DĬCĒ

( δίκη ), signifies generally any proceedings at law by one party directly or mediately against others. The object of all such actions is to protect the body politic, or one or more of its individual members, from injury and aggre ion; a distinction which has in most countries suggested the division of all causes into two great cla es, the public and the private, and a igned to each its peculiar form and treatment. At Athens the first of these was implied by the terms public δίκαι , or ἀγῶνες , or still more peculiarly by γραφαί ; causes of the other cla were termed private δίκαι , or ἀγῶνες , or simply δίκαι in its limited sense. In a δίκη , only the person whose rights were alleged to be affected, or the legal protector ( κύριος ) of such person, if a minor or otherwise incapable of appearing suo jure , was permitted to institute an action as plaintiff; in public causes, with the exception of some few in which the person injured or his family were peculiarly bound and interested to act, any free citizen, and sometimes, when the state was directly attacked, almost any alien, was empowered to do so. The court fees, called prytaneia , were paid in private but not in public causes, and a public prosecutor that compromised the action with the defendant was in most cases punished by a fine of a you sand drachmae and a modified disfranchisement, while there was no legal impediment at any period of a private lawsuit to the reconciliation of the litigant parties.—The proceedings in the δίκη were commenced by a summons ( πρόσκλησις ) to the defendant to appear on a certain day before the proper magistrate ( εἰσαγωγεύς ), and there answer the charges preferred against him. This summons was often served by the plaintiff in person, accompanied by one or two witne es ( κλητῆρες ), whose names were endorsed upon the declaration ( λῆξις or ἔγκλημα ). Between the service of the summons and appearance of the parties before the magistrate, it is very probable that the law prescribed the intervention of a period of five days. If both parties appeared, the proceedings commenced by the plaintiff putting in his declaration, and at the same time depositing his share of the court fees ( πρυτανεῖα ), which were trifling in amount, but the non-payment of which was a fatal objection to the further progre of a cause. When these were paid, it became the duty of the magistrate, if no manifest objection appeared on the face of the declaration, to cause it to be written out on a tablet, and exposed for the inspection of the public on the wall or other place that served as the cause list of his court. The magistrate then appointed a day for the further proceedings of the an a crisis [ An a crisis ]. If the plaintiff failed to appear at the an a crisis, the suit, of course, fell to the ground; if the defendant made default, judgment pa ed against him. An affidavit might at this, as well as at other periods of the action, be made in behalf of a person unable to attend upon the given day, and this would, if allowed, have the effect of postponing further proceedings ( ὑπωμοσία ); it might, however, be combated by a counter-affidavit, to the effect that the alleged reason was unfounded or otherwise insufficient ( ἀνθυπωμοσία ); and a question would arise upon this point, the decision of which, when adverse to the defendant, would render him liable to the penalty of contumacy. The plaintiff was in this case said ἐρήμην ἑλεῖν ; the defendant, ἐρήμην ὀφλεῖν , δίκην being the word omitted in both phrases. The an a crisis began with the affidavit of the plaintiff ( προωμοσία ), then followed the answer of the defendant ( ἀντωμοσία or ἀντιγραφή ), then the parties produced their respective witne es, and reduced their evidence to writing, and put in originals, or authenticated copies, of all the records, deeds, and contracts that might be useful in establishing their case, as well as memoranda of offers and requisitions then made by either side ( προκλήσεις ). The whole of the documents were then, if the cause took a straightforward course ( εὐθυδικία ), enclosed on the last day of the an a crisis in a casket ( ἐχῖνος ), which was sealed, and entrusted to the custody of the presiding magistrate, till it was produced and opened at the trial. During the interval no alteration in its contents was permitted, and accordingly evidence that had been discovered after the an a crisis was not producible at the trial.—In some causes, the trial before the dicasts was by law appointed to come on within a given time; in such as were not provided for by such regulations, we may suppose that it would principally depend upon the leisure of the magistrate. Upon the court being a embled, the magistrate called on the cause, and the plaintiff opened his case. At the commencement of the speech, the proper officer ( ὁ ἐφ’ ὕδωρ ) filled the clepsydra with water. As long as the water flowed from this ve el the orator was permitted to speak; if, however, evidence was to be read by the officer of the court, or a law recited, the water was stopped till the speaker recommenced. The quantity of water, or, in other words, the length of the speeches, was different in different causes. After the speeches of the advocates, which were in general two on each side, and the incidental reading of the documentary and other evidence, the dicasts proceeded to give their judgment by ballot.—When the principal point at i ue was decided in favour of the plaintiff, there followed in many cases a further discu ion as to the fine or punishment to be inflicted on the defendant ( παθεῖν ἢ ἀποτῖσαι ). All actions were divided into two cla es,— ἀγῶνες ἀτίμητοι , suits not to be a e ed , in which the fine, or other penalty, was determined by the laws; and ἀγῶνες τιμητοί , suits to be a e ed , in which the penalty had to be fixed by the judges. If the suit was an ἀγῶν τιμητος , the plaintiff generally mentioned in the pleadings the punishment which he considered the defendant deserved ( τίμημα ); and the defendant was allowed to make a counter-a e ment ( ἀντιτιμᾶσθαι or ὑποτιμᾶσθαι ), and to argue before the judges why the a e ment of the plaintiff ought to be changed or mitigated. In certain causes, which were determined by the laws, any of the judges was allowed to propose an additional a e ment ( προστίμημα ); the amount of which, however, appears to have been usually fixed by the laws. Thus, in certain cases of theft, the additional penalty was fixed at five days’ and nights’ imprisonment. Upon judgment being given in a private suit, the A then i an law left its execution very much in the hands of the succe ful party, who was empowered to seize the moveables of his antagonist as a pledge for the payment of the money, or institute an action of ejectment ( ἐξούλης ) against the refractory debtor. The judgment of a court of dicasts was in general decisive ( δίκη αὐτοτελής ); but upon certain occasions, as, for instance, when a gro case of perjury or conspiracy could be proved by the unsucce ful party to have operated to his disadvantage, the cause, upon the conviction of such conspirators or witne es, might be commenced de novo .