[ArM5] Medieval Law question

[Adam Flynn]

I have the starts of a medieval blood-opera on my hands and I'm looking for
some suggestions and information for those of you comfortable in your
knowledge of medieval law.  I've provided a detailed synopsis of the
situation (for those of you with the patience to read it) and then some
questions at the bottom.  Any responses are appreciated, but I'm
specifically looking for ideas in keeping with the historical nature of the
game and supported by understanding of what is known of medieval law in 1220
(admittedly a murky subject).

THE SITUATION
The covenant magi are lords of a small manner in Somersetshire between
Blagdon (Blachdone in 1220) and Charterhouse (a Carthusian cell in the
Mendip Hills) in the hundred of Winterstoke (Winterstoake in 1220).  They
received the land via inheritance and their direct feudal lord is the Bishop
of Winchester, Peter de Roches (the tutor of Henry the Second).

Now, when they took ownership of the manner, they discovered a freeman named
Thomas, the Reeve, was also the Bailiff responsible for running the manor (a
position Thomas' father and grandfather had held under the previous
disinterested lord, a now dead or vanished magi).  Unfortunately, it was
fairly obvious that Thomas was a dishonest Bailiff and a poor Reeve, for the
village was in a bad state with much land going to waste and the forest
encroaching on the fields.  So they decided to replace him with a new
Bailiff.

Thomas promptly protests, claiming that the role of Bailiff is his by right
of heredity (something that happened frequently to appointed offices that
managed to stay in one family line - they became hereditary by weight of
tradition and precedent) and after an argument heads off to press his suit
with the Bailiff of the Winterstoake Hundred (in the Court Leet).

So in his absence his son, Haybert, takes on the duties of the Reeve.  Well,
the PCs wish to speak with him so they send a Companion (Simon) and an armed
female grog (Sorcha) to summon him.  Unfortunately, Haybert has a bad temper
and it's already riled from the insult to his father.  In the middle of the
fields, will witness (and the villages Beadle) nearby, he loses his temper
when they demand he attend the lords and swings a fist at Simon - who
botches his defense roll and takes a Heavy Wound!

Simon falls to the ground with a broken collar-bone and bleeding from a torn
ear.  Sorcha, furious and looking to defend Simon, draws her dagger and
thrusts.  Haybert promptly botches his defense roll and takes an
Incapacitating Wound!  Haybert falls to the ground, blood welling out of his
chest and looking as if dead, and the huy-and-cry is raised.

After consternation and shouts, the lords are sent for, the wounded Simon
brought to the new Bailiff's house, and Haybert brought on a pallet to his
home being tended by a village woman.

The nearby villages already had some talk of the strangeness of the new
lords and odd things that had occurred in their presence, so when they walk
into the village a few upset and fearful villagers shout accusations of
witchcraft and there is lots of tension.  A few of their number go to
Hayberts house and, despite some villagers trying to block them and Hayberts
mother shouting that they're trying to steal her son's soul, they close the
wound (first attempt to cast Bind Wound is botched! and causes another light
wound, but the second one succeeds).

And that's where things ended.


SOME INFORMATION
1) The lords don't have right of View of Frankpledge.  They can only
administer Low Justice.

2) If Haybert or Simon dies, it will definitely be a matter for the Coroner
and the King's Eyre justices (which started a circuit in 1218 and I have no
idea when it will be visiting Somerset - could be years).


THE QUESTIONS (Assumes that Haybert and Simon live)
1) Is this one case of assault (Haybert on Simon and the retaliation of
Sorcha in Simon's defense)?  Or is it two cases - one case of assault
(Haybert on Simon) and one case of armed assault / wounding (Sorcha on
Haybert)?

2) Most of what I've read support the idea that wounding or armed assault is
a High crime and only can be judged by the King's Eyre.  The only thing a
Lord, Bailiff of the Hundred, or Sheriff can do is attach (imprison) the
guilty parties until the King's itinerant court comes around.

But I have found a source that indicate an abbess, with the right of View of
Frankpledge (which in some sources is said to be the same as the Court Leet
and is sometimes stated to be the same as the sheriff's tourn), was
rendering judgment on multiple cases of assault and wounding with a weapon
(http://www.le.ac.uk/elh/whittlewood/silverstone.htm).  Admittedly this is
in 1400's, but it indicates that in the 1400's at least, stabbing someone
with a dagger is considered a Low crime.  The one concern I have is maybe
that it's a Low crime because the persons involved are villeins and not free
men.

Can anyone confirm if stabbing someone with a dagger, if the victim doesn't
die, is a Low or High crime?  Or could it potentially be settled in either
arena?  And is it dependent on the free / unfree status of the victim and
perpetrator?

3) If it's a Low crime, could the Bailiff of the Hundred hear it?  Or would
the Sheriff hear it?  Or would the Lord's hear it?

Please let me know if I can clarify anything to better help you answer the
question.  Thanks ahead of time for your help.