The multiplicity of criminal cases under the Republic sxiggested the institution of special courts {qu(Estiones), which Maine has aptly com- pared with the Committees of the House of Commons {Ancient Law, p. 391). The 1st cent. B.C. saw a vast development of this system in the shape of the qumstiones perpetuw, or Standing Conmiittees, which dealt with all the more serious crimes. The institution of these courts was ' in some sort a fusion of the processes of civil jurisdic- tion with those of the old criminal courts ' (A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time, p. 415). Here, however, the old distinction between ius and indicium was abolished, the praetor presiding during the whole progress of the case. A criminal charge was likewise opened by a pevsona,\ postulatio or request to the praetor for per- mission to institute proceedings. This might be made by any citizen (except an ofBeial), but must be supported by an oath of good faith. After some interval the nominis (or criminis) delatio — a more precise specification of the charge — was pre- sented to the magistrate, usually in presence of the accused. A brief interrogatio or oral examina- tion of the accused satisfied the praetor whether a prima facie case existed for further proceedings or the charge was the result of mere malice, and exposed the accuser to action for calumnia. If the case was allowed, the prsetor drew up a written statement of the charge (inscriptio), which was signed by the prosecutor and his supporters (subscriptores), and formally accepted by the praetor {nominis receptio). The court was sum- moned to meet on a certain date, not earlier than ten days from the delatio. Parties were cited by herald, and witnesses for the prosecution tjy a denuntiatio or mandate from the magistrate. .Jurors were empanelled — originally from the senatorial order, but afterwards in equal numbers from the Senate, equites, and tribuni cerarii — and sworn. The praetor acted as president of tlie jury, .sitting with them on the tribunal, he on his sella curidis and they on benches (S'«6seWsa) around him, while the parties with their advocates and witnesses occupied places in front of the tribunal. As under the older system of public hearings, the case was opened by plaintiff's counsel and followed up by
defendant's, in set speeches {perpetuce orationes), calculated to appeal not merely to the reason, but even more strongly to the feelings of the court. The effect of this appeal was heightened by the appearance of the accused (now a reus), who sat in court often in mourning, and with the deepest marks of grief on his face. At the close of the speeches evidence was taken, that of personal witnesses under oath, and written statements and testimonials to character {laudationes) when duly signed and attested. Evidence for the prosecution was obligatory, that for the defence voluntary. On both sides it was carefully sifted, and a written pr(cis made in court. The case was finally clo.sed uy the reply of the prosecution and the rejoinder of defence, no longer in set speeches, but in the form of brief questions and answers by the respec- tive advocates {altercatio). In the consideration of the verdict the praetor still sat with the jury, discussing the case with them, and thus helping them to reach a just decision. This was arrived at mainly on the evidence. Conviction was never allowed on the unsupported testimony of one wit- ness. The character and standing of the witnesses were likewise taken into account. Judgment was given by ballot, and the verdict pronounced by the praetor in accordance with the vote of the majority. A verdict of ' not proven ' {non liquet) resulted in a re-hearing of the case ; but no appeal was allowed against a clear verdict (excepton technical points), though sentence might be reversed through a subsequent decision of quasstio or people {in integ- rtim restitutio).
In the free cities of Italy judicial procedure was modelled upon that of Rome, while the Roman colonicE and municipia were governed by prefects under jurisdiction of the praetor. The over-seas provinces, on the other hand, were subject to the unfettered imperium of the governor. The pro- vincial magistrate was really a king in his own domain. He and his delegates (legati) were re- sponsible for the whole judicial administration of his province. As holder of the imperium, he had full powers of coercion by imprisonment, scourg- ing, or death ; and no appeal could be made, except by a Roman citizen, against his decisions. In practice, however, his judicial freedom was care- fully restricted. A wise governor respected the customary laws of his province, allowing minor offences to be tried before the local courts, and even in graver crimes directing the proceedings of the national councils with a view to securing full Roman justice, rather than suppressing their former prerogatives. As a rule, too, he sought the assistance of a consiliu)n of advisers, composed partly of Roman citizens and partly of his personal attendants (the cohors prcetoria). Cases of grave moment or difficulty might even be sent to Rome. Though the provincials had no direct appeal against the arbitrary acts of an unjust governor like Verres, they could successfully impeach him before the Roman courts, and secure his condemna- tion and recall.
Imperial government introduced a change in the spirit rather than in the form of justice. The popular comitia, indeed, passed out of existence; but the qucestiones remained as the regular courts for criminal procedure till almost the close of the 2nd cent. A.D. The praetors, too, maintained their position as presidents of the law-courts, their number being actually increased to sixteen. But the real threads of justice were increasingly gathered into the Emperor's own hand. He had not merely the absolute power of repeal or reversal of the judgments of the regular courts, but in cases involving grave matters of State, or the life and honour of persons in high rank, he held extra- ordinary jurisdiction, while the right of private