One wonders here whether there's a contrast between what men at arms were expected to do when they were in the "master's" position, and what they actually did. And how does the prisoner in #63 find a competent court to rule?
63. Charny asks:
A man at arms puts another to ransom to be paid over three or four installments; and the prisoner promises to do all in his power fulfill it, or to return. The prisoner comes at the first term and pays up; at the second term he returns to prison because he can't pay. The master imposes a very big ransom which he did not impose before the prisoner wasn't able to pay the second installment. The prisoner says that his ransom ought not to increase. Many good arguments are given on either side. How will it be judged by the law of arms?
64. Charny asks:
A man at arms holds another as his prisoner and makes him give his word that he will not leave a house where he will put him without permission. And then it happens that the master becomes angry with his prisoner and strikes and beats him. After this the prisoner escapes and goes his way. His master claims him; the prisoner says no. Many good arguments are given on either side. How will it be judged by the law of arms?
No comments:
Post a Comment