Scanned text contains errors.
tium x milia quae dolo malo non solvisti ob earn rem ego tibi sestertium x milia judicati manus injicio." The defendant who had been condemned in a certain sum, had thirty days allowed him to make payment in, and after that time he was liable to the manus injectio. The defendant was not permitted to make any resistance, and his only mode of defence was to find some responsible per son (vindex) who would undertake his defence (pro eo lege agere). If he found no vindex, the plaintiff might carry the defendant to his house and keep him in confinement for sixty days, during which time his name and the amount of his debt were proclaimed at three successive nundinae. If no one paid the debt, the defendant might be put to death or sold. (Gell. xx. 1.) According to the words of the Twelve Tables, the person must be brought before the Praetor (in jus), which of course means that he must be seized first: if when brought before the praetor, he did not pay the money (ni judicatum solvit) or find a vindex, he might be carried off and put in chains, apparently without the formality of an addictio. The Lex Publilia, evidently following the analogy of the Twelve Tables, allowed the manus injectio in the case of money paid by a sponsor, if the sponsor was not repaid in six months. The Lex Furia de Sponsu allowed it against him who had exacted from a sponsor more than his just proportion (vtrilis pars). These and other leges allowed the manus injectio pro judicato, because in these cases the claim of the plaintiff was equivalent to a claim of a res judicata. Other leges granted the manus injectio pura, that is, non pro judicato, as the Lex Furia Testamentaria and the Marcia adversus fcneratores. But in these cases the defendant might withdraw himself from the manus injectio (manum sibi depellere), and defend his cause ; but it would appear that he could-only relieve himself from this seizure, by actually undertaking to defend himself by legal means. Accordingly, if we follow the analogy of the old law, it was in these cases an execution if the defendant chose to let it be so; if he did not, it was the same as serving him with process to appear before the Praetor. A lex, the name of which is obliterated in Gaius, allowed the person seized to defend his own cause except in the case of a "judicatus," and "is pro quo depensinn est ;" and consequently in the two latter cases even after the passing of this lex, a man was bound to find a vindex. This continued the practice so long as the Legis Actiones were in use ; " whence," says Gains (iv. 25), " in our time a man ' cum quo judicati depensive agitur' is com pelled to give security ' judicatum solvi.' " From this we may conclude that the vindex in the old time was liable to pay, if he could find no good de fence to the plaintiff's claim ; for as the vindex could " lege agere," though the defendant could not, we must assume that he might show, if he could, that the plaintiff had no ground of complaint; as, for instance, that he had been paid ; and that if he had no good defence, he must pay the debt himself. The subject of the manus injeciio is discussed by Puchta, Inst. ii. § 160, 162, 17.9, iii. § 269. [G. L.]
MARTS Guap/s, jua/>^?, Hesych. jj-dpurTov), a Greek measure of capacit}r, which, according to Pollux (x. 184) and Aristotle (Hist. An. viii. 9), contained 6 cotylae, or nearly 3 pints. Polyaenus
(iv. 3. § 32) mentions a much larger measure of the same name, containing 10 congii, or nearly 8 gallons. [P. S.]
MARSUPIUM Oap<ru7nov, fiaXdvriov), a purse. (Non. Marcellus, s. v. ; Varro, de Re Rust. iii. 17 ; Plant. Men. ii. 1. 29, ii. 3. 33, 35, v. 7. 47, Poen. iii. 5. 37, Hud. y. 2. 26 ; Xen. Conviv. iv. 2.)
The purse used by the an cients was commonly a small leathern bag, and was often clos3d by being drawn together at the mouth (ffvcnrao-ra (3a- AcWia, Plat. Conviv. p. 404, eel. Bekker). Mercury is com monly represented holding one in his hand, of which the an nexed wooclcut from an intag lio in the Stoscli collection at Berlin, presents an example. , [J. Y.]
MARTIALES LUDI. [Luoi martiales.]
MARTYRIA (f^aprvpia), signifies strictly the deposition of a witness in a court of justice, though the word is applied metaphorically to all kinds of testimony. We shall here explain—1, what per sons were competent to be witnesses at Athens ; 2, what was the nature of their obligation ; 3, in what manner their evidence was given ; 4, what was the punishment for giving false evidence.
None but freemen could be witnesses. The incapacity of women may be inferred from the general policy of the Athenian law, and the absence of any example in the orators where a woman's evidence is produced. The same observation applies to minors.
Slaves were not allowed to give evidence, unless upon examination by torture (ftdcravos). There appears to have been one exception to this rule, viz., that a slave might be a witness against a freeman in case of a charge of murder (Antiph. de Morte Her. 728), though Platner (Alt. Proc. p. 215) thinks this only applied to the giving information. The party who wished to obtain the evidence of a slave belonging to his opponent challenged him to give up the slave to be examined (e£??T€i T^bv SouAoi/). The challenge was called Trp6ic\T](ns. The owner, if he gave him up, was said eicSovvai or itapcLOovvai. But he was not obliged so to do, and the general practice was to refuse to give up slaves, which perhaps arose from humanity, though the opponent always ascribed it to a fear lest the truth should be elicited. The orators affected to consider the evidence of slaves, wrung from them by torture, more valuable and trustworthy than that of freemen ; but it must be observed, they always use this argument when the slave had not been examined. (Demosth. c. Aphob. 848, g. Onet. 874 ; Hudtwalcker, Ueber die Did' teten, p. 44, &c.)
Citizens who had been disfranchised (r)Ti/*a)-fj.evot) could not appear as witnesses (any more than as jurors or plaintiffs) in a court of justice : for they had lost all honourable rights and privileges. (Demosth. c. Neaer. 1353; Wachsmuth, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 244.) But there was no objection to alien freemen. (Demosth. c. Lacr. 927, 929 ; Aeschin. de Fals. Leg. 49, ed. Steph.) We learn from Harpocration (s. v. Aia^aprvpia) that in actions against freemen for neglect of duty to their