It therefore seems evident that, even in the earliest times, this mode of proof was only an expedient resorted to in doubtful matters, and on the necessity of its use the _rachinborgs_ or judges probably decided. A case recorded in the Landnamabok certainly shows that among the heathen Norsemen the Godi or priest-judge had this power, for when Thorbiorn Digre prosecuted Thorarin of Mafahlid for horse-stealing, and demanded that he should produce twelve conjurators, Arnkell, the Godi, decided that the accused might clear himself with his simple oath on the holy ring of the altar, and thus the prosecution came to naught except as leading to a bloody feud.[142] That this discretion was lodged in the court in subsequent times is generally admitted. It is scarcely worth while to multiply proof; but a few references will show the light in which the custom was regarded.[143] As employed by the Church, the rule was distinctly enunciated in the thirteenth century that the accused was not to be allowed to clear himself by canonical purgation when the crime was notorious or when the accuser offered to prove the charge.[144] The Welsh, however, were exceptional in this respect. The _raith_ was the corner-stone of their system of jurisprudence. It was applied to almost all actions, whether of civil or criminal law, and even cases of doubtful paternity were settled by it, no woman, except one “of bush and brake” who had no legal kindred, being allowed to give testimony or take an oath with respect to the paternity of her illegitimate child.[145] It excluded and superseded all other procedures. If the accused declined to take the oath of denial, then testimony on both sides could be introduced, and the case be settled on the evidence adduced;[146] but where he chose to abide by the _raith_, the Book of Cynog formally declares that “Evidences are not to be brought as to _galanas_ [homicide], nor _saraad_ [insults], nor blood, nor wound, nor ferocious acts, nor waylaying, nor burning buildings, nor theft, nor surety, nor open assault, nor adultery, nor violence, nor in a case where guardians should be, nor in a case where an established raith is appointed by law; because evidences are not to extinguish a raith.”[147] Indeed, the only case which I have found wherein it was refused is where a priest of the same parish as one accused of theft testifies to have seen him in open daylight with the article stolen in his possession, when apparently the sacred character of the witness precludes a denial on the part of the defendant.[148]