principles. 2.  The Roman judges did not, however, decide altogether according to their own caprice; they were bound to regard the principles that had been established by the decisions of former judges; and consequently, a system of law was formed similar to the common law of England, founded on precedent and analogy.  In the later ages of the empire, the number of law-books and records became so enormous, that it was no longer possible to determine the law with accuracy, and the contradictory decisions made at different periods, greatly increased the uncertainty.  To remedy this evil, the emperor Justinian caused the entire to be digested into a uniform system, and his code still forms the basis of the civil law in Europe.

3.  The trials in courts refer either to the affairs of the state, or to the persons or properties of individuals, and are called state, criminal, or civil trials.  The two former are the most important in regard to history.

4.  The division of the Roman people into two nations, made the classification of state offences very difficult.  In general, the council of the patricians judged any plebeian who was accused of conspiring against their order; and the plebeians on the other hand, brought a patrician accused of having violated their privileges before their own tribunal. 5.  Disobedience to the commands of the chief magistrate was punished by fine and imprisonment, and from his sentence there was no appeal; but if the consul wished to punish any person by stripes or death, the condemned man had the right of appealing to the general assembly of his peers.[2] 6.  To prevent usurpation, it was established that every person who exercised an authority not conferred on him by the people, should be devoted as a victim to the gods.[3] This, was at once a sentence of outlawry and excommunication; the Criminal might be slain by any person-with impunity, and all connection with him was shunned as pollution. 7.  No magistrate could legally be brought to trial during the continuance of his office, but when his time was expired, he could be accused before the general assembly of the people, if he had transgressed the legal limits of his authority.  The punishment in this case was banishment; the form of the sentence declared that the criminal “should be deprived of fire and water;” that is, the citizens, were prohibited from supplying him with the ordinary necessaries of life.

8.  In all criminal trials, and in all cases where damages were sought to be recovered for wrongs or injuries, the praetor impanelled a jury, but the number of which it was to consist seems to have been left to his discretion.  The jurors were called ju’dices, and the opinion of the majority decided the verdict.  Where the votes were equal, the traverser or defendant escaped; and when half the jury assessed damages at one amount, and half at another, the defendant paid only the lesser sum.  In disputes about property, the praetor seldom called for the assistance of a jury.