The “Livre de Jostice et de Plet” was the production of an Orléannais, which may account for his affixing the limit prescribed by the edict of Louis le Jeune. The matter was evidently regulated by local custom, since, as we have already seen, his contemporary, Beaumanoir (cap. lxiii. § 11), names twelve deniers, or one sou, as the minimum.
[434] Cod. Leg. Norman. P. II. cap. xxi. § 7 (Ludewig, Reliq. MSS. VII. 307). The judgment of God was frequently styled Lex apparens or paribilis.
[435] Anc. Coutum. de Normandie, cap. 87 (Bourdot de Richebourg, IV. 55).
[436] Assises de Jerusalem, cap. 149.—Assises d’Antioche, Haute Cour. ch. ix.; Assises des Bourgeois, ch. vi.
[437] Laws of Huescar, by Don Jayme I. (Du Cange, s. v. Torna).
[438] L. Longobard. Lib. I. Tit. XXV. § 49.
[439] Ibid. Lib. I. Tit. IX. § 38.
[440] L. Frision. Tit. XI. cap. iii.
[441] Coutumes du Beauvoisis, cap. lxiii. § 1.—The consent of the master was necessary to authorize the risk of loss which he incurred by his serf venturing to engage in the duel. Thus, in a curious case which occurred in 1293, “idem Droetus corpus suum ad duellum in quo perire posset obligare non poterat sine nostra licentia speciali.”—Actes du Parlement de Paris, I. 446.
[442] Livres de Jostice et de Plet, Liv. XIX. Tit. 13.—Tabul. Vindocinens. cap. 159 (Du Cange, s. v. adramire).