In the second place, if the weight attached to this accusation was so great, that, under whatever law any one of those judges was prosecuted, he must be utterly ruined; then why, when there: are such crowds of accusers, and when the reward is so great, were not the others prosecuted too? On this, that case is mentioned, (which, however, has no right to be called a trial,) that an action for damages was brought against Publius Septimius Scaevola on that account; and what the practice is in cases of that sort, as I am speaking before men of the greatest learning, I have no need to occupy much time in explaining. For the diligence which is usually displayed in other trials, is never exercised after the defendant has been convicted.
In
actions for damages, the judges usually, either because they think that a man whom they have
once convicted is hostile to them, if any mention of a capital charge against him is made, do
not allow it; or else, because they think that their duties are over when they have given their
decision respecting the defendant, they attend more carelessly to the other points. Therefore,
very many men are acquitted of treason, when, if they were condemned, actions would be brought
to recover damages on charges of peculation. And we see this happen every day,—that when a
defendant has been convicted of peculation, the judges acquit those men to whom, in fixing the
damages, it has been settled that the money has come; and when this is the case, the decisions
are not rescinded, but this principle is laid down, that the assessment of damages is not a
judicial trial. Scaevola was convicted of other charges, by a great number of witnesses from