The combatants were to be armed according to their quality; and the arms and armour of knights, who should do battle in a case of homicide or assassination, are duly set forth. They had to fight on foot; their lances were to be of equal length, and their shields half-a-foot higher than their persons, and pierced with two openings through which they could see their adversary. The arms had to be shown to the Court, and each champion was obliged to make oath on the Gospels that he had upon him neither writing, charm, nor any other arms than those shown to the Court. The combatants were then placed and fought. Near at hand stood the warders of the field, so that they might catch the words "I repent" in the event of their being uttered. In that case they said to the other party, "You have done enough"; and he who had been vanquished was taken to the lord, by whose order he was trained to the gallows and hanged. Similar treatment was paid to a combatant who had been slain, even if he had not said "I repent." The same procedure was observed where the champions were of inferior rank, save that their arms were not knightly. If the case were not one of homicide or assassination, knights fought on horseback and in armour, with the same consequences to the vanquished. His arms were forfeited; and, if the charge were treason, his heirs were deprived of their inheritance. Combatants of lower than knightly rank fought on foot with shields and spears of equal length. If anyone not a knight struck a knight, he lost his right hand, "because of the honour and dignity which a knight has, and ought to have, over all other kinds of persons." We may now refer to some typical examples. In the reign of Henry III. Hamon le Stare was appealed for robbery by Walter de Bloweberme; and the record is specially interesting on account of a contemporary drawing of the fight and subsequent execution of the vanquished. In a MS. of Merton College, Oxford, occurs a note of a case in the time of Edward I. R. de B. having demanded the advowson of a church against the Prior of Sens, the latter waged battle. On the appointed day his champion appeared, "and in the open field the duel was fought." The Prior's champion was struck down, and upon this the Prior's attorney came forward and surrendered the advowson. Accordingly, judgment was given that R. should recover seisin, and that the Prior should be in mercy. The same MS. contains a comment by the Judge (Saham) to the effect that if, after battle joined, at the second or third assault the tenant acknowledge the tenement to be the right of the demandant, and for that acknowledgment the demandant grant to the tenant that he shall hold of him for life, and that afterwards the tenement shall revert to him (the demandant), that acknowledgment is as stable as if a fine were levied in a writ of warranty of charter.