members of a household or friends, for compurgators are admitted more readily for  making1 one's law than recognitors for making a recognition. Nor need they all be  of the same order, condition or dignity as he who wages his law, for it suffices if they  are trustworthy and of good repute, [as where a bishop, abbot or prior is required  to make his law, it will not be necessary for his compurgators all to be bishops, abbots  or priors,] whether2 they are ordained clerks, knights or kinsmen, provided they are  suitable in other regards, as was said above.
How the words of a wager of law are to be formulated.
 The words of a wager of law are formulated according to the form of the record, as in  making all other wagers of law. If one fails to make it, if he is a layman let him be  taken as convicted of the charge made against him and committed to gaol, as one  presuming against the royal dignity, as though he had committed the crime of lesemajesty.  If he is a clerk, he is sometimes treated more leniently as a matter of grace,  out of reverence for the clerical order. If convicted, they will restore damages to the  plaintiff, sometimes with the taxation of what is due, in accordance with what seems  fair to the justices.
It is important which of them first clears himself.
 We must see, according to some, which of them first clears himself, the judge or the  party. Some say that if it is the judge, one or several, that he who sued in court christian  is not thereby released, that in these circumstances each defends his own case,  though it may seem at first sight that there is no one who sues when there is no one  who holds the plea, which is incorrect according to some. But conversely, if he who  is alleged to have brought the action clears himself, the judges are thereby released,  since no one may hold a plea if there is no one who sues,3 which is not so in the first  case, where one may sue by his own act and will though the judge refuses to proceed.  Suppose that the judge fails to clear himself, the plaintiff is not ipso facto convicted,  nor [the others] if one of several judges fails to do so, for here each will defend his  own case, as in D. 220.127.116.11,4 where it is said that the woman will wait until sentence  on the adulterer