In the year 1580, one Gilles Blacre had taken the lease of a house in the suburbs of Tours, but repenting him of his bargain with the landlord, Peter Piquet, he endeavoured to prevail upon him to cancel the agreement. Peter, however, was satisfied with his tenant and his terms, and would listen to no compromise.
Very shortly afterwards, the rumour was spread all over Tours that the house of Gilles Blacre was haunted. Gilles himself asserted that he verily believed his house to be the general rendezvous of all the witches and evil spirits of France. The noise they made was awful, and quite prevented him from sleeping. They knocked against the wall, howled in the chimneys, broke his window-glass, scattered his pots and pans all over his kitchen, and set his chairs and tables a-dancing the whole night through. Crowds of persons assembled round the house to hear the mysterious noises; and the bricks were observed to detach themselves from the wall, and fall into the streets upon the heads of those who had not said their paternoster before coming out in the morning.
These things having continued for some time, Gilles Blacre made his complaint to the Civil Court of Tours, and Peter Piquet was summoned to shew cause why the lease should not be annulled. Poor Peter could make no defence, and the court unanimously agreed that no lease could hold good under such circumstances, and annulled it accordingly, condemning the unlucky owner to all the expenses of the suit.
Peter appealed to the parliament of Paris; and after a long examination, the parliament confirmed the lease. “Not,” said the judge, “because it has not been fully and satisfactorily proved that the house is troubled by evil spirits, but that there was an informality in the proceedings before the Civil Court of Tours, that rendered its decision null and of no effect.”
From Garinet, Histoire de la Magie en France, p. 75.
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackay (1841).
I found Garinet’s book (published 1818).
Garinet himself says this story comes from Le Loyer, Des Spectres. This is Pierre Le Loyer’s “Discours des spectres, ou visions et apparitions d’esprits” published 1605. It seems to be mostly a discussion about how spectres are bunk and that we are easily deceived creatures. A Google translation of the passage (which doesn’t seem to mention Tours):
But why concern ourselves with foreign rulings when our own Parliaments provide us with them? Who has not heard of the case argued before the Parliament of Paris regarding the rescission of a lease due to spirits haunting a rented house? The facts were as follows: Pierre Piquet—acting in the name and capacity of guardian to the minor Nicolas Macquereau—and Daniel Macquereau (of legal age) had jointly leased a house located in the suburbs of Tours to a certain Gilles Bolacre. Before long, the tenant began to hear the noise and clamor of invisible spirits—or, to be precise, *rabbats* and goblins—that gave neither him nor his family any peace or sleep. He summoned both Pierre Piquet (as guardian to Nicolas Macquereau) and Daniel Macquereau to appear before the Lieutenant and officials of the Presidial Court in Tours, seeking a judgment to annul and rescind the lease. The parties contested the matter; given their conflicting claims, the court ordered an inquiry and the gathering of evidence. Ultimately, following the presentation of evidence, a judgment was issued: based on the proofs in the case, the Judge of Tours—acting without a royal warrant—annulled the written lease for the house. This specific procedural detail would later give rise to the ruling I shall discuss shortly. Pierre Piquet (acting for his minor ward) and Daniel Macquereau appealed this judgment, bringing the case before the Parlement of Paris. And although the proceedings had been conducted in writing and the lower court had ruled based on formal inquiries, the case was nonetheless admitted for oral argument on appeal. It was necessary for the appellants to acknowledge the facts as presented by the appellee, such that the only remaining issue to be decided was a point of law: namely, whether a lease—duly executed before a notary and witnesses—could be rescinded and annulled without a royal decree on account of spirits said to be haunting the house. The lawyers who argued the case were Maître René Chopin for the appellants and Nau for the appellee.