The Legal System of Old yapan. Temple, in Kiwara village, and under the patron age of the complainant's family.1 Now, one of the plots, 120 feet by 192 feet, which belonged to this estate, was inundated in Horeki Period ( 175 1— 1764), in the lifetime of the complainant's grand father, and became waste. When the complainant succeeded to the office of patron, he thought the land ought to be by that time reclaimable, and he inquired about it of the officers of Gokurakuji village, in which it lay. The latter evaded the inquiry, though it was often repeated; and the complainant began to suspect that the land had long ago been reclaimed by the villagers, and was being cultivated by them. He discovered, on searching further, that this was true; and that the plot had baen di vided into three parts, one going to Anraku Tem ple, a second to Zoko Temple,2 and a third to the maintenance of the Jizo shrine. The complainant, therefore, prayed for an investigation by the court. The defendant's answer was as follows : It is true that there is a plot of land cultivated as above, and not included in the taxable land of Gokurakuji village. But this plot was from Shotoku Period (1097-1099) to Kyoho Period (1 716-1736) in the possession of Auraku Temple, having been re ceived from the village to support the temple. The chief priest, Honko, eleven generations ago, on re tiring from office, received one portion as a settle ment upon him forever; but he removed to join the Zoko Temple, and gave his land to the latter, first apportioning a piece to the Jizo shrine. The latter part was under the charge of the village it self. We were on the point of asking to have this land assessed, when the great inundation came, and it is only very recently that we have been able to cultivate it at all; in fact, it is still mostly meadow. Such was the controversy. Two of the reeve's agents visited the spot, and examined the deeds of fered by both parties, and, after long investigation, concluded that the land in question must have been identical with the plot belonging to the Shimmei Temple. But as it has so long been cultivated by the defendants, it must be regarded as in their permanent tenancy. The product of the plot 1 The exact relation of a kannushi, or chief priest of a Shinto temple, to the living, is not clear; but the estate of such a person was a sort of advowson in a particular family, with right of presentation to members of that family. 4 In many instances the parishioners cultivated the land belonging to their temple as a contribution towards its support.
411
should be divided as follows : Landlord, 5 bales; tenant, 5 bales; taxes, 5 bales. This arrangement has been agreed to, and we beg to thank the court for its kindness. To prevent future disputes, we have executed this deed of settlement. Kayei, 5th yr (1853), 9th mo. 12th d Complainant. Sakurabayashi Samayemon, Chief priest of Ubato Temple, Miyawara village. Defendants, Gantei, Chief priest of Auraku Temple, Gokura kuji village. Kinrei, Purveying priest of Zoko Temple. (By his agent, Gantei.) Yeisuke. Farmer, representing the parishioners of Auraku Temple. Yoshisabura, Farmer, representing Zoko Temple. Asayemon, Headman of Gokurakuji village. Tadahichi, Tarobei, Chief farmers of the same village. Sajibei, Isobei, representing the small farmers of the same village. Mediators. Hochiyemon, Headman of Futsuka village. Kanzayemon, Chief farmer of Otoguro village. (By an agent, as he was sick ) Addressed to Morita Okataro, Reeve. [5]
Supplementary Document.
The above settlement having been reached by negotiation of the parties, while the inquiry was in progress by the court, has been accepted by order of Honda, Lord of the Province, and becomes valid. But censure has been passed upon Ganeti, one of the defendants, because, while the inquiry was pending he violated the law by thrusting peti tions into the sedan-chair of one of the Council of State, as he passed, and of other high officers. We acknowledge the unlawfulness of his conduct, and accept the reprimand. (Signed as before.) The last passage calls to mind some of the informal ways in which disputants sometimes sought justice. The thrusting of a petition into the chair of the lord of the province as he passed, was a favorite plan, — if such an epithet can be used of a procedure which was strictly forbidden, and was only resorted to in desperation. The pathetic tale of Sakura Sogoro, which Mitford has made famous, hangs upon an incident of this sort.
