A trial in Anglo-Saxon and early Norman times stands in notable contrast to all this in almost every essential of its stages and procedure, and even more radically in the spirit which pervades the whole. Thus, the proceedings, from first to last, were purely oral, there being no original writ or summons, no written pleadings, and no record kept of the decision except in the memories of those present. The functions of “the judges” were entirely different, and demanded no previous professional or legal training, since they were not required either to weigh a mass of evidence or to determine the bearing of subtle legal arguments, but merely to see fairplay, and to decide, according to simple rules, well established by centuries of custom, by what test the allegations of plaintiff and defendant were respectively to stand or fall. Finally, the arrangement of the stages of the litigation was entirely different. It is with something of a shock that the modern lawyer learns that in civil and criminal causes alike “judgment” invariably preceded “trial.” Reflection will soon convince him that each of these words had in the Middle Ages a meaning different from what it bears to-day. These ancient meanings can be best understood by following the stages of the old procedure. (1) The initial difficulty was to obtain the presence of the defendant in court, since there existed a strange reluctance either to compel his attendance or to allow judgment to pass against him by default. No initial writ was issued commanding him to appear; almost endless delays were allowed. (2) When both parties had been, after many adjournments, actually brought face to face before the court, the statements alike of the claim and of the defence were made verbally and in set _formulae_, the slightest slip or stumble in the words of which involved complete failure. This is merely one illustration of the tremendously formal and technical nature of early legal procedure common to all half-developed systems of jurisprudence. (3) Before the plaintiff could put the defendant finally on his defence, he required to show some preliminary presumption of the probability or _bona fides_ of his case. This he usually did by producing two friends ready to substantiate his claim, known sometimes as his “suit” (Latin _secta_), or his “fore-witnesses.” Their evidence was not weighed against the “proof” afterwards led by the defendant; its object was merely to warrant the Court in demanding “proof” from the latter at all.[143] ----- Footnote 143: