) This is the only private suit which came,
as far as we know, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the polemarch.
(Aristot. de Ath. Rep.
quoted by Harpocrat.) It could be
brought against none but a freedman (ἀπελεύθερος
), and the only prosecutor permitted to appear was
the citizen to whom he had been indebted for his liberty, unless this
privilege was transmitted to the sons of such former master. The tenor of
the accusation was, that there had been a default in duty to the prosecutor;
but what attentions might be claimed from the freedman, we are not informed.
It is said, however, that the greatest delict of this kind was the selection
of a patron (προστάτης
) other than the
former master. If convicted, the defendant was publicly sold (Dem. c.
p. 790.77); but if he was acquitted, the unprosperous
connexion ceased for ever, and the freedman was entitled to the full
privileges of a μέτοικος.
The patron could
also summarily punish the above-mentioned delinquencies of his freedman by
private incarceration without any legal award (Pollux, 8.35; Harpocrat.,
Suid. s. v. ὰποστασίον
The ἀποστασίου δίκη,
against an ἀπελεύθερος,
should be carefully distinguished
from the γραφὴ ἀπροστασίου,
action brought against a μέτοικος.
mentioned in Demosth. c. Lacrit.