"
[183] The case of John Johnson in the official's court in Durham city
forms an excellent commentary on the whole system. He was presented as
suspected of incontinency. After repeated citations and a threat of
excommunication, he appeared, denying the charge and alleging that a
churchwarden with others had falsely concocted it. At the petition of
an apparitor, who acted as public prosecutor, seven of Johnson's
fellow-parishioners were cited to swear not to the _fact_ of his
guilt, but to the general _belief_ in it. Articles were then drawn up
upon which depositions were taken and published. The case was
adjourned repeatedly so that the many formalities of procedure might
drag out their weary length. The oath _ex officio_ was forced on
Johnson, but he denied all guilt. Finally, he was enjoined to procure
three compurgators. These swore that they believed _"in animis suis"_
that Johnson had sworn to the truth. Though pronounced innocent,
Johnson was condemned to pay the costs of all the formalities that the
apparitor had set in motion against him, and a last time was dragged
into court in order to be admonished under pain of excommunication to
pay these fees, amounting to L1. 3s. 4d., within a month! The case had
extended from 11th June, 1600, to 22nd May, 1601.
Pages:
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129