Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/360

 Wager of Battle.

321

WAGER OF BATTLE. Bv M. S. Gilpatric. AMONG the ceremonies that, historically, had committed perjury. The modern idea should have attended the coronation of a jury is an impartial body of men who of King Edward VII. is the appearance of have formed no opinion about the facts of the " King's Champion," who, armed, cap a the controversy, and who will be guided as pie, should ride into the assembly, and, after to the law by the judge. In ancient times flinging his glove to the ground, should the jury were men of the vicinage, who were dare anyone to dispute the sovereignty of supposed to know the parties and some the king by picking up the glove, in which thing of the facts, and the parties them case he, the champion, would do him battle selves could sustain their averments by bringing in their friends as compurgators, to the death. It has been irreverently suggested that who would swear that they believed the tes the present champion, who derives his hon timony of the plaintiff or defendant, as the orable and perilous position by descent, case might be, and, as there were no rules should not be clad in armor, or have lance of evidence, no ground of objection that the and sword, nor should he bestride a white testimony was immaterial, irrelevant or in charger, but that he should be clad in competent, the witness coukJ swear to any kahki, grasp a revolver and a magazine rifle, thing that his friendship for the principal, and ride in an automobile. We call this his dislike to the adversary, or his own suggestion irreverent, because reverence is imagination prompted; the only restraint due to age, and it scoffs at a ceremony being that the person against whom he was which is the last relic of a custom so ancient testifying could break in on his narration, that its origin is obscure, but which, from accuse him of perjury, and demand that the the time of Charlemagne was in full force witness make good his statement by a duel. and effect throughout Continental Europe; This style of objection not only stayed the which was brought into England by William trial of the cause, but really decided it, for, the Conqueror, and which was recognized by if the witness was vanquished in the duel, the courts of England as late as 18 18. We he was fined and had to make good any refer to the judicial duel, or Wager of Battle. damage which his testimony might have There is a wide distinction between the caused to his opponent, to whom judgment underlying idea of the Wager of Battle and was awarded. In our day, a witness who is " summoned private duelling. In the latter, a real or fancied grievance so inflames the minds of by a stern subpoena " to appear in court on behalf of a party, is told thereby that if he the parties that they feel that the world can does not appear he will be mulcted in dam not contain them both. ages by the aggrieved party because he is It is the notion of the expected to tell " the truth, the whole "... two cats of Kilkenny, truth, and nothing but the truth." But in Who said there is one cat too many." the age when Wager of Battle became a But the former was a solemn appeal to the universal custom, a witness was an acknowl God of Truth to decide which of the parties edged partisan who came into court to