Ashford v Thornton (1818) 106 ER 149 is an English criminal case in the Court of King's Bench which upheld the right of the defendant to trial by battle on a private appeal from an acquittal for murder.

If the deceased's next of kin requested such a retrial, the defendant could respond with the "wager of battle", requiring the plaintiff to settle the matter by combat with the outcome to be ordained by God.

An appeal of murder was brought in Dublin in O'Reilly v Clancy in 1815, three years before Ashford v Thornton, and the defendant demanded the wager of battle.

Am I to understand that this monstrous proposition as being propounded by the bar—that we, the judges of the Court of King's Bench—the recognized conservators of the public peace, are to become not merely the spectators, but the abettors of a mortal combat?

The defendant could not make the challenge if he was taken in the mainour (in the act of committing his crime), if he attempted to escape from prison, or if there was such strong evidence of guilt that there could be no effective denial.

If the plaintiff said the word craven ("I am vanquished") and gave up the fight, he was to be declared infamous, deprived of the privileges of a freeman, and held liable for damages to his opponent.

[8] In 1774, Parliament considered a bill which would have abolished appeals of murder and trials by battle in the American colonies as part of the legislative response to the Boston Tea Party.

[10] Mary Ashford was about 20 years old, working as a general servant and housekeeper to her uncle who was a farmer at Langley Heath, Warwickshire, between Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield.

[17] An inquest was held on 30 May 1817, and was presided over by Francis Hacket, a Warwickshire magistrate who by virtue of his position as Warden of Sutton Coldfield was coroner ex officio.

At the end of the proceedings, a verdict of "Wilful Murder" was returned, and Thornton was committed for trial at the next assizes in Warwick on the Coroner's Warrant.

[22] The prosecution's theory of the case, as told in its opening statement to the jury, was that Thornton, having failed in his attempt to seduce Ashford, lay in wait for her in the field near the pit.

Mr Freer, a Birmingham surgeon who conducted the post-mortem, testified as to its results, and stated that except for the vaginal lacerations, there were no signs of violence on Ashford's person, and that those cuts could have been caused by consensual sexual relations.

Freer's testimony concluded the prosecution's case, and as the defendant declined to exercise his right to himself make a statement to the court, the defence began calling witnesses.

The defence contended that for Thornton to have murdered Ashford, he would have had to chase her down, rape her, kill her, and then travel three miles (4.8 km), all in at most eleven minutes.

The prosecution informed the court that it had no evidence to offer on that count, and Mr Justice Holroyd directed the jury to find the prisoner not guilty of rape, which they did.

The leading papers in this campaign were the Lichfield Mercury and the Independent Whig, but even The Times expressed delight when it learned that the case would be further pursued.

[32] Funds were obtained from contributors, and a local solicitor prevailed on Mary's brother, William Ashford, to bring an appeal of murder against Thornton.

[33] William Ashford was described as "a plain country young man, about twenty-two years of age, of short stature, sandy hair, and blue eyes".

it seems the Appellee [Thornton] has the option of waging Battle and of challenging the Appellor [William Ashford] in single combat which if not accepted by the Appellor the suit is lost and, if accepted, and the Appellee can hold out from sun rise to sun set, then he wins the contest and claims his discharge, otherwise his election subjects him not only to a good threshing [sic] but also the pain of death into the bargain.

and unless we can devise any means by arguement [sic] to induce the Court not to allow it, I am very apprehensive our poor little Knight will never be able to contend the Battle with his brutish opponent.

[37]When the case came to be heard in the King's Bench on 17 November, a huge crowd packed Westminster Hall to such an extent that counsel had great difficulty in entering.

Reader also noted that he and his co-counsel had advised Thornton to wage battle out of concern that with the "extraordinary and unprecedented prejudice" against the defendant, a fair jury could not be obtained.

Much of the case was argued between 6 and 8 February 1818, but one of Ashford's counsel, Joseph Chitty, asked for and received more time so he could reply to the other side's arguments, and the matter was adjourned until 16 April.

[41] Chitty then responded but was so often interrupted in his argument by the judges that when he sat down, according to Sir John Hall in his book on the affair, "it was clear to everyone in Court that his client had lost his case".

According to Sir Robert Megarry, who wrote of the trial in 2005, the haste was due to a wager of battle being made in another case, though the names of the parties are not known.

"[46] The Act abolished appeals of murder and other offences, and enacted in section 2: "that from and after the passing of this act, in any writ of right now depending, or which may hereafter be brought, instituted, or commenced, the tenant shall not be received to wage battel, nor shall issue be joined nor trial be had by battel in any writ of right; any law, custom, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

"[12] Mary Ashford's grave is marked by a murder stone which states that she "incautiously repaired to a scene of amusement, without proper protection".

[49][50] Scott mentioned the case in his other writings, discussed it with his friends, and backdated the dedication to the book two years to the date of Thornton's wager of battle.

The attempt failed when the defendants could offer no evidence to oust the statutory presumption that Parliamentary acts apply to the entire United Kingdom.

[27] In 2002, a 60-year-old man, faced with a £25 penalty for a minor motoring offence, appeared before magistrates and demanded trial by battle against a champion to be nominated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.