of the crime alleged against him, or of defending himself by his body. If he elects  the country he cannot then repent and revert to defending himself by his body  but the matter will be determined by the country.1 Nor may he act conversely.  If he enters upon his defence by his body, raising no exception, let the duel be  waged between them at once if everything is in proper order, especially the principal  matters on which the appeal is founded and which lead to joinder of the duel. If  the appellee has omitted to make sure of these the justice ought to investigate them  ex officio.
That in waging the duel the justice must investigate everything with care.
 First of all, the deed and the cause of the appeal.2 If deed and cause are sufficient  he ought then to examine the suit, whether it has been properly made and that  there is no variance, as where the appellor has said one thing in the county court  and before the coroners and now says another before the justices, for here no  variance is allowed, as will be explained more fully below.3 If everything that  leads to the duel is in proper order let the appellee then give a gage for defending  and the appellor for deraigning.4
The wager of the duel: if the appellee or the appellor is vanquished.
 If the appellee is vanquished he will suffer capital punishment with disherison and  the loss of all his goods, as for a felony of any kind.5 If the appellor is vanquished  let him be committed to gaol6 to be punished as a false accuser (but he will lose7  neither life nor members, though according to the laws he would be liable to the  talionic penalty if he had failed in his proof)8 and let the appellee withdraw quit of  the appeal,9 unless the justices cause him to be held because of some other suspicion  or charge,10 which they sometimes do if there is reason for it, as happened [in  the case] of Robert Brodegha in the county of Berkshire before Martin of Pateshull.11  That the appellee may defend himself by his body [or by the country] when  he is appealed is true unless some strong presumption of guilt lies against him,12
Occasionally neither proof by the duel nor the country is necessary: where an over-whelming presumption lies against the appellee
 In some cases neither by his body nor the country, where a strong presumption  lies against the appellee13 which does not admit of proof to the contrary, proof by  which he may repudiate or deny the death and the felony, as when he is arrested  over the body of the dead man with his knife dripping blood; he cannot deny the  death nor is further proof necessary.14 This is an ancient constitution.15 Other proof  is not necessary16