thought proper. With respect to his judicial power, the observations already made will equally apply to this stage of the proceedings. But though without power to decide, we cannot doubt, it was both the duty and the practice of the archon, so far to carry and so to conduct the inquiry, as to satisfy his own mind, and make it in some degree appear to the parties themselves, on which side lay the justice of the case. The mere intimation of his opinion might have a useful effect, by leading to a compromise, or inducing one of the parties to give in. If both were determined to go to a jury, he proceeded to prepare the cause for trial.

With this view, the evidence of the witnesses was reduced to writing, and put in the shape of formal depositions. This was commonly done by the parties themselves at their own houses. Each wrote out the evidence of his own witnesses, or such evidence as he expected them to give, and required them to depose to this before the archon. But it might happen, that a witness, upon examination, varied in his account from the evidence thus prepared for him, or that witnesses appeared whose evidence was neither prepared nor expected. In this case the depositions were written out at the time by the scribes who attended.

In the same manner, the evidence of slaves, the answers and challenges of the parties, were all taken down in writing. These and all other documents intended to be used at the trial were

carefully collected together, and put into a box, which, at the close of the inquiry, was sealed by the archon, and kept by him until the day of trial.

The archon might adjourn his sittings from day to day, and the box was kept open until the last day; but after this no further evidence was allowed to be put in, and no evidence could be offered to the jury, which had not been produced before the archon. This was to prevent surprise.

The trial (in ordinary cases) took place on the thirtieth day after the commencement of the action. But this would vary according to circumstances. The nature of the cause, the number of witnesses, or the state of public business, might render it necessary to postpone the trial to a later period; or it might be deferred by agreement of the parties. The archon fixed the day, and took care that a jury was duly summoned. The parties received notice, and warned their witnesses to attend.

On the appointed day the Court assembled, and the cause was called on. If either party was not present, judgment was given against him, unless he could shew to the satisfaction of the jury, that he was prevented from attending by some good cause, such as illness, or absence on the public service. This was to be shewn by an affidavit of the party himself, produced by some person duly authorised, who on behalf of his friend requested the court to put off the trial. The other party might oppose this application, and produce (if he

pleased) a counter affidavit.

The jury decided

whether the excuse could be received.

If both parties were present, the trial proceeded. The jury acted in all substantial points as judges. The archon presided, saw that the forms of law were duly observed, and kept order in the court, for which he had the assistance of the city police. At the close of the proceedings he called upon the jury to give their votes, counted them when given, and pronounced judgment accordingly.

NOTE 6.

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

THE letting here spoken of is a thing unknown in this country. It was a lease, or rather a loan, of the whole property; land, goods, money, business and good will; every thing (in short) out of which pecuniary profit might be derived. It was a common mode of disposing of a ward's estate, so that it might improve during his minority. Whether it was more usual, to allow the rents and profits to accumulate in the hands of the lessee until the expiration of the term, or for the guardian to receive and reinvest them from time to time, we know not. Demosthenes says, that the estate of one Antidorus, lent in this way, was nearly doubled in six years, the borrower paying the whole amount at the end of that period; from which it may be inferred that in the mean time he paid no interest. Of course, if it were required for the infant's maintenance, the rents would be reserved payable at stated periods.

The guardian, by adopting this method, relieved himself from much responsibility. As in England

any trustee may (in certain cases of difficulty) apply to the Lord Chancellor for leave to administer the estate under direction of the Court; so might a guardian at Athens apply to the archon, to take measures for letting the ward's estate. The course seems to have been, for the archon to put it up to auction, and let it to the highest bidder, under the sanction of a jury, taking care to have good security for payment.

If a testator directed the estate to be let, the guardian had no power to keep it in his own hands; otherwise (it seems) he might exercise his discretion; but then, if he kept it in his own hands, he ran the risk of being charged with mismanagement. A safe alternative is suggested by Lysias', of investing the property in land, and maintaining the ward out of the

rents.

At Athens (as with us) the testamentary guardian stood towards his ward in the relation of a parent; while the property was vested in him, or placed under his control, as trustee, for the ward's use and benefit. In England such a person is subject to the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, who may remove him for misconduct, and appoint another person to the office; and who, on a bill filed against him by the ward, will compel him to render an account of his administration. In the

1 Against Diogiton.