The capital jurisdiction of the consuls, expressed through the quaestors, was exercised in the _comitia centuriata_; an appeal against the _coercitio_ of consuls and praetors, when the fine which they imposed passed the limit of the _multa suprema_[1210] came before the _comitia tributa populi_. The jurisdiction of the aediles[1211] was always exercised before the tribes; the curule aediles as _magistratus populi_ must have brought their case before the _comitia tributa populi_; the plebeian aediles, who, as magistrates of the Plebs, had no right of approaching the people, appeared before the _concilium plebis_. With regard to the tribunes, where their jurisdiction was capital, it may in certain cases have been exercised by the _concilium plebis_, but usually necessitated an appearance before the _comitia centuriata_,[1212] where it was pecuniary, the tribune would invariably have brought the case before his own assembly of the Plebs. The procedure in a _judicium populi_ consisted of two stages. In the first, the magistrate who intended to impose a sentence which was beyond the limits of his personal jurisdiction held a preliminary examination (_anquisitio_).[1213] This is conducted with the fullest publicity before an informal assembly or _contio_ which he has summoned. This preliminary investigation is repeated three times, on days not necessarily consecutive. The magistrate is represented as a prosecutor, and his expressions of opinion at these meetings are spoken of as _accusationes_. His final judgment, consequent on the proceedings of the third _contio_, is a bill (_rogatio_), which he gives notice of his intention to bring before the _comitia_. The penalty proposed in this bill need not be that originally suggested, for the investigation may have led the magistrate to amend his original proposal.[1214] The legal interval for promulgation—three weeks—then elapsed, and at its close the proposal was brought by the magistrate before the _comitia_. It was then either accepted or rejected (necessarily without amendment) by the assembled people. This formal assembly (_comitia_) was, in judicial as in legislative acts, preceded by a _contio_; and the magistrate’s final statement of his proposal before this _contio_ is spoken of as his “fourth accusation” (_quarta accusatio_).[1215] If, through any chance, such as evil auspices, the bill was not carried through the _comitia_, a fresh promulgation, with another interval of three weeks, was necessary for a revival of the trial. This necessity made a repetition of a prosecution by the same magistrate on the same charge very infrequent.[1216]