As the people often came from a long distance, there were erected near the Thing-place Thing-booths for their accommodation, some of which were very large.
Thorstein had slain the thrall of a neighbour, and therefore was summoned to the Thing.
“Thorstein, son of Egil (Skallagrimsson), had very many men with him at the spring Thing, and went there one night earlier than the others, and he and his Thingmen tented their booths.[[521]] When they had made their own booths ready, Thorstein bade his Thingmen go and raise large booth-walls; then he had a much larger booth than the others, in which there were no men” (Egil’s Saga, c. 85).
In Iceland we find the kvid (a law term which may mean both the witnesses and the jury). The men who were in the kvid did not need to be eye-witnesses; but had to be men who were impartial, and who could form the best judgment from the circumstances of the case. They had to give a verdict under oath. The number of the men of the kvid, and the manner of choosing them, varied according to the matter to be considered. In some important cases, recourse was had to the Tylftarkvid (a body of twelve men) summoned at the instance of the plaintiff by the godi of the district, who with him named or chose eleven of his Thingmen.
The second kind of kvid was Búakvid (bondi kvid), which was used in cases of murder and other crimes, consisting of five or nine neighbours chosen by the plaintiff.
The third kind or Bjargkvid (saving kvid) consisted of five men, also chosen by the plaintiff and of the same place. The defendant had the right to challenge jurors out of the kvid, but only for lawful reasons, and the places had to be filled up. If the kvid after deliberation could not agree, the majority ruled; and if in the Tylftarkvid the votes were equal, the godi had the casting vote; but the verdict was nevertheless to be given unanimously, though the minority were not responsible if the verdict was found to be wrong.
In the earliest times the same practice seems to have held in Norway, till Christianity coming in brought with it the purification oath.
Men could be turned out of the jury if they were not bœndr.
In a law case at the Althing after the burning of Njál, Eyjólf Bölverksson, a man skilled in law, said the following with regard to the jury or kvid:
“‘I name witnesses to this that I take these two men out of the kvid, and name them both, because they are booth-sitting men (less than bœndr) and not bœndr.’ Mörd went to the court and said: ‘I name witnesses to this that I make void the lawful challenging of Eyjólf Bölverksson, because he challenged men out of the kvid who are rightly in it. Every man who owns three hundreds[[522]] in land or more, though he has no milch cattle, has the right to be in a jury of bœndr, as also he who has milch cattle, though he is a tenant.’ He had the witnesses before the court, went to where the bœndr (of the jury) were and told them to sit down, and that they had a right to be in the kvid. Then there was a great uproar, and all said that the case of Flosi and Eyjólf was made perfectly void” (Njala, c. 142).