In course of time the “great law” was found to be so onerous that the rule requiring six separate compurgators to as many separate oaths by the defendant was relaxed, so as to allow him to make his compurgation by one oath, supported by thirty-six helpers, but if any one of these failed to support his oath, he was hanged.[40] And by the last of the fourteenth century even when charged with the capital crime of murder, a citizen liable under the “great law,” which formerly required him to make his compurgation by thirty-six oath-helpers, was allowed to either make his compurgation in this manner, or, at his election, to go to trial before a jury of twelve men, for by this period the trial by jury was beginning to take its place as one of the fixed institutions in the administration of the criminal law of England.[41] The trial by oath-helpers, even in murder cases, was not speedily superceded by the trial by jury, however, for as late as the fifteenth century, according to Palgrave, purgation with thirty-six oath-helpers, was allowed at Winchelsea and in other jurisdictions subject to the English common law.[42] By the time of Henry VI., we find the cases in which wager of law was allowed still open to much discussion. It was recognized in actions of debt and detinue[43] and in the action of account, it came to be the custom for the justices to examine the attorney for the plaintiff and other persons and to allow or refuse the wager of law to the defendant,[44] accordingly as the account was found to be an account stated in the presence of auditors, in which case it was not allowed, or an account not taken in the presence of auditors, where the wager was held to obtain.[45] The theory of denying the wager to cases where an account was had in the presence of auditors was that such an account arose to the dignity of an obligation admitted before competent judges.[46] A defendant sued upon a debt for board and lodging was denied his law,[47] but Justices Priscott and Needham, decided, near the end of the reign of Henry VI. that wager of law would lie in an action for board and lodging, if the plaintiff had it in his power to furnish the board or lodging at his own volition and not upon compulsion,[48] but if the defendant had been imprisoned in the Tower and the board and lodging was furnished by force of the obligation of common humanity, this would so far deprive the plaintiff of his option of furnishing the board and lodging, as to make him a creditor of such merit as to deprive the defendant of his wager of law.[49] Where persons were compelled to serve by the statute of laborers, such as plowmen, shepherds, and all servants of husbandry, in an action for wages, the defendant was not allowed his wager of law, because the plaintiff had no option to refuse the service, but in cases where the service was not compulsory, wager of law would lie.[50]