Although Neville lays emphasis on the mixed jury of English and Scottish, Fraser shows how, in the sixteenth-century at least, bills of complaint brought to the days of march could also be settled by the process of'avower'( an'avower'being a " countryman of the accused's, acceptable as a referee to both plaintiff and defendant, who would swear to the truth of the case " ).
2.
Although Neville lays emphasis on the mixed jury of English and Scottish, Fraser shows how, in the sixteenth-century at least, bills of complaint brought to the days of march could also be settled by the process of'avower'( an'avower'being a " countryman of the accused's, acceptable as a referee to both plaintiff and defendant, who would swear to the truth of the case " ).
3.
The third method of determining the result was by the Warden's oath ( where the Warden declared, on his honour, that the case was a valid one ) All three methods were open to abuse : the avower might be in a feud with someone and not impartial; an accused could be quit of the charge merely by means of an oath of innocence; witnesses or the defendants sometimes simply did not turn up to the day of march ( despite penalties for not doing so ); the Wardens tried to maintain a balance of reparations between Scots and English, and this meant that lesser cases did not get heard; intimidation by the reivers'armed members present at the day of march must have been another factor.
मोबाइल