Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1999 (3. évfolyam, 1-2. szám)
Mentalităţi
24 Mária Makó Lupescu 2. If the accused was found guilty by the trial, the bailiff led him to the lay judge who made the judgment according to this result.146 The register preserved a few cases when the sentence was described: hanging,147 mutilation148 or selling of the guilty parties and/or his relatives as well as confiscation of his property.149 3. The execution of the sentence usually was made at the original place where the process was started in the presence of the bailiff, the same person who escorted the litigants to Oradea for trial.150 4. At the end of the process a record was drawn up usually for the accusers in which the events were noted.15' 146 It is important to notice that only the ordeal-ceremony was conducted by ecclesiastical persons. The sentence was pronounced by a lay judge. Thus, the way in which the ecclesiastical persons were involved in the ordeal ceremony was very similar in nature with that of the inquisition. There also the representatives of the church took part at the judicial process, but the accussed was condemned by a lay judge. 147 See, for instance the case of those six persons accused of stealing from 1219: “Jordan de villa Keze et Keiguez de villa Shol, impetierunt Ugudut, Obudut, Scecam, et Scemhegit, seruos Thomae et Andreae, et Dudorc et Bencium, libertinos eorundem, de furto, iudicibus Elia comite de Békés et biloto Zeuen, pristaldo de Machya de villa Meh. Praenominatorum furum quator, scilicet: Ugud, Buneii, Obud et Sceca, portato ferro, combusti sunt et suspensi. Dodor veniens prae nimia infirmitate ferrum portare nonpotuit. Scemhegi in eadem septimana scilicet Exurge Domine non comparuit.” Karácsonyi, and Borovszky, Regestrum Varadinense, no. 182, p. 219. 148 See. for instance Szegő’s case who was implicated in the abduction of Farkas’s daughter: “Anno Domini Millesimo Ducentesimo decimo sexto, in septimana Omnis Terra Farcasius, filius Gyama, veniens ... ad iudicium ferri candentis contra Martinum de villa Zobolsu, raptorem scilicet filiae suae, et contra coadiutores illius stetit per totam septimanam illam, sed nullus de adversariis suis comparuit praeter quendam, nomine Scegium, qui se nobis et postea iudici coadiutorem praefati Martini fuisse confessus, exoculatus est.” Ibid., no. 162, p. 211-12. * 149 See, for instance the already mentioned case of Vitalis who had refugeed in the church after he bore the iron: “Praedictus itaque Urman vendidit Vitalem, cum uxore sua et fdiabus suis et cum ancilla et filio ancillae suae et cum omni possessione sua Laurentio, filio Martini.” Ibid., no. 257, p. 249. It is interesting that the bailiff, called Urman was the person who transacted the sale of the mentioned people. In Posa’s case from 1219 beside him, his relatives also were condemned because they took Posa’s part in the conflict: “Cuius rei exitu ita consummato, pristaldus idem dixit, quod fratres furis combusti, qui fratris eorum partem tenuerant, a venditione tam ipsi, quam omnis eorum possessio per sententiam iudicis in ipso casu fratris sui jam excepissent." Ibid., no. 193, p. 223. 150 In Masa’s case from 1213 the execution of the sentence, a sealing transaction, was held in the presence of the bailiff and another witness: “Cum Masa de villa Sorou iudicio candentis ferri convictus esset Varadini de furto et in Bichor, ut Pristaldus asseruit, confugisset ad ecclesiam, adversarii cius, Kaled et Beta, et pristaldus ipsius Honos, praesente Ccsario centurione, vendiderunt praefatum Masam et uxorem eius Foelicitatem et filios ipsius, Thomam, Tanais et Gyónón, et filias scilicet: Magnet et Ilega, pro decem marcis Absoloni, filio Hurt, qui persolvit illas decem marcas praesentibus nobis canonicis Varadiensibus, scilicet: Valeriano cantore, Michaele custode, Gerardo decano, Petro, Sidrac et aliis, et idem scientibus Cesaario centurione et aliis ioubagionibus castri Bichoriensis.” Ibid., no. 54, p. 174. 151 In those few cases in which this moment was described the ordeal did not take place although it was ordered. See, for instance the theft case from 1219: “... Voda, Queren, et Andreas de villa Scerep fuerunt Varadini ... Quorum Voda combustus est. Queren mundatus est. Andree vero infirmitate praepeditus ferrum portare illa vice non posuit, sed, recepta sanitate, ab eodem iudice per eundem pristaldum ad portandum candens ferrum destinatus, Varadinum non venit et adversarii eius, dato suffragio, recesserant.” Ibid., no. 226, p. 238; The case of property damaging from 1221 is similar: “Alii autem quatuor de adversariis non comparuerunt. Quos nominatus iudex, ut pristaldus dixit, condemnavit et pro condempnatis scribi praecepit.” Ibid., no. 291, p. 262-63.
