Definition
In historical English law, to clip or shave the edges of coins. The term describes the act of fraudulently reducing the metal content of currency by cutting or filing down the circumference of coins while retaining them at face value — a practice that debased the currency and defrauded those who accepted the coins in commerce.
Why It Matters in Research
RETOUNDER is a term a researcher will encounter almost exclusively in early English legal sources, particularly those written in Law French. Its practical relevance today is limited to historical research on coin clipping, currency offenses, and the early law of counterfeiting or debasement of the realm's money. Researchers should note that this offense was treated with great severity in medieval English law — coin clipping was a form of treason against the Crown's monetary prerogative, not merely a species of fraud or theft. Sources addressing this conduct may catalog it under treason, forgery, or counterfeiting rather than under a distinct heading, so searching on the term alone may undercount relevant passages. The Law French form (retoundu, averount retoundu) will appear in primary sources and early digests; the anglicized form "retounder" is largely a dictionary artifact. Researchers working in this area should cross-reference sources on the Statute of Money, early treason statutes, and the Crown's exclusive prerogative over coinage.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary is the principal anglophone source that preserves this term, and its entry is brief: the definition is supplied almost entirely through quotation from Britton (the late thirteenth-century English legal treatise compiled in Law French), specifically Chapter 4, which addresses offenses against the Crown's currency. Burrill renders the operative phrase as "ceux que averount nostre monoye retoundu" — those who have clipped our money — making clear that the offense was framed as a wrong against the sovereign's money supply rather than against individual victims. No substantive analytical commentary accompanies the entry. Other historical legal dictionaries in the common tradition (Jacob, Tomlin, Bouvier) do not appear to carry this term, which underscores its status as a term of art preserved primarily through the Law French corpus rather than through the later common law dictionary tradition. Researchers should treat Burrill's entry as a linguistic pointer to primary sources rather than as doctrinal authority.
Jurisdictional Note
This term is specific to early English law and has no recognized equivalent in American, Scottish, or civilian legal traditions. It does not appear as a term of art in any modern jurisdiction.