or a simple sword blade, or other analagous emblems (Figs. 325 to 327).
Two free judges delivered the summons personally where a member of the
association was concerned; but if the summons affected an individual who
was not of the Vehmic order, a sworn messenger bore it, and placed it in
the very hands of the person, or slipped it into his house. The time given
for putting in an appearance was originally six weeks and three days at
least, but at a later period this time was shortened. The writ of summons
was repeated three times, and each time bore a greater number of seals of
free judges, so as to verify the legality of the instrument. The accused,
whether guilty or not, was liable to a fine for not answering the first
summons, unless he could prove that it was impossible for him to have done
so. If he failed to appear on the third summons, he was finally condemned
_en corps et en honneur_.
[Illustration: Fig. 325.--Seal of Herman Loseckin, Free Count of Medebach,
in 1410.]
[Illustration: Fig. 326.--Seal of the Free Count, Hans Vollmar von Twern,
at Freyenhagen, in 1476-1499.]
[Illustration: Fig. 327.--Seal of Johann Croppe, Free Count of Kogelnberg,
in 1413.]
We have but imperfect information as to the formalities in use in the
Vehmic tribunals. But we know that the sittings were invested with a
certain solemnity and pomp. A naked sword--emblematical of justice, and
recalling our Saviour's cross in the shape of its handle--and a
rope--emblematical of the punishment deserved by the guilty--were placed
on the table before the president. The judges were bareheaded, with bare
hands, and each wore a cloak over his shoulder, and carried no arms of any
sort.
[Illustration: Fig. 328.--The Duke of Saxony and the Marquis of
Brandenburg.--From the "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum sive Tabula veteris
Geographiae," in folio. Engraved by Wieriex, after Gerard de Jode.]
The plaintiff and the defendant were each allowed to produce thirty
witnesses. The defendant could either defend himself, or entrust his case
to an advocate whom he brought with him. At first, any free judge being
defendant in a suit, enjoyed the privilege of justifying himself on oath;
but it having been discovered that this privilege was abused, all persons,
of whatever station, were compelled to be confronted with the other side.
The witnesses, who were subpoened by either accuser or accused, had to
give their evidence according to the truth, dispassionately
|