At this period that peculiar species of ordeal, TRIAL BY COMBAT, the prototype of the modern duel, was licensed by the supreme magistrate. When a person was accused by another without any further evidence than the mere _ipse dixit_ of the accuser, the defendant making good his own cause by strongly denying the fact, the matter was referred to the decision of the sword,[51] and although the old proverb that "might overcomes right" was frequently verified in these encounters, the vanquished party was adjudged guilty of the crime alleged against him, and dealt with according to law. The charge usually preferred was that of treason, though the dispute generally originated in private pique between the parties. These combats brought together immense numbers of people. That between Sir John Annesley and Katrington, in the reign of Richard II, was fought before the palace at Westminster, and attracted more spectators than the king's coronation had done.[52] All such encounters were regulated by laws which it was the province of the heralds to enforce.[53] The TOURNAMENT, though proscribed by churchmen (jealous, as Dallaway observes, of _shows_ in which they could play no part), had nothing in it of the objectionable character attaching to the judicial combat. Nor will it suffer, in the judgment of Gibbon, on a comparison with the Olympic games, "which, however recommended by the idea of classic antiquity, must yield to a Gothic tournament, as being, in every point of view, to be preferred by impartial taste."[54] Descriptions of tournaments occur in so many popular works that it is not here necessary to do more than to refer to them. The vivid picture of one by Sir Walter Scott in 'Ivanhoe' is probably fresh in the reader's memory.