- pletely reverse the decisions of a lower court, which has its origin
mainly in an attempt at centralising the higher provincial jurisdiction in Rome. From the decision of a judex in the judicia ordinaria there is now, as formerly, no appeal to any authority, although, as we shall see, the sentences of judices might, under certain conditions, be reversed by the authority either of the praetor or the Princeps. From the decision of the praetor in jure an appeal lies as before to an equal or higher authority,[1] and the veto in virtue of the major potestas or majus imperium is naturally possessed by the Princeps. When we find Tiberius present in the praetor's court, he may be there for the purpose of over-ruling that magistrate's decisions.[2] His presence seems to show that the limitations of the old auxilium—which must be offered in person[3]—were preserved. Whether the veto was pronounced in virtue of the imperium or in virtue of the tribunicia potestas is a matter of indifference; how the veto operated is the really important point. On the analogy of the Republican intercession its effects should have been purely cassatory, and perhaps in the early Principate this principle was observed. But it must be remembered that the Princeps is in a very different position to the vetoing consul or tribune of the Republic, or even to the Republican praetor who presides over a department other than that which he controls by his veto. These magistrates can negative a decision of a lower court, but they cannot replace this negatived decision by a positive judgment of their own. The Princeps, on the other hand, has a theoretically unlimited power of civil jurisdiction.[4] He can, therefore, supplement his negative by a positive judgment, and this unique combination of the power. The civil courts are here meant, or at least included; but it is possible that Tiberius may often have appeared in them as a self-constituted adviser, not as an authority to be appealed to; cf. Suet. Tib. 33 "magistratibus pro tribunali cognoscentibus plerumque se offerebat consiliarium; adsidebatque juxtim vel exadversum in parte primori." According to Suetonius (l.c.) he exercised a similar influence over the jurisdiction of the quaestiones.]
- ↑ Paulus in Dig. 5, 1, 58 "Judicium solvitur vetante eo qui judicare jusserat vel etiam eo qui majus imperium in eadem jurisdictione habet." The veto in virtue of par potestas is here omitted on account of its disappearance in the time of Paulus (circa 200 A.D.). See Merkel Gesch. der klassichen Appellation ii. p. 19.
- ↑ Tac. Ann. i. 75 "judiciis adsidebat in cornu tribunalis, ne praetorem curuli depelleret; multaque eo coram adversus ambitum et potentium preces constituta"; Dio Cass. lvii. 7 [Greek: epephoita de kai epi ta tôn archontôn dikastêria, kai parakaloumenos hyp' autôn kai aparaklêtos, kai . . . elegen hosa edokei autô, hôs paredros
- ↑ p. 178.
- ↑ p. 382.
