_Fifth Stage_ (_nominis receptio_).--After the indictment or inscription had been framed, it was formally received by the president. This act was styled the _nominis receptio_ and corresponds, in a general way, with the presentment of an indictment by a modern Grand Jury. When the _nominis receptio_ was complete, the case was said to be _in judicio_, and the accused was said to be _in reatu_. The president then fixed a day certain for the appearance of the accused and the beginning of the trial. The time fixed was usually ten days from the _nominis receptio_. However, a longer time was allowed if evidence had to be secured from beyond the sea. Thirty days were allowed the accusers in the prosecution of Scaurus. Cicero was given one hundred and ten days to secure evidence against Verres; but he actually employed only sixty. The time granted the prosecutor was also required by the law to be utilized by the defendant in preparing his case. The preliminary steps in the prosecution were now complete, and the accused awaited the day of trial. In the meantime, he was allowed to go at large, even when charged with a grave offense like murder. Imprisonment to prevent escape had almost ceased at the time of which we write. If the evidence against the accused was weak, it was felt that he would certainly appear at the trial. If the evidence against him was very strong, it was thought that he would seek to escape a sentence of death in voluntary exile, a step which Romans always encouraged, as they were averse, at all times, to putting a Roman citizen to death. _Sixth Stage_ (_citatio_).--At the expiration of the time designated by the president for the beginning of the trial, the proceedings before the judges began. All the necessary parties, including the judges or jurors, were summoned by a herald to appear. This procedure was termed the _citatio_. Strange to say, if the accused failed to appear the case could proceed without him. The reason for the requirement of his presence at the _nominis delatio_, but not at the trial is not clear; especially when viewed in the light of a modern trial in which the defendant must be present at every important step in the proceedings. Under Roman procedure, the presence of the defendant was not necessary, whether he was in voluntary exile, or was obstinately absent. In 52 B.C., Milo was condemned in his absence; and we read in Plutarch that the assassins of Cæsar were tried in their absence, 43 B.C. Excusable absence necessitated an adjournment of the case. The chief grounds for an adjournment were: (1) Absence from the city in the public service; (2) that the accused was compelled to appear in another court on the same day; (3) illness.