|
Re: John
Doe ... from the archives
Posted by ESC on
January 03, 2003 In Reply to: Re: John Doe ...
hmmm posted by Silver Surfer on January 03, 2003
: : : : Who
was John Doe and why does this now mean an un-named American?
: : : I found
the following on a web site and closed it before I could save it to check for
authenticity:
: : : "John Doe had its beginnings in legal use. From the 15th
century to the 19th, John Doe was, in
: : : England, a legal fiction standing
specifically for the plaintiff in a dispute over title to
: : : real property.
Richard Roe was the name given to the defendant. In order to
: : : avoid dealing
with the rigid restrictions legally imposed on such matters in English
: :
: common law, someone who wanted to regain possession of land from which he
:
: : had unjustly been evicted would bring a different kind of action--an "ejectment"
:
: : suit--in the name of John Doe, his fictional tenant.
: : : By bringing the
suit in the name of a fictitious person, who could not deny anything
: : :
that was said, the landowner was often able to oust the usurper and recover his
:
: : land legally. Supposedly, the fictional defendant was a traveler who, while
passing
: : : by, just happened to toss the mythical tenant off the property
before going on his
: : : way. The chances for victory by the rightful owner
were enhanced when the
: : : accused Richard Roe did not, for some reason,
appear at the proceedings in
: : : order to defend himself. And the actual
person who wrongfully had possession of
: : : the owner's land simply had no
legal standing in the suit.
: : : These particular suits were no longer necessary
after the 1852 passage of the
: : : Common Law Procedure Act, which eased the
previous restrictions. But by then
: : : the legal fictions John Doe and Richard
Roe had become conventionalized, and
: : : they are now used frequently in
both English and American law. Current use is
: : : quite a bit looser, however.
John Doe, Jane Doe, Richard Roe, Jane Roe,
: : : or--if need be--Peter Poe,
are, according to Random House Webster's Pocket
: : : Legal Dictionary, used
in legal cases and documents, "either to conceal a
: : : person's identity,
or because the person's real name is not known, or because it is
: : : not
yet known whether the person exists."
: : : We can say, then, that the John
Doe of early legal use was always fictitious; the
: : : John Doe of current
legal use is sometimes a fiction but more often a real person;
: : : and the
John Doe of extended metaphorical use, 'an anonymous, average man', is
: :
: a generic--once again not real.
: : : But back to origins. The choice of John
is easy enough to understand. It was the
: : : second most popular name in
England even earlier than the 15th century (William
: : : took first place).
John is used even today as a generic reference (John Barleycorn,
: : : John
Q. Public, etc.) The need for a common, well-known fictional name in matters
:
: : of law is reflected in early Roman legal proceedings, in which the fictitious
persons
: : : included Gaius, Titius, and Seius.
: : : Doe is harder to track
down. It does not appear in lists of early inheritable
: : : surnames in England.
Nor does it seem to come from the usual "bynames" that
: : : were in use in
the Middle Ages--those names that you did not inherit from your
: : : father
but acquired yourself. Bynames were derived from either a parent's name
: :
: (Peterson), your location (Underhill), your occupation (Smith), or some nickname
:
: : (Wiseman). Feverish research has yielded nothing; no "Doe." So I'm stumped,
too!
: : : I can only speculate that Doe and Roe were convenient nonsense names,
chosen
: : : because they were short and easy to remember. And they rhymed.
On the other
: : : hand, there are a few putatively real Doe's and Roe's listed
in modern phone
: : : books. Of course, some of them are named "John" or "Richard"
or "Jane."
: : I'm mildly suspicious of the above, only because I've only ever
come across the usage of John Doe in American English, and have neither heard
nor read it used "natively" over here. If the term was standard legal teminology
for 400 years plus in English law, it's a mite surprising that it should have
entirely died out over here, but flourished kappily in the US - though I suppose
it's possible.
: : Over here in the UK, we're much more likely to refer to an
anonymous individual as John Smith, or more colloquially, Joe Bloggs - don't ask
me why.
: I've searched through many English legal documents from all ages and
have never come across this usage. I have, however, found the URL from which the
above explanation has been pasted, viz. http://www.pseudoe.de/johndoe.htm. I think
we have here a little Internet joke to fool the unwary.
JOHN DOE -- "Since John
was such a common English name, it came to be used as the name of the average,
typical fellow by the 14th century. By then 'John Doe' and 'Richard Roe' were
already used as substitute names on legal documents in England to protect the
identities of the two witnesses needed for every legal action (such as the Magna
Charta in 1215). Later these two names were used in standardized court proceedings
in which 'John Doe' stood for the plaintiff protesting eviction by a hypothetical
'Richard Roe,' the landlord defendant. Thus 'John Doe' became the common man.
'John' and 'Richard' were common first names in England, but where did the hypothetical
last names 'Doe' and 'Roe' come from? Some say from 'doe' (venison) and 'roe'
(fish), since these were the foods that typical Englishman liked best - but it
could be that 'Doe' and 'Roe' were what landowners called men who poached deer
and fish, and who would be just the kind of men willing to witness legal documents
against the landowners and their landed rights." From "Listening to America" by
Stuart Berg Flexner (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1982).
|
& 