Legal Definitions - persecutio

In ancient Roman law, persecutio referred to a specific type of legal action or civil claim. It was a lawsuit brought by an individual seeking to enforce a right or obtain a remedy, typically involving disputes over property, contracts, or personal obligations.

The key characteristic of a persecutio was that it was handled under the procedural system known as cognitio extraordinaria. Unlike earlier Roman legal processes that involved distinct stages and often relied on private arbitration, cognitio extraordinaria was a more centralized system. In this procedure, a single magistrate or imperial official would oversee the entire case from beginning to end, hearing all arguments, examining evidence, and issuing a final judgment directly, without the need for a separate formal legal statement (or 'formula') to define the issue for a private judge.

Here are some examples of situations where a persecutio might have been initiated:

• Property Boundary Dispute: Imagine a Roman landowner, Aulus, who believes his neighbor, Brutus, has illegally moved the boundary markers between their farms, effectively seizing a portion of Aulus's land. Aulus could initiate a persecutio to reclaim the disputed territory or seek compensation for the encroachment. Under the cognitio extraordinaria system, an imperial judge would hear both sides, review any land deeds or witness testimonies, and then issue a definitive ruling on the true boundary and any necessary restitution.

• Breach of Contract for Goods: Consider a scenario where a merchant, Claudia, paid a substantial sum to another trader, Decimus, for a shipment of exotic spices from the East. However, Decimus failed to deliver the spices as agreed. Claudia could bring a persecutio against Decimus to compel him to deliver the goods or to refund her payment with damages. The presiding official would examine the terms of their agreement, evidence of payment, and reasons for non-delivery before rendering a judgment.

• Claim for Unpaid Debt: If a Roman citizen, Elena, had lent money to her acquaintance, Flavius, with an agreement for repayment by a certain date, and Flavius subsequently defaulted on the loan, Elena could pursue a persecutio. She would present her case to the imperial court, providing evidence of the loan and the missed repayment. The court, operating under cognitio extraordinaria, would then determine whether Flavius owed the debt and order him to repay Elena, potentially with interest or penalties.