Showing posts with label Little-known Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Little-known Law. Show all posts

Friday, February 09, 2007

More Little-known Law

From Gray's Law Dictionary:

On the Hilarious History of Habeas Corpus

The term habeas corpus enjoys a lofty stature among jurists, commonly known as the "great writ." It is often trod out as the ultimate item of appeal, when a lawyer questions the legality of his client's imprisonment. Classicists will often relate the literal translation, "you have the body," as an explanation for the term's origin. This is a fair enough translation, but the term's actual conception occurred well after the Roman Empire's demise - 1500s London, to be exact.

Christopher Marlowe is sometimes credited as the "Real Shakespeare," but it was early London playwright Bartleby Cruikshank that might be described as the "Real Marlowe." It was Cruikshank's experiences in London gaols - he being a constant debtor - that gave rise to "Marlowe's" first popular play in 1581, a comedy of errors entitled, "The Forgetful Warden."

The play revolved around Hollis Borden, keeper of Newgate Prison. Borden was the cause of several comedic episodes within the prison because his constantly failing memory meant some prisoners, intended to stay for one night, would often languish in the cells indefinitely.

In one instance, Jenny Prattleswell pleads to Borden for the release of her lover, William. Borden, after finding William dead for want of food, serves up his long-lost and newly imprisoned twin, Hampton. Jenny is oblivious to the swap, attributing William's memory loss to a stay in gaol - Hampton merely happy to be free. Keen audience members, however, recognize that where William was missing his left ear, Hampton misses a right one.

The raucous appeal of the play usually peaked at the end of every act when Borden would, at the behest of the inquiring families, retreat to his prison officials and deliver the refrain:

"Have we his corpse?!"

Thus, the more familiar and Latin-ized term habeas corpus devolved from the Cockney pronunciation of this catchphrase, as the play was performed at the Rose Theatre, frequented with the more slovenly-tongued, lower-income crowds of Southwark.

We, of course, would find this warden's practice repulsive today. However, it seemed quite parodical to denizens of London at the time. It was quite common practice for family members to inquire at local gaols and have the existence of their imprisoned loved ones denied entirely.

Indeed, Alexandre Dumas romanticized this longstanding tradition in 1845 with The Count of Monte Cristo, seemingly offering hope to thousands of families that their relatives might one day return from prison. We know now, of course, that Dumas was doing no such thing, having instead been commissioned by the real Count of Monte Cristo to write the novel as a promotional tool for his many elaborate fĂȘtes.

As for the term's legal inception, it was only when the play's revival nearly 300 years later grew in popularity among the learned - and therefore political - crowd that questions about the legality of this habit started being asked. Member of Parliament Lord Hailsham remarked to the House, "You may, my lords, have seen Shakespeare's recent play 'The Forgetful Warden,' and asked, much like myself - what if we were to produce a corpse!"

Eventually, the sentiment gained momentum and found its way into courts as a useful tool for resourceful lawyers. Stories are often told of barristers of the late 20th century serving the writ in front of Lord Denning - a lover of the theatre - and hearing him reply with another of Borden's famous phrases:

"Jenny Prattleswell but her lover don't 'ear it!"

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Little-known Law

From Gray's Law Dictionary:

"Interesting Etymologies of Idiomatic Legal Expressions:

In the year 1831, Jacob Open and Jack Shut were neighbouring landowners outside of Swaffham, England. Mr. Open, a pig farmer, had contracted to lease a portion of land from Mr. Shut, who raised flax.

The arrangement was amenable to Mr. Shut, as the land in question was prone to flooding, making it unsuitable for flax but altogether an ideal place in which pigs could wallow. Soon enough, a litter of piglets was birthed.

However, since the birth took place upon his neighbour's leased land, Mr. Open deemed the shoats Shut's and refused to make lease payments, arguing his neighbour to be a bona fide pig-chaser for value without notice.

In retaliation, Jack Shut enforced a lien on the land and seized Open's assets. Doing so, however, meant Shut ran afoul of Inland Revenue laws, as the pig profits were not flax-deductible.

To complicate matters, Mr. Shut had been carrying on a four-month affair with Mrs. Open, wife of Jacob and a notorious philanderess. Most of the late-night encounters took place on the portion of land in question. When the affairs were finally discovered, it prompted lawyers for Mr. Open to sue for "double trespass," a tort over both his farmland and his wife.

While preliminary proceedings were filed in the circuit court, the matter never went to trial as the night before the evidentiary hearing, Mrs. Open shot and killed both Jacob and Jack, absconded with the money and was never to be found. Lawyers for both parties had no need to carry on.

Hence, when lawyers find themselves overly prepared for a trial, they recall this set of events and deem it an Open v. Shut case."