c\’idence.''' Idiiiilh’ on rhe ordeal we should rerurn to prov ision i^2 of rhe Pactus I.cgix Siiliaie, the ordeal taeing one who accused a witness of being false. 'The normal use of the ordeal was in the trial of a suspeered criminal, hut it is no surprise to find it here, d o giv e false evidence can ha\ e such serious consequences that e\ idence is tvpicalIv given under oath, d'his is one of the situations 1 have mentioned where legal oaths are tvpicallv and frequently found. But it is equallv serious to claim that the evidence is false-the whole legal process is now in jeopardy, d o put the claimant on his oath would scarcely he satisfactory: it would he one oath against another, d here is a dilemma. The solution of the Salian Franks was to subject the claimant to the ordeal (I am, of course, assuming that the ordeal was imposed when the v eracitv^ or otherwise of the claim was not self-ev ident).” With the ordeal, too, modern scholars must he on their guard when investigating an alien system. I believe ).FI. Baker was misled in part when we wnvte "Oaths involved an appeal to Ciod to reveal the truth in human disputes.""" But he does recognize that the plaintiff had to make out a prima facie case. VI Mv claim should he properly understood. I am not arguing that the e.vamples I am adducing for Five Last Best Cdvance are entirely rational. 1 hey are not. Only, the procedure is much less irrational than is usually tlunight. ddve persons involved have a problem that 36 Trial. 37 I have not dealt with trial by battle which also involves The Last Best Chance, and is close in nature to the ordeal. 38 An Introduction to English Legal History jd ed. (London, 1990), p. 5. 140
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=