Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1857-12-30
MisfrIlonrOn5 Afa0ing.
TRIAL By BiTTLE IN Eng
I.iNl.

Even within the lifetime Of the present
generation, Trial by Battle, as the legal mode
of testing mans character or probity by
fighting was 6enomiuated. remained portion
Of the English law.
In the year 1918, Abraham Thornton,
charged with the murder Of young lady ma
med Mary Ashford, astonishcI everybody,
and somewhat puzzled his judges. BY refusing
to submit his case to be tried by jury, and
by ayailing himself Of the long since disused
and a,incst forgotten law which SLOWED him
instead, to summon his aocuser 10 wager Of
battle, or trial by single combat. Ia vain
vas his right to DO SO questioned by thc al
verse counsel, on the plea that tie lsw IF tri
Il ty battlo was obsolete, not having been
empleyed sonie tao centuries. The Lord
Chief Ju.t;.c Peterborough at once decided
that as tie act ba@ never been repealed. it
still formed part Of the law of the land So,
Thornton beiog powerful, athletic fellow,
aud his accuzor--wao was, by-the-way, the
brother Of the murdered girl weak strip
! ling, not more than twenty years Of age, the
/ later declined the proderca combat, and the
suspected murderer waG set at liberty; a re
suit which, judging from the reported circum-
stances OF the case, aad the evidence against
him, would hardly have been probable but for
his orportunc digging up Of this Iong-forgot-
ten law.
The unexpected termination Of this trial led
Il. F~ll
year, of aii, "to abolish all appeals of muir
der, treason, felony, or other offences, any
wager Of battle, or joining issue, and trial by
battle, in wri;s Of right"
The wager of battle, like the ordeals of fire
and water, touching the murdered body, anG
other extraordinary and nov obsolete modes
of finding ont the better or worse man, Q
course originated in the suporstitious belle
that Providence would in all cases give til,
victory to him who had tie right GU his side
yet, in spite Of this belief. we find some ratb
er singular regulations provided against tn,
battle going too obviously wrcng. Such, fo
instance, as that party detected Il the yer,
commission Of the act alleged against him. Q
under circumstances that left no possib
doubt OF his guilt, could not claim the righ
of trial by combat. It would have been S
very awkward if he had been victor after all
One important difference, however. cxiste,
: in the conduct Of the civil and criminal ca
ses In criminal matters, the accuser aud &C
cused met on the field and foughs it out in per
son; in civil suits the parties fou ght By proxy
Each employed sort of physical force barri:
ter. The reason for this, as given By JCdg
Blackstone, Is, that f'any party to suit die;
the suit must abate, and be at an end for til
present and, therefore, no Judgment coul
be given for the lands in question, if eth,
> of the parties were slain in battle. AEoth,
reason was, that no person should be above
! to. claim exemption from this inede of trial
h c,vil action, while there were many circun
ia stances under which the accused party in
criminal charge was deprived OF his choice
or trial, and compelled to submit the inquiry
ID jury. The fact of the accuser being f
male, or under age, or above the age Of sixt
or in holy orders, or 4 peer of the realm,
p any one expressly privileged from the trial
battle, by some charter of the king Gas we
the citizens Of London among others,) or
boring under some material personal dcfe
rs b)indness er los, Of slimh; srv ef th.