1. In the early stages of society, little difficulty is felt in providing for the administration of justice, because the subjects of controversy are plain and simple, such as any man of common sense may determine; but as civilization advances, the relations between men become more complicated, property assumes innumerable forms, and the determination of questions resulting from these changes, becomes a matter of no ordinary difficulty. In the first ages of the republic, the consuls were the judges in civil and criminal matters, as the kings had previously been;[1] but as the state increased, a new class of magistrates, called praetors, was appointed to preside in the courts of law. Until the age of the decemvirs, there was no written code to regulate their decisions; and even after the laws of the twelve tables had been established, there was no perfect system of law, for the enactments in that code were brief, and only asserted a few leading principles. 2. The Roman judges did not, however, decide altogether according to their own caprice; they were bound to regard the principles that had been established by the decisions of former judges; and consequently, a system of law was formed similar to the common law of England, founded on precedent and analogy. In the later ages of the empire, the number of law-books and records became so enormous, that it was no longer possible to determine the law with accuracy, and the contradictory decisions made at different periods, greatly increased the uncertainty. To remedy this evil, the emperor Justinian caused the entire to be digested into a uniform system, and his code still forms the basis of the civil law in Europe. 3. The trials in courts refer either to the affairs of the state, or to the persons or properties of individuals, and are called state, criminal, or civil trials. The two former are the most important in regard to history.