There was a famous trial in Autun, in west-central France, in 1522. Some rats were charged in court with feloniously eating and wantonly destroying the province’s barley crop. The rats were ordered to appear in court and answer the charges.
When they failed to show up, the rats’ attorney argued that the summons were too specific. It was not fair to summon only a handful of specific rats. He insisted that all the rats in the diocese should be summoned and that the summons should be read from the pulpits of all the parishes in the area. Just to make sure. The court agreed and another hearing was scheduled.
When all the rats in the diocese failed to appear on the specified court date, the defense attorney again had a perfectly reasonable explanation: the rats really did want to come to court, but were afraid to leave their holes and make the long journey because of the vigilance of the plaintiff’s cats. He added that the rats would appear if the plaintiffs posted bonds under heavy penalties that the cats would not molest his clients.
The judges thought this was a fair request, but the plaintiffs refused to be responsible for the behavior of their cats. And so the case was adjourned without setting a date for another hearing – in effect ending the case in the rats’ favor.
The attorney, named Bartholomew Chassenée, went on to become a famous French lawyer.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário