ROMAN COURTS. Among the Romans criminal jurisdiction was exercised by the king or by officials appointed by the king. From the deci sions of such officials appeal to the popular as sembly was sometimes granted. In the Repub lican period such an appeal (prococatio) lay against all sentences condemning a citizen to death, or scourging, or exile, and also against fines beyond a certain amount; and this appeal became the real trial. The forms observed were substantially the same as in legislation. A pro posal to condemn the accused to a certain pun ishment, was submitted to the people, debated be fore them in informal assembly (condo), and accepted or rejected by them in formal assembly (comitia). (See ComrriA.) During the last century of the Republic, criminal courts of a different type, the qua'stiones, gradually ab sorbed the jurisdiction previously exercised by the assembly. The quwstio was a body of select jurors sitting under the presidency of a special magistrate, usually a prwto•. The jurors were drawn from a small panel, which included only the most distinguished and wealthy citizens.
Civil jurisdiction, also, is said to have been exercised by the Roman kings. It is probable, however, that the king did not decide the con troversies submitted to hinm; hut, like the prme tor in later times, heard the pleadings only, and then sent the parties to a /motel'. or referee, nominated (or at least accepted) by the parties themselves. It also seems probable that, in the royal period, the referees were usually- priests (pontifices). In the Republican period there were elected boards of :indices (deccinviri, cell tumviri), to which cases were sent by the prae tor; but reference to a single Jude.o regularly a
senator, seems to have been customary in ac tions on tort or on eontract, and was admissible, during the last century of the Republic, in all cases.
The fundamental principle which controlled the administration of civil and criminal justice, and the composition of the courts, in the Repub liean period was the separation of (pis) and judgment Pleas were made and the case was formulated before a magistrate, hut the decision was rendered by a private citizen or by a. body of private citizens. In the Imperial period this system fordo jrnim eiornat) was gradually supplanted by thr coy nitio extraordinaria, in which an Imperial offi cial conducted the trial and rendered the deci sion. Under this system the administration of justice was taken out of the hands of the people and been ine :t part of the general administration created and controlled by the emperor. As in the general mlininistration, so in the administra tion of justice, there were courts of lower and higher instance. and appeals could be taken. In the late Empire (fourth and fifth centuries) the municipal courts had jurisdiction only in police cases and in petty civil cases. The ordi nary court of first instance was that of the rector or president of the province. From his decision appeal ran to the vicar of the diocese, and then to the pnrtorian prefect, the immediate personal representative of the emperor. The appellate courts had not merely eassational, but reformatory jurisdiction—i.e. they could not only set. aside a decision, but they could also re verse or modify it.