During the age of Bracton, the defendant, who was incarcerated in jail and attempted to deny the obligation for his board and lodging, by the wager of law, was held incompetent to wage his law, in such a case, because it was counter to reason to permit one to be thus defeated of an obligation which he had recognized, based upon feelings of common humanity. In this opinion of Lord Hort, it was counter to his idea of right, in the case of London vs. Wood,[77] to permit the wager of law, to avoid an obligation which was not merely secret, but notorious and where the recognition of the right to wage law, would result in a wrong upon the other party. The real reason for this limitation of the right, however, was that the procedure itself was wrong and the common sense of the nation was becoming aware of the fact and thus the courts for one reason or another, reached the conclusion that this or that case was not one wherein the right could be recognized, when, as a matter of fact, with the growing popularity of the right of trial by jury, this old procedure was eternally at war, since the former institution was based upon the disinterested judgment of impartial men, who were assembled to carefully weigh the issues and pass judgment according to the right, whereas, in the other procedure interested men, through the influence of friendship or other ties, were led to approve the course of a neighbor or a friend, however wrong his object might be, and assist him by the corroboration of his oath. A century after this leading case of London vs. Wood,[78] however, in which Lord Holt and Baron Hatsell differed as to the reasons why the right to wage his law should be denied to the defendant in that case, the right was recognized in England, although not expressly enforced by the court. In 1805, the case of Barry vs. Robinson,[79] came before the English Court of Common Pleas and the Counsel for the plaintiff in his presentation of his client’s cause before the court, said: “If a man were now to tender his wager of law, the court would refuse to allow it,” as the counsel considered that this procedure was entirely obsolete at that period. But the reporter of this case, however, advises us that to this statement of counsel, the court demurred, or, in the language of the Reporter, “This was denied by the court.”