INTRODUCTION

This chapter is about the nature of the process employed in the main city courts (process being the stages by which a case progressed) in civil lawsuits, the evidence used, the methods of trial available and most commonly employed, and the penalties imposed on losing or recalcitrant litigants. In our period, process differed considerably in different situations. In the most informal, it barely existed: the mayor and perhaps one of his fellow-governors or an official would make themselves available at particular times and in particular places, a complainant would approach them with an oral complaint, the other party might be summoned to put his or her case, either party might be questioned and any evidences examined as the judge or tribunal saw fit, and adjudication would follow. No special rules governed, for example, who summoned the person complained about, whether that summons had to be witnessed or testified to, how long before the hearing it had to be delivered, and whether the person complained about was entitled to any respites. When courts were in formal session, however, the failure to follow strict rules (which varied according to the type of action being heard), that is a failure of ‘due process’, would result in the case having to be abandoned or the judgment annulled. On the whole, cases heard according to common law and custom followed some form of formal process, whereas those heard according to conscience (and, sometimes, according to merchant law) were handled informally.