The punishment for ignoring subpoenas un der the litigation system of the Kamakura Bakufu

The research to date regarding litigation under the Kamakura Bakufu has argued that with the increasing authoritarianism of its institutions during its later years concern for the rightfulness and legality of claims waned. This lack of concern was exemplified by the practice of meshibumi’ihai-no-toga 召文違背の咎, which punished litigants who ignored subpoenas by summarily ruling against them. However, such a point of view not only exaggerates the practice’s role in the fall of the Bakufu, but also ignores the actions taken by plaintiffs in the process of applying the precedent. Furthermore, doubt remains over authoritarianism being the direct cause of a lack of interest in rendering justice, or it can be attributed to other causes. Therefore, the aim of the present article is to re-examine meshibumi’ihai-no-toga （hereafter ihai-no-toga） based on cases heard by the Bakufu’s magistrate in Kyushu （Chinzei Tandai 鎮西探題）.<br> The author begins by reconstructing the process by which ihai-no-toga was applied. The process would be initiated by the plaintiff in any request for a summary judgment against the accused; but rather than immediately granting the request, the Tandai would in principle first dispatch an investigator to determine the circumstances surrounding the charge. <br> 　Next, the author takes up the meaning of “procedure”. Due to the fact that the serving of a subpoena was the responsibility of the plaintiff, the plaintiff could easily conceal the subpoena and claim that the accused had ignored it. The Tandai’s inquiry into whether or not the subpoena had been ignored was intended to prevent such a tactic. In addition, ihai-no-toga summary judgments were binding. This is because Tandai inquiries were also capable of verifying acceptance of the subpoena by the accused.<br> Finally, the author considers the drawbacks in conducting such investigations and the Tandai’s efforts to solve them. In response to suspected negligent investigators, unresponsive defendants, as well as plaintiffs concealing subpoena acceptance documentation, the Tandai would conduct another investigation.<br> The author concludes that in the process of applying the ihai-no-toga precedent there existed a crossing of opportunistic use of the precedent by plaintiffs and due diligence on the part of Bakufu authorities, thus casting serious doubt on the allegation that the latter had lost interest in rendering justice to litigants.