plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Chancery</span> Court of equity in England and Wales (c. 1350–1875)

The Court of Chancery was a court of equity in England and Wales that followed a set of loose rules to avoid a slow pace of change and possible harshness of the common law. The Chancery had jurisdiction over all matters of equity, including trusts, land law, the estates of lunatics and the guardianship of infants.

A summons is a legal document issued by a court or by an administrative agency of government for various purposes.

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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discovery (law)</span> Pretrial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from other parties by means of methods of discovery such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, prejudice differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity jurisdiction</span> U.S. court jurisdiction over persons of different states or nationalities

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.

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.

Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (1990), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an action by an employee for a breach of a labor union's duty of fair representation entitled him to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stag and Hounds, Bristol</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Old Market, Bristol</span> Area of Bristol, England

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.

<i>Moses v Macferlan</i>

Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Bur 1005 is a foundational case in the law of restitution holding that in certain circumstances such as when money is paid by mistake, for failed consideration or under oppression; the law will allow the money to be recovered.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tolzey Court</span> English court

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