But a peculiar, and in its results highly important, judicial institution prevailed in the North, namely “_Næfn_,” “_Næfninger_” (Nævninger); or, as it has been called in later times in English, “Jury.” According to the most ancient Danish laws the accuser had a right, particularly in important criminal causes, to select from among the people a certain number of jurors (Nævninger), who, after taking an oath, were to condemn or acquit the accused; and judgment was not pronounced till they had given their verdict. The accuser’s choice of jurors was limited by law to owners of landed property who were not related to him; neither were they to be inimically disposed towards the accused, who had the right of challenging any of them. The decision of the jury was declared according to the majority of votes. In some districts at least, as for instance in Scania (Skaane), the accused was allowed, if the decision of the jury was against him, to appeal to the ordeal by red-hot iron, which, after the introduction of Christianity, became an important mode of proof in the North. But after the abolition of that ordeal in Denmark (in 1218), and after the heathen mode of duelling, or _holmgang_, had been abolished by Christianity, and superseded by the institution of juries, this last method of trial played an important part, and became popular with the people because it afforded them a participation in the administration of justice, and at the same time secured their civil liberties. Nevertheless trial by jury was at length obliged to yield to newer forms of law in Scandinavia; and just in proportion as the ancient freedom of the people was lost, the political institutions which had originated from it also disappeared.