> Icelandic sagas it claims that most of the work in a legal battle was
> establishing which court had the juristiction, but that the facts were
> seldom in dispute. When they were, I expect that they appealed to the
> ultimate judge (ie, trial by combat).
Most of the jockeying was to be sure that the trial/suit was held in an
area where you had support. (See below)
>
> More often, they probably voted to reconsider at the next Thing, to
> see if more evidence had turned up. Being caught destroying evidence
> was probably sufficient grounds to prove the other side's claims.
Evidence as we know it wasn't really an issue. You basically got people to swear that you were in the right. Failing that, you wanted support so the vote went your way, either through influence or intimidation.
Powered by hypermail