1Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book VIII. The Governor of a province usually decided with reference to salaries, but only concerning those to which instructors in liberal studies are entitled. We understand liberal studies to be those which the Greeks designate eleuveria, and they include such as are taught by professors of rhetoric, grammar, and geometry. 1For the same reason, nothing is more just than also to include professors of medicine, for the latter give their attention to the health of men, and the former to their studies; and therefore with reference to them also, the Governor of the province should expound the law arbitrarily. 2Governors hear midwives, who are also considered to practice medicine. 3Anyone understands a physician to be one who promises a cure for any part of the body, or relief from pain, as, for example, an affection of the ear, a fistula, or a toothache; provided he does not employ incantations, imprecations, or exorcisms (to make use of the ordinary term applied to charlatans), for such things as this do not properly belong to the practice of medicine, although there are persons who commend such expedients, and affirm that they have been benefited by them. 4Are philosophers to be included in the number of professors? I do not think that they are, not because philosophy is irreligious, but because those who practice it should, first of all, scorn any mercenary labor. 5Hence, the Governor of a province does not decide with reference to the remuneration of professors of the Civil Law, for their wisdom is considered to be something extremely sacred; but it should not be estimated by its value in money, or be dishonored where compensation is claimed by a person who ought to promise under oath to dispense instruction gratuitously. Still, contributions when tendered may honorably be accepted, which, however, would be dishonorable if demanded. 6Governors of provinces have also assumed the right to decide with reference to school teachers, although they are not classed as professors, as well as in the case of copyists, makers of notes, accountants, and notaries. 7The Governor should, by no means, arbitrarily decide with reference to the master-workmen of other arts, or artisans who are not included in the literary professions, or are not mentioned above. 8When assistants demand their salaries, it has been decided that the same rule applies as in the case of professors. 9The Governor should take cognizance of all claims against these persons, for the Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that this could even be done against advocates. 10With reference to the fees of advocates, the judge should decide according to the importance of the case, the skill of the advocate, and the custom of the bar, and should make an estimate of the fees to which the advocate was entitled, provided the amount does not exceed the compensation fixed by law; for this was set forth in a Rescript of Our Emperor and his Father in the following terms: “If Julius Maternus, who has wished you to appear in his case, is ready to pay you what he agreed to do, you can only claim an amount which does not exceed that prescribed by law.” 11We should understand advocates to be all those who devote their energies to the purpose of conducting litigation. Those, however, are not included in the number of advocates who ordinarily appear in court to conduct cases in behalf of parties who are absent. 12If a fee has been agreed upon with an advocate, or if anyone has made a contract with him, having reference to the conduct of a case, let us see whether he can demand it. And, indeed, the following was stated by our Emperor and his Divine Father with reference to agreements of this kind, namely: “It is the observance of a bad custom where you exact from your client a promise for the payment of money for conducting his case. It is the law that if, while the case is pending, an agreement is made for future remuneration it will be void; but if it is made after the case has been tried, the sum promised as a fee can be collected up to a reasonable amount, even though the agreement was made with reference to what might be recovered, provided what has been paid shall be reckoned with what is due, and the entire amount does not exceed the legal fee.” The proper fee is understood to be no more than a hundred aurei in any one case. 13The Divine Severus prohibited a fee from being recovered from the heirs of an advocate after his death, because it was not his fault that he did not conduct the suit. 14It is also the duty of a Governor or a Prætor to take cognizance of the claims of nurses for the support of children to which they are entitled, when brought before their magistrates. Such claims, however, should only be considered where infants are nourished by the breast, but when this is not the case, neither the Prætor nor the Governor will have jurisdiction. 15If all these things should be demanded before the Governors of provinces, let us see whether they can have jurisdiction of reciprocal claims. I think that they should be permitted to do so.

2The Same, Opinions, Book I. It has been decided that the Governor of a province has jurisdiction of disputes arising with reference to the use of water distributed by new conduits, constructed contrary to law; as well as of those relating to horses possessed by persons who know that they belong to others, as well as to their increase; and to injuries caused by parties, placed in possession of the land of others, when the said land should be divided among several individuals; provided this has been done by the authority of someone who had no right to order it; so that the Governor may render his decision in these cases according to justice and his right of jurisdiction, and place matters in a suitable condition.

3Ad Dig. 50,13,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 388, Note 15.The Same, Opinions, Book V. When a physician, who has been entrusted with the treatment of anyone’s eyes, administers drugs which may cause him to lose his eyesight, in order by doing so to force him to sell him his property, while he is ill, contrary to good faith, the Governor of the province must punish the unlawful act, and order the property to be restored.

4Paulus, On Plautius, Book IV. The Divine Antoninus Pius stated in a Rescript that persons learned in the law, who demanded their fees, could collect them.

5Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book I. The number of judicial inquiries is derived from various sources, and cannot easily be divided into different kinds, unless this is done cursorily. Hence the number of judicial inquiries is generally divided into four kinds; for they usually have reference to the administration of offices or employments; or to disputes concerning pecuniary matters; or inquiry is made concerning someone’s reputation; or a capital crime is investigated. 1Reputation is the condition of unimpaired dignity approved by law and custom, which is either diminished or destroyed by legal authority on account of some offence which we have committed. 2Reputation is impaired whenever we, while retaining our liberty, are punished by a penalty affecting our status; as, for instance, when anyone is relegated or dismissed from his order; or when he is forbidden to discharge the duties of a public office; or when a plebeian is whipped, or sentenced to the public works; or when anyone is in such a condition as to be considered infamous under the terms of the Perpetual Edict. 3Reputation is entirely lost when a great change of civil condition takes place, that is to say, when liberty is forfeited; for example, where anyone is prohibited the use of water and fire, which results when a person is deported, or when a plebeian is condemned to labor connected with the mines, or to the mines; for there is no difference between these two sentences, nor are the penalty of labor connected with the mines and sentence to the mines dissimilar, except that in the former the penalty of civil death is not inflicted, but in the second, the offender is liable to it.

6Gaius, On Diurnal Occurrences or Golden Matters, Book III. When a judge makes case his own, he is not, properly speaking, guilty of a criminal offence; but, for the reason that he is not bound by a contract, and certainly can be understood to be, to some extent, to blame, although this may have occurred through ignorance, he is considered to be liable to an action in fætum, as having committed an unlawful act, and he must submit to any penalty which may appear just to the court having jurisdiction of the case.