Wilhs: Anglo-American Law 
83 
upon the sheriff of the county to secure the attendance of 
the defendant. A verbal message from the court to the sheriff 
might miscarry or be misinterpreted. Hence there was is- 
sued by the chancellor, secretary to the Curia, a brief state- 
ment of the case with a command in the name of the king 
to summon the defendant to appear and answer the complaint. 
This was called a breve, but soon received the Anglo-Saxon 
name of writ (writing), to distinguish it from the verbal 
complaints in the local courts. Henry II provided that no 
suit should be started in a local court or any other court 
except by writ. The invention of writs was the making of 
the common law. 
Pleading. By Bracton’s time a system of pleading had de- 
veloped in the king’s courts. The plaintiff came into court, 
and by himself or by his attorney stated his cause of action. 
The defendant answered, making objection on a point of law, 
or denying some or all of the facts. The plaintiff then re- 
plied, and then the defendant until they arrived at an issue 
(way out), that is, not a vague indefinite quarrel but a dis- 
pute on a particular point. A man could not raise both an 
issue of law and an issue of fact. In later times these verbal 
altercations developed into our modern system of written 
pleadings. An issue of law was tried by the judge alone, an 
issue of fact by the modes of trial peculiar to this period. 
Trial. William I did not abolish the Anglo-Saxon modes 
of trial by ordeal and compurgation, but he introduced two 
new modes of trial, the duel (wager of battle) and the jury. 
The ordeal was abolished in 1218, after it had been condemned 
by the Lateran Council in 1215. Compurgation was not abol- 
ished in England until 1833, but it began to grow unpopular 
in the Archaic Period. However, this was the only way of 
trying an action of debt, and largely accounts for that action’s 
finally becoming obsolete. Proof of death today is still ac- 
cording to the form of Anglo-Saxon proof by witnesses 
(slightly different from compurgation). The action of ac- 
count was tried before auditors. 
Wager of Battle. The duel, or wager of battle, did not ap- 
ply to pleas of the crown, because the sovereign could not 
be challenged to fight. Yet there was one exception to the 
rule, one case where vengeance was not abolished but regu- 
lated. In cases of murder and manslaughter any blood 
