In event anyone prefers charges against another person and the one against whom the charge is brought leaps into a body of water and is thereby drowned, that person who preferred the charge shall thereupon take possession of the property of the one so drowned. But if the person against whom the charge is preferred is not drowned, the person who made the charge shall be put to death and the one accused shall take possession of the property of his accuser.
What does this mean and is there any historical account of this?
The statement you provided appears to describe a historical practice known as "trial by ordeal," specifically the method of "trial by water." This form of trial was used in some societies during medieval times and earlier to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused individual.
According to this practice, if someone accused another person of a crime, that person could choose to undergo the trial by water. They would be thrown or forced into a body of water, such as a river or pond. If the accused drowned and died, it was seen as a sign of guilt, and the property of the deceased would be transferred to the accuser. However, if the accused managed to survive, it was considered a sign of innocence, and the accuser would be punished, often by death, and their property would be transferred to the acquitted individual.
It is important to note that trial by ordeal, including trial by water, was based on superstition and an irrational belief in divine intervention rather than on justice or evidence. The practice was eventually phased out and replaced by more systematic methods of legal investigation and trial.
While there are historical accounts documenting the practice of trial by ordeal, it is challenging to find specific cases or examples related to the precise scenario you mentioned. The legal records of this period are often incomplete or vague, making it difficult to provide concrete examples of individuals who were affected by this particular trial by water outcome.