Smith, William: A smaller dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities (London, 1871)

JUDEX.

JUDEX.

comitia, or persons were appointed to pre-
side at such inquiries, who were accordingly
called Quaesitores or Quaestorcs parricidii or
rerum capitalium. In course of time, as such
cases became of more frequent occurrence,
such quaestiones were made perpetual, that
is, particular magistrates were appointed for
the purpose. It was eventually determined,
that while the praetor xirbanus and peret/rintis
should continue to exercise their usual juris-
dictions, the other praetors should preside at
public trials. In such trials any person
might be an accuser (acciisator). The praetor
generally presided as quaesitor, assisted by a
judex quaestionis, and a body of judices called
his consilium. The judices were generally
chosen by lot out of those who were qualified
to act; but in some cases the accuser and
the accused (reus) had the privilege of choos-
ing (edere) a certain number of judices out
of a large number, who were thence called
Edititii. Both the accusator and the reus
had the privilege of rejecting or challenging
(rejicere) such judices as they did not like.
In many cases a lex was passed for the pur-
pose of regulating the mode of procedure.—
The judices voted by ballot, at least generally,
and a majority determined the acquittal or
condemnation of the accused. Each judex
was provided with three tablets [tabulae), on
one of which was marked A, Absolvo ; on a
second C, Condemno ; and on a third N. E.,
Non liquet. The judices voted by placing
one of these tablets in the urns, which were
then examined for the purpose of ascertain-
ing the votes. It was the duty of the magis-
tratus to pronounce the sentence of the
judices; in the case of condemnation, to
adjudge the legal penalty; of acquittal, to
declare the accused acquitted ; and of doubt,
to declare that the matter must be further in-
vestigated (amptius cognoscentlum).—A judi-
cium populi, properly so called, was one in
which the case was tried in the comitia curi-
ata, but afterwards in the comitia centuriata
and tributa. The accuser, who must be a
magistratus, commenced by declaring in a
contio that he would on a certain day accuse
a certain person, whom he named, of some
offence, which he also specified. This was
expressed by the phrase diem dieere. If the
offender held any high office, it was neces-
sary to wait till his time of service had
expired, before proceedings could be thus
commenced against him. The accused was
required to give security for his appearance
on the day of trial; the security was called
vades in a causa capitalis, and praedes when
the penalty for the alleged offence was pe-
cuniary. If such security was not given,
the accused was kept in confinement. If

nothing prevented the inquiry from taking
place at the time fixed for it, the trial pro-
ceeded, and the accuser had to prove his case
by evidence. The investigation of the facts
was called anquisitin with reference to the
proposed penalty : accordingly, the phrases
pecimia, capite or capitis anquirere, are used.
AVhen the investigation was concluded, the
magistratus promulgated a rogatio, which
comprehended the charge and the punish-
ment or fine. It was a rule of law that a
fine should not be imposed together with
another punishment in the same rogatio.
The rogatio was made public during three
nundinae, like any other lex, and proposed
at the comitia for adoption or rejection. The
accused sometimes withdrew into exile before
the votes were taken ; or he might make his
defence. The offences which were the chief
subject of judicia populi and publica were
majestas, adulteria and stupra, parricidium,
falsum, vis publica and privata, peculatus,
repetundae, ambitus.—With the passing of
special enactments for the punishment of
particular offences, was introduced the prac-
tice of forming a body of judices for the trial
of such offences as the enactments were
directed against. The Album Judicum was
the body out of which judices were to be
chosen. It is not known what was the num-
ber of the body so constituted, but it has
been conjectured that the number was 350,
and that ten were chosen from each tribe,
and thus the origin of the phrase Decuriae
Judicum is explained. It is easy to conceive
that the judicia populi, properly so called,
would be less frequent, as special leges were
framed for particular offences, the circum-
stances of which could be better investigated
by a smaller body of judices than by the
assembled people. The Lex Servilia (b. c.
104) enacted that the judices should not be
under thirty nor above sixty years of age,
that the accuser and accused should severally
propose one hundred judices, and that each
might reject fifty from the list of the other,
so that one hundred would remain for the
trial. Up to b.c. 122 the judices were always
senators, but in this year the Sempronia Lex
of C. Gracchus took the judicia from the
senators and gave them to the equites. This
state of things lasted nearly fifty years, till
Sulla (b. c. 80) restored the judicia to the
senate, and excluded the equites from the
album judicum. A Lex Aurelia (b. c. 70)
enacted that the judices should be chosen
from the three classes—of senators, equites,
and tribuni acrarii; and accordingly the ju-
dicia were then said to be divided between
the senate and the equites. The tribuni
aerarii were taken from the rest of the