Caltech is known for producing world-class scientists and engineers. But a few of its students have also demonstrated a flair for the law, as a highly controversial 1975 prank that turned on the legalistic reading of a sweepstakes entry form proved.

The sweepstakes in question was held by McDonald's. It ran from March 3rd to March 23rd, 1975, at 187 participating McDonald's restaurants in Southern California. The prizes included a year of groceries, a Datsun Z, McDonald's gift certificates, and cash. But one part of the contest rules caught the attention of three Caltech students who lived in Page House — Steve Klein, Dave Novikoff, and Barry Megdal. The part they noticed was the phrase "Enter as often as you wish." What if, the Caltech students wondered, a person entered the sweepstakes one million times? More >>>

Francis Douce (1757-1834) was a wealthy English antiquarian, known for his collection of books, prints, drawings, coins, and artifacts. In particular he specialized in collecting material related to children's books and games, fools and jesters, as well as death, demonology, and witchcraft. He also worked briefly at the British Museum, where he held the post of Keeper of Records.

When he died in 1834 he left an unusual stipulation in his will. He wanted all his personal papers donated to the British Museum, but they were to be first sealed in a box and only opened sixty-six years after his death. More >>>

On December 16, 1873 the Los Angeles Evening Express published an article describing a man in San Bernardino who, because of a loophole in the law, was legally allowed to remain married to two women, despite the efforts of townsfolk to force him to divorce at least one of his wives. News of the case caused an uproar in California. However, the story was entirely fictitious, as the Evening Express revealed two weeks later. Unfortunately, the retraction was not as widely publicized as the original story, and so the case made its way as fact into a number of legal textbooks. More >>>

In 1782 the Reverend Samuel Peters published (in England) a book titled A General History of Connecticut. The book included sensational details about "blue laws" that had supposedly once existed in Connecticut. (Blue laws are puritanical laws designed to regulate public morality.)

For instance, Peters claimed it had once been against the law in Connecticut to run on Sunday, unless one was going to church. There was also a law that "every male should have his hair cut round, according to a cap." Law breakers could face punishments such as whipping, cutting off of the ears, or even death.

In fact, there was no evidence such laws had ever existed. Peters had made them up. He was a wealthy Anglican who had been forced to leave the country during the American Revolution, and this was apparently his way of getting back at the country that had exiled him, by portraying its people and laws as repressive and fanatical. More >>>

In 1747 the London General Advertiser printed the text of a speech said to have been given by a woman, Polly Baker, at her trial. She had just given birth to her fifth child, was unmarried, and had been charged with having sexual intercourse out of wedlock.

Polly Baker readily admitted her guilt but argued that the law itself was unreasonable. Why was she being punished, she asked, while the men who committed the crime with her were let off scot free? According to the article, Polly's argument so moved the judges that one of them asked her hand in marriage the next day.

The text of Polly Baker's speech subsequently circulated widely throughout Europe and America, and it was widely believed to be real. However, thirty years later Benjamin Franklin admitted he had written it. It is not clear how he managed to insert the article into the General Advertiser. However, almost all scholars accept that he wrote it. His intention appears to have been to draw attention to the unfairness of the law which punished mothers, but not fathers, for having children out of wedlock. Franklin himself had fathered a son out of wedlock. The hoax was also Franklin’s first criticism of the penal system, a subject which he devoted much attention to in later decades. More >>>

On October 22, 1730 an article appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette describing a witch trial that had recently been held in Mount Holly near Burlington, New Jersey.

According to the article, over 300 people had gathered to witness the trial of two people, a man and a woman, who had been accused of witchcraft. The charges included "making their neighbours sheep dance in an uncommon manner, and with causing hogs to speak, and sing Psalms, &c. to the great terror and amazement of the King's good and peaceable subjects in this province." More >>>

An 8-page pamphlet published in Paris in February 1637 described an unusual case of pregnancy without intercourse.

Magdeleine d'Auvermont of Grenoble, said the pamphlet, had recently given birth to a son, Emmanuel. But when she did, her relatives immediately accused her of adultery and brought her to trial to have her child declared illegitimate.

Their case seemed airtight. After all, Magdeleine's husband had been absent for the past four years. However, Magdeleine insisted she had been chaste, and she offered an unusual explanation of how she had become pregnant. She said that she had dreamed of having sex with her husband, and the next morning had felt the signs of pregnancy. Nine months later she gave birth to her son.

During the trial, four midwives testified that they themselves had become pregnant without intercourse, and four doctors from the University of Montpellier signed a certificate stating that such a thing was possible. The Grenoble judges voted that her absent husband was indeed the father of the child, and that the child was therefore legitimate.

The report of this ruling caused an uproar. But when the Parliament of Paris considered the case later that year, it decided that the report had to be a hoax. It noted the names of the mother and son, which suggested a parody of the birth of Christ, as well as the fact that the sentence from Grenoble was delivered on Carnival Day.

Count Jean V d'Armagnac (1420-1473) was described by a contemporary as "short and stocky of stature, even pot-bellied, but gifted with great bodily strength. His neck was short, surmounted with an acne-pocked visage, with squinty eyes, crowned by a shock of red hair."

The Count fell in love with his younger sister, Isabelle, whom he affectionately called ma mia costa (my own rib). She was said to be one of the great beauties of her time. He had two sons with her, after which he sought approval from the Pope to marry her. The Pope refused.

Undeterred, the Count bribed a papal official, Antoine d'Alet, Bishop of Cambrai, to forge a papal bull allowing the marriage. A few months later, the Count and his sister had a third child together, a daughter. The three children were known as the Bastards of Armagnac. Isabelle referred to them in public as her niece and nephews, which technically they were.

When the Pope learned of what the Count had done, he excommunicated him. Eventually the Count married another woman (not related to him).

Later the Count rebelled against King Charles VII of France, who sent an army to crush him. The army killed the Count and dragged his body through the streets. They locked his wife, seven months pregnant, in a cell with her husband's dead body. Her child (the Count's one legitimate heir) was stillborn, thus ensuring the end of the House of Armagnac.

Crowland Abbey, located deep in the Lincolnshire fens of England, was once a center for medieval religious life. Today, however, it lies mostly in ruins. A few quatrefoil window carvings and undamaged statues provide a sense of the building's former glory, but the abbey itself is less well known for its artwork than it is for an outrageous historical hoax that its former inhabitants once perpetrated. More >>>