What is the name for the government officials who interpreted Roman law and served as judges?

Answer 1

i think u mean dictator

Answer 2

During the period of the Roman Republic the praetors were chief justices. They presided over all trials for criminal cases. However, they did not preside over all civil cases. For these they could assign the trial to judges, in which case they prescribed the remedies for the case, should the judge rule against the defendant.

During the period of rule by emperors, the emperors were in change of justice and the praetors were turned into imperial bureaucrats.

Answer 3

The people who acted as judges in ancient Rome were different from modern judges. Their system was different.

During the Roman Republic (509-27 BC), the second highest ranking officers of state, the praetors were like chiefs justices. The praetors were not professional layers or judges. They were politicians elected to the office. One of the praetores urbanus (urban praetors) presided over civil cases between Roman citizens and the administration of justice. Another one had the job of presiding over criminal proceedings (quaestiones perpetuae) and appointed jurors to vote for guilt or innocence. The praetor peregrinus, which roughly means chief justice for foreigners, presided over civil cases between Roman citizens and non-Romans.

In was civil cases, the praetors could appoint a iudex (judge) and hand over a case to him. A judex was not a professional judge. He was an unpaid private person chosen from the list (album) drawn up according to wealth to decide a case referred to him by the praetor. If the case was heard by a panel of iudices (plural of judex), they were known as recuperatores. Proceedings held before the praetor in iure where the issues were framed for decision. The matter then went to the iudex for trial (apud iudicem). The ruling (iudicium) of the iudex was binding. The Praetors established a formula directing the iudex regarding the remedy to be ordered to the defendant if the ruling was against him. During the course of the period of rule by emperors, this two-stage process had largely disappeared. The praetor heard the whole case in person or appointed a delegate (a iudex pedaneus). The formula was replaced by an informal system of pleadings.

The praetors also issued the Praetor's Edict, which stated the praetors' policy on judicial matters for their term of office. Praetors endorsed much of the content of previous edicts, thus ensuring continuity. Although praetors were not legislators and could not introduce new laws, they could make amendments. These introduced needed innovations. Therefore, the development an improvement of Roman law owed a lot to the praetors. Since the praetors were politicians, not lawyers, they often submitted consulta (written questions) to jurists (legal experts) and their replies were often used for the compilation of the edicts. Appeal cases were handled by the popular assemblies, not courts, until 82 BC, when Lucius Cornelius Sulla transferred the hearing of appeal cases to new jury courts which were controlled by the patricians to strengthen the power of the patricians (aristocracy).

Augustus, the first Roman emperor reduced the praetors from officers of states to imperial administrators. The emperor was an absolute ruler, but used the state machinery of the Republic to exercise his power. The emperor presided over the highest courts of appeal. The praetors became officials of something akin to a department of justice. Emperor Claudius appointed two praetors for matters relating to trusts (fideicommissa); that is, property held by one party for the benefit of another. Titus reduced the number to one. Nerva created a Praetor to make rulings on matters between the treasury (fiscus) and citizens. Marcus Aurelius appointed a Praetor for handling guardianship (tutela) cases.

Answer 4

direcor