[1488] Cf. Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 196.
[1489] Livy iii. 59. 4; Dion. Hal. xi. 49. 3.
[1490] Livy iii. 56-8; Dion. Hal. xi. 46, 49.
[1491] Livy iii. 58. 10; Dion. Hal. xi. 49; Zon. vii. 18. 11.
[1492] Livy iii. 58. 10; Dion. Hal. xi. 46. 5; Gell. xx. 1. 53. False testimony in a case of this kind, which was vindicia not murder, was not capital; hence it did not ordinarily come before the tribunes; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 324, n. 6. The political importance of the case, however, was a sufficient motive to their undertaking it.
[1493] Livy iv. 16. 5 f.; 21. 3 f.; Cic. Dom. 32. 86; Rep. i. 3. 6; Val. Max. v. 3. 2 g; Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 668; ii. 553. Roman law regarded false testimony in capital cases as murder; hence the prosecution of Minucius might legally have come before the quaestors; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 324, n. 6.
[1494] Livy vi. 1. 6.
[1495] Livy viii. 28; Dion. Hal. xvi. 5 (9); Suid. s. Γάιος Λαιτώριος. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 325, n. 1, denies that a case of the kind could come before the tribunes.
[1496] Dion. Hal. xvi. 4 (8); Val. Max. vi. 1. 11; Suid. ibid. This prosecution could be brought on the ground of misconduct of office; Mommsen, ibid.
[1497] Pliny, N. H. viii. 45. 180; Val. Max. viii. 1. 8.