"If anyone flinch from justice and escape, let him that hath him in custody pay damages (_angild_). And if he be accused of having aided the escape, let him clear himself according to the law of the country." _Angild_ is defined by Maitland as the money compensation which the person who has been wronged is entitled to receive--i.e., damage as distinct from the fine (_wite_). Here, it is evident, we are on the same ground as in the chapter treating of purgation by oath and the ordeal. When we recollect that the thief had to face the pain and uncertain issue of an ordeal, and that conviction might involve, _in addition to the fine_, banishment, slavery, or the loss of a foot, we see at once the temptation to abscond, but the disappearance of the accused was not only prejudicial to the accuser, but compromised the person who was responsible for his production. The escaped thief, therefore, was a _nuisance_, as well as a danger, and, if he remained contumacious, forfeiture of life and property was deemed not too heavy a penalty. If, instead of being a thief, the felon chanced to be a murderer, the inconvenience to the community, in whose midst the crime had been perpetrated, was still greater. One of the laws of Edward the Confessor ordained that if a man were found slain and the slayer could not be found, a fine of 46 marks (L30 13_s._ 4_d._) was to be paid into the Treasury by the township and hundred. The Pipe Rolls contain many instances of payments for murders of which the doers were not taken red-handed, the fines varying in amount. In 14 Henry II. the Sheriff of Devon accounted for 100_s._ for one murder in Wonford Hundred, 10 marks for several murders in Axminster Hundred, and 20_s._ for a murder in North Tawton Hundred. Another sum of 20_s._ was remitted by the village or township of Braunton for peace in respect of a murder committed there.[10] The position of affairs is thus clear. The murderer was regarded as a member of a corporation, which had to answer for him, and, failing to do so, was liable to a forfeit. The manslayer, therefore, if he did not make his surrender, added to his original offence against an individual or family those of disloyalty and injury to a community; and, accordingly, he became the mark of private or public vengeance, the laws which he had violated and contemned ceasing to afford him protection.