The sons of the deceased brother when the grandfather is dead and division among the brothers comes in question are allowed by the clause in the Gulathing law to buy back their father’s share in the odal at a fifth less than its value instead of sharing in it as family property. So far the clauses in the Scanian and Gulathing laws considered together seem to throw light upon the traditional principle on which the rights of the odal-sharers of the Norse laws may have been founded. The rules of Cymric custom may not be identical with those of Scandinavian custom, but we seem to recognise very similar tribal principles at the root of them both. * * * * * [Sidenote: The _paterfamilias_ and those in communion with him.] Finally other clauses in the Scanian law may be alluded to as pointing to the common liability of the family group, _i.e._ of the _paterfamilias_ and others ‘_in communione_’ with him. Chapter IX. is as follows:-- Universos contingit de communi consortio quicquid vel culpa amittitur vel industria conquiritur singulorum. As regards the common consortium whatever is lost by the fault of or acquired by the industry of individuals concerns all. And in Chapter LXXXVII. it is enacted that if a person denies that he is in possession of a thing stolen and if afterwards upon scrutiny it is found in his house, double the value of the thing stolen is to be taken, ‘not only from the portion of the _paterfamilias_, but also from the common property (_de bonis communibus_), however many there may be with the _paterfamilias in communione_.’ And the reason stated confirms the prevalence of family holdings of the kind already mentioned. The double value is to be taken, … non de sola patrisfamilias porcione sed de bonis communibus quotcunque fuerint cum patrefamilias in communione. Nam cum omnes lucrum respicerent in detentione non est mirum, si dampnum in ejusdem rei contingat omnibus restitutione. … not from the portion of the paterfamilias alone, but from the common property, however many there may be with the _paterfamilias in communione_. For since all expect gain from the detention [of the thing stolen] it is not strange if all sustain loss in its restitution. The _paterfamilias_ in whose house the stolen property is found is evidently himself a member of a wider family group with common interests and liabilities. And the clause goes on to say that the accused must deny the charge with twelve co-swearers if the thing stolen be worth half a mark, or submit to the test of the ordeal of hot iron. [Sidenote: The resort to the ordeal if no co-swearers.]