By the English law of the thirteenth century, a man accused of crime had, in doubtful cases only, the right of election between trial by jury and the wager of battle. When a violent presumption existed against him, he was obliged to submit to the verdict of a jury; but in cases of suspected poisoning, as satisfactory evidence was deemed unattainable, the accused had only the choice between confession and the combat.[408] On the other hand, when the appellant demanded the duel, he was obliged to make out a probable case before it was granted.[409] When battle had been gaged, however, no withdrawal was permitted, and any composition between the parties to avoid it was punishable by fine and imprisonment[410]—a regulation, no doubt, intended to prevent pleaders from rashly undertaking it, and to obviate its abuse as a means of extortion. In accusations of treason, indeed, the royal consent alone could prevent the matter from being fought out.[411] Any bodily injury on the part of the plaintiff, tending to render him less capable of defence or aggression, likewise deprived the defendant of the right to the wager of battle, and this led to such nice distinctions that the loss of molar teeth was adjudged not to amount to disqualification, while the absence of incisors was considered sufficient excuse, because they were held to be important weapons of offence.[412] Notwithstanding these various restrictions, cases of treason were almost always determined by the judicial duel, according to both Glanville and Bracton.[413] This was in direct opposition to the custom of Lombardy, where such cases were especially exempted from decision by the sword.[414] These restrictions of the English law, such as they were, did not, however, extend to the Scottish Marches, where the trial by battle was the universal resource and no proof by witnesses was admitted.[415]