Judgment was pronounced orally in the presence of both parties, and immediate effect was given to the sentence. Civil injuries were compen.sated, as a rule, by the exact equivalentof the loss sustained, though in the case of theft by two-, four-, or five- fold the amount (cf. the scale of damages in the Book of the Covenant, Ex 22'"-). More serious crimes were punished by scourging, mutilation, or death by stoning. In the last case the witnesses cast the first stones, the rest of the people carrying through the execution, and thus sharing responsi- bility for the act of justice (Dt 17').
Though the old district courts survived till at least the age of Ezra, the establishment of the monarchy imposed limits on their authority. As supreme judge, the king not merely acted as a final court of appeal, but exercised independent powers as well. "Thus David sat by the gate, in person or through his deputy, to hear the suits that came to him for judgment (2 S 14* 15'*-). while Solomon had a judgment-hall attached to his palace, where he tried such cases as baffled the ordinary judge (e.g. 1 K S'*"'-), and matters gener- ally affecting the welfare of the people. The judgment of kings like David and Solomon was naturally influenced by regard for the best interests of the people ; but in the hands of more reckless monarchs this judicial absolutism was the source of grave perversions of justice, such as the suborn- ing of false witnesses to compass the death of the innocent (1 K 21**-), or the removal by banishment or imprisonment of good citizens whose presence was obnoxious to the king(e.5r. Jar 32™-).
A certain safeguard against injustice was found in the growing influence of the priesthood. As administrators of the oath, and keepers of the sacred lot (the Urim and "Thummim), they had long enjoyed special authority in the courts. To them was further entrusted the codifying of legal decisions (D'o^^p). They thus acquired a definite position as judicial advisers (cf. Dt 17' 19"). On the fall of the .monarchy they assumed the full responsibilities of justice. The high priest was the virtual king of the new spiritual community, with the lower priests as a council of assessors to confer with him in judgment. Thence was evolved the court of the Sanhedrin, the institution of which dates probably from the beginning of the Greek era. The name is sometimes used of the local courts of seven that now finally superseded the original councils of elders. It was technically applied.
TKIAL-ATLAW
TIUALAT-LAW
615
however, to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, the 71 memliers of wliich deciilcd all ciises of iijipeiil from the lower eourts, lus well as the j;raver questions of law ami eonihut. The rules of pro- cedure are codilied in the Mishna Sanhedrin (c. A.I). 200), ami show how stronjjiy the passion for justice still possessed the Jewish mind — althou<ih gross miscarriages of justice may some- times have occurred in practice — and how closely niercj' is linked with judgment. Even in civil suits the principle is laid down that ' the court shall nut listen to the claims of one party in the ab.sence of the other' (i. 1); proof is reciuired of every claim, however slight a bearing it may have on the main issue ; the evidence of relatives and other interested persons, also of gamblers, usurers, and those ' vicious in money matters ' (though not necessarily 'in heavenly matters'), is di.sallowcd; and judgment must be given for the defendant if the case fails of proof (iv. 1 It'.). Far more stringent rules are prescribed for the conduct of criminal charges where life is at .stake. Each Avitness must be carefully examined, after the most solemn adjuration to tell the truth, in the name of ' the Holy and the Blessed.' In the event of discrejiancies, the accused was allowed the benefit of the doubt. Expert students of the law were likewise permitted to speak on his behalf, but not against him. In civil cases the judges might pronounce their opinions in any order ; in criminal trials those in favour of acquittal must speak tirst. For acquittal a bare majority was sutticient, while for condemnation a majority of two at least was required ; and, whereas a judge who had voted for guilt might change his mind, a vote for acquittal was irrevocable. If the accused was found innocent, the case was dismissed before nightfall ; otherwise, judgment was deferred till the following day, the court meanwhile conferring together, ' eating little meat, and drinking no wine during that whole day.' On the morrow they voted afresh on the case, with the same precautions as before. Even after sentence of death was finally passed, the court remained sitting, to receive any evidence that might yet be brought in the criminal's favour ; and he would be recalled, at a given signal, from the very place of execution (v. 5, vi. I).
3. Procedure in Roman courts. — The judicial procedure of the Romans shows a decided advance in legal precision. There are still, indeed, survivals of primitive justice. Thus the technical term for joinder of issue — manus consertio — recalls the physical struggle for possession which originally took the place of judgment, while ' the magistrate carefully simulated the demeanour of a private arbitrator casually called in ' (H. S. Maine, Ancient Laiv, p. 383 f.). Theearlier method of decision, too, was by the snorame-ntum^ or oath taken before the pontill's. But the religious administration of oaths soon yielded to a purely secular pro(!es.s. Clear distinctions were drawn between cases civil and criminal, separate courts being assigned to each. By the strict division between procedure in iiire (before the magistrate) and that t'?? iudicio (before the judge), the first bold steps also were taken towards the modern system of trial by jury.