OUTLAWRY. This term, which is derived from the Saxon DWI. or L'IhiegA, signifies an exclusion from the protection of the law. In English law it is a punishment consequent upon a flight from justice, or a contnmscioua neglect or refusal to appear and answer for a criminal transgression, in obedience to the process of a court of com petent jurisdiction. By the laws of the Anglo-Saxons, continued after the Conquest, an outlaw, who was also called laugAlesman (lawless man) and frendlesman (friendless man), lost his liberam legem, and had no protection from the frankpledge in the decennary in which he was sworn. A boy under twelve years of ago, not being sworn to hie law in the decennary, could not be outlawed ; and for the same reason a woman who contumaciously refused to appear could not be outlawed, but was said to be trairts/ (derelicts), and incurred the same penal con sequences as an outlaw.
For centuries after the Conquest an outlaw was said " Gerere caput lupinum," and might be lawfully killed by any one who met him. It is stated in the ' Mirror' (cap. iv. seta 4) to have been the custom for those who slew outlawa or wolves to " carry the heads to the chief place of the county or franchise, and there to receive a demi-mark from the county for each head, whether of an outlaw or a wolf." The ' Mirror' is a book of doubtful antiquity and authority, and this story of the reward for the heads of outlaws is probably fabulous, or at all events an exaggeration of the fact. Braetou (lib. iii., cap. 13), declares that an outlaw "might be killed by all, especially if he defended himself or ran away, so that it was difficult to take him ; but that when once taken, his life and death were in the king's hands ; and if Any man then killed him, he must answer for It as in the case of any other homicide." That this practice and law prevailed in his time Is further proved by another passage (c. 14), in which he says that a man who has been outlawed, but has become "iniagatua," or restored to his law by a pardon from the king, should take care always to "carry his pardon about with him wheresoever he may go, and have it ready in his hand to show, lest peradventure some person, not knowing that he has obtained the king's grace, should slay him as an outlaw." Meta (lib. i., cap. 27), mentions the same law, and justifies it : " Utlagatus
et waiviata capita gerunt lupina, quie ab omnibus impune poteruut amputan ; merito enim sine Age perire debent qui secundum legern vivere recusant." Lord Coke says, " In the beginning of the reign of Edward M. it was resolved by the judges, for avoiding of inhumanity and effusion of Christian blood, that it should not be lawful for any man but the sheriff only (having lawful wanaut therefore) to put to death any man outlawed, though it were for felony ; and if he did, he should undergo such punishments and pains of death as if be had killed any other man ; and so from thenceforth the law continued until this day." For this fact he refers to the ' Year Book,' 2 Ass. pl. 3. The Year Book' however, as cited, and another report of the same case in Fitzherbert's ' Abridgement,' tit. Corone, 14S, contain no such resolu tion, and the case from which it is obvious that Lord Coke derived the above statement, is clearly an authority to show the continuance of the old practice. A man being arraigned for homicide objects to answer because the person with whose death he was charged had been outlawed for felony. The judges at first certainly appeared to think that it was not lawful for any ene to kill an outlaw nnless it were upon his resisting a bailiff who should attempt to arrest him. But after argument, they said they "must send to the chancery to inquire if the deceased had a charter of pardon, and search their own rolls to see if his outlawry has been reversed ; "and they admitted the prisoner to bail in the mean time, telling him that if they found that there had been no pardon and no reversal of the outlawry, be would not be called upon to answer. This case therefore seems to show that Lord Coke prematurely claimed for the judges in the reign of Edward III. the merit of abolishing this barbarous practice ; indeed so late as the reign of Philip and Mary, Staundforde, in his Pleas of the Crown,' mentions the above case, and speaks of the law upon this subject as doubtful. However, though the technical quality of homicide ao committed may have been questionable, there is no doubt that the practice of killing outlaws like wild beasts had ceased long before Staundforde 's time.