Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

JUDEX, JUDICIUM. JUDEX, JUDICIUM. 647
were periods of vacation (Cic. ad Alt. i. 1; ctn defendant did not make his appearance after being
Ro2nae a jcdiciis fbrume refixerit): in the pro- dnly summoned, judgment might be given against
vinces, the terms depended on the Conventus. A him (judicinma desertuln, erenmodiciumn), according to
Judex was liable to a fine if he was not in attend- the proof which the plaintiff had made. If the
ance when he was required. In any given case, plaintiff did not appealr, the defendant could dethe litigant parties agreed upon a judex or accepted mand an acquittal. (Dig. 40. tit. 12. s. 27. ~ 1,
him whom the magistratus proposed. A party 49. tit. 1. s. 28. pr.)
had the power of rejecting a proposed judex, The sentence was either of Absolutio or Condemthough there must have been somne limit to this natio. That part of the formula which was called
power. (Cic. pro Clueat. 43.) In cases where one the Condemnatio [ACTIO, p. 12, b], empowered
of the litigant parties was a peregrinus, a pere- the Judex to condemn or acquit (condemnare,
grinus might be jude.. (Gaius, iv. 105.) The absolere, Gaius, iv. 43). The defendant might
judex was sworn to discharge his duty faithfully. satisfy the plaintiff after the judicium had been
(Cic. de Invent. i. 39.) ce:nstituted bv the litis contestatio (post accepatum
When Italy had received its organization from jnzdicimn, Gaitns, iii. 130, iv. 114), and before
the Romans, the magistratus of the several cities judgment wvas given; but in this case it was a
had jurisdictio, and appointed a Judex as the disputed question between the two schools whethe.r
praetor did at Rome (Lex Rubria de Gallia the judex should acquit, or whether he should~
Cisalpina). In the provinces, the governors ap- condemn on the ground that at the time when the
pointed a Judex or Recuperatores, as the case judicium was constituted, the defendant was liable
might be, at the Conventus which they held for to be condemned and it was the business of the
the administration of justice; and the Judex or judex merely to follow his instructions. The disRecuperatores were selected both from Roman pute accordingl'y involved one of those principles
citizens and natives. on which the schools were theoretically divided,
When the Judex was appointed, the proceed- -the following out of a legal principle to all its
ings injure or before the praetor were terminated, logical consequences; but, like many other ques.
which was sometimes expressed by the term Litis tions between the schools, this question was pracContestalio, the phrases Lis Contestata and Judiciau7 tically of no importance, as the plaintiff would not
acceptlua or ordissat7um, being equivalent in the be allowed to have satisfaction twice.
classical jurists. [LITIS CO.NTESTATIG.] The While theLegis actiones were in force, the judgparties appeared before the Judex on the third day ment was for the restitution of a thing, if a given
(com2sperendinatio), unless the praetor had deferred thing (corpsus) was the object of the action; but
the judicium for smae sufficient reason. The Judex under the process of the formula, the Judex gave
was generally aided by advisers (jurisconsulti) judgment, pursuant to the formula, in a sum of
learned in the law, who. were said " in consilio money, even when a piece of property was the obadesse" (Cic. pro P. Qusintio, 2. 6, Top. 17); but ject of dispute. The sum of money was either
the Judex alone was empowered to give judgment. fixed or not fixed in the formula. If the claim
The matter was first briefly stated to the Judex was for a certain sum of money, the amount was
(ceausae conjectio, collectio), and the oratores or inserted in the condemnatio, and the judex was
patroni of each party supported his cause in a bound to give that or nothing to the plaintiff. If
speech. The evidence seems to have been given the claim was for damages or satisfaction, the
at the same time that the speeches were made, amount of whdic was not ascertained, the conand not to have been heard before the patroni demnatio was either linited -to a sum named in
made their address. (Cic. pro Rose. Coer. 14, pro the formula, anld which the judex could not exceed
P. Quintio, 18.) But it is probable that the prac- except at his own peril (litem suamfaciendo); or,
tice in this respect might vary in, different cases. if the action was for the recovery of property from
Witnesses were produced on both sides and ex- the possessor, or if it was an actio ad exhibendum,
amined orally; the witnesses on one sidle were also the condemnatio empowered the judex to condemn
cross-examined by the other; ((Cic pro Caecina, the defendant in the value of the thing. Gene10, pro Flacco, 10.) Written documents, such rally, the term in the formula which expressed the
as instruments and books of account, were also value which was the object of the demand was,
given in evidence; and sometimes the. deposition " quanti res est." Res may mean either a thing
of an absent witness wnis read, when it was con- in the limited sense of the word, or generally the
firmed by an oath. (Cic.pro Rose. Coan. 15, Cic. claim or demaned, and the fixing this at a money
ad A It. ii. 12, xiv. 15.) There were no direct means value, was equivalent to litis aestimatio. The judex
of compelling a person to give evidence be-fore the was always bound to condemn in some definite sum,
legislation of Justinian, unless they were slaves, even though the formula did not contain a definite
who in some cases might be put to the torture. sum: the reason of which is obvious, for, unless
As to the application of the oath in judicio, see the condemnatio was definite, there would be no
J USJURANDUM. judgment. (Gaius, iv, 48-52.)
After all the evidence was given and the patroni The following is the distinction between an
had finished, the judex gave sentence: if there Arbitriumn and Judicium, according to Cicero (pro!
were several judices, a majority decided. If the Rose. Coan. 4): —In a judicium the demand was
matter was one of difficulty, the hearing might be of a certain sum or definite amount (pecsuniae
adjourned as often as was necessary (amepliatio); cer-tae); in an arbitrium, the amount was not deand if the judex could not come to a satisfactory termined (ineerta). In a judiciumr the plaintiff
conclusion, he might declare this upon oath and so obtained all that he claimed or nothing, as the
release himself from the difficulty. This was done worids of the formula show: " Si paret H. S. I33o
by the formi of words " non liqulere" (N.L.). (Gell. dari oportere." (Comspare Gaius, iv, 50.) The corxiv. 2.) The sente. ce was pronounced orally, and responding words in the formula arbitraria were:
was sometimes first written on a tablet. If the s" Qumisltun aequius melius id dari;" and their
T T 4