Descripciones mejoradas de Syndetics:

Modern accounts of how the classical Romans sued each other tend to show the opponents willingly working together under the guidance of a magistrate, until their case was ready for trial. The parties found a convenient time to make their first appearance, at which time they decided on the details of their case, selected a judge, and received permission to go to trial. If any delay were necessary, the magistrate helped the parties in their arrangements to return. This picture is unrealistic: it presumes a high degree of cooperation between the parties, the personal stewardship of a magistrate, and the ready availability of a judge. This accepted picture emerged over time from a tiny amount of evidence. Justinian had no interest in preserving evidence on classical procedure, and subsequent generations of jurists often did not regard rules of procedure as worthy of interest. Recent years, however, have brought a flood of new evidence on classical Roman legal procedure. Metzger examines this evidence, painting a picture of litigation that is far less polite and far less orderly. He examines how the rules of procedure coped with the typical pretrial delays that the Roman system, and indeed any legal system, faces.

Tabla de contenidos provista por Syndetics

• 1 Evidence of Civil Procedure
• 2 Getting the Defendant to Court
• 3 The So-Called Willing Defendant
• 4 The Unwilling Defendant: Cicero's pro Quinctio
• 5 Bail in Herculaneum and Pompeii
• 6 Bail: How Performed
• 7 The Case of Petronia Iusta
• 8 The Defendant's Rights

Notas de autor provistas por Syndetics

Ernest Metzger is a frequent writer on Roman law and legal history. He has taught at University College London and University of Aberdeen, where he is presently Senior Lecturer in Law. He was formerly a judicial clerk to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and is a member of the Louisiana State Bar Association and the State Bar of Texas. He is editor of IusCivile.com.