He who waged his law, under the old Saxon procedure, brought with him, into court, eleven of his neighbors, for by the constitution entered into as a league between Alfred and Guthrun, the Dane, a man’s credit, in a court of law, depended upon his reputation among his neighbors, touching his veracity. The defendant who pleaded _nil debit_, or denied the charge against him, usually concluded his answer with the plea containing the formula: “And this he is ready to defend against him, the said A. B. and his suit, as the court of our Lord, the King, shall here consider,” _etc._ He was then placed under surety to _wage his law_, on a day appointed by the judge and on the day named the defendant, in open court, took his oath, which was also confirmed by the oaths of eleven of his neighbors, called compurgators. The defendant stood at the end of the bar and was solemnly admonished by the judge of the nature and danger of a false oath and if he persisted, he repeated an oath like the following: “Hear this, ye justices, that I do not owe unto A. B. the sum of ten pounds, nor any penny thereof, in manner and form as the said A. B. hath declared against me, so help me God.”[6] And thereupon his eleven compurgators avowed, upon their oaths, that they believed, in their consciences, that he saith the truth. The oath, therefore, of the defendant, himself, was _de fidelitate_, or on his fidelity, and the eleven compurgators testified _de credulitate_ or upon their belief in his integrity.[7] These oaths had the legal effect of a verdict for the defendant, in all actions of debt, on a simple contract, or in actions of detinue, but the defense was not allowed to persons who did not enjoy a good reputation among their neighbors. The compurgators acted rather in the capacity of jurymen than as witnesses, for they swore to their belief, not to what they actually knew. In other words, when the accused made oath of his innocence or denied the charge filed against him, they swore that they believed he was swearing the truth. Yet they differed from jurymen in many important particulars. The jury was summoned by a public officer and took an oath to tell the truth, whatever the truth might be—for jurymen then did not sit in trial of issues as today—while the oath helper—or compurgator, merely took an oath to testify to the truth of his principal’s oath.[8]