EMME´NOI DIKAI
EMME´NOI DIKAI (ἔμμηνοι δίκαι), suits in the Athenian courts, which were not allowed to be pending above a month. The first mention of this regulation is made in C. I. A. i. No. 38: any attempt made by citizens of the tributary states to evade the decree respecting the tribute (of the year 425-4) is to be brought before the ἐπιμεληταί, ο[ἱ δὲ ἐπιμεληταὶ ἐσαγό]ντων ἔμμηνα ἐς τὸ δ[ικαστήριον], etc. It was confined to those matters which required a speedy decision; and of these the most important were disputes respecting commerce (ἐμπορικαὶ δίκαι, Pollux, 8.63, 1011; Harpocrat and Suid. s. v. Ἔμμηνοι Δίκαι), which were heard during the six winter months from Boëdromion to Munychion, so that the merchants might quickly obtain their rights and sail away (Dem. c. Apat. p. 900.23; cf. Lys. de Pecun. publ. § 5); by which we are not to understand, as some have done, that a suit could be protracted through this whole time, but it was necessary that it should be decided within a month. (Boeckh, P. E. p. 50=Sthh.3 1.64 f.)All causes relating to mines (μεταλλικαὶ δίκαι) were also ἔμμηνοι δίκαι (Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 966.2); the object, as Boeckh remarks (P. E. p. 667=Kl. Schriften, v. p. 54), being no doubt that the mine proprietor might not be detained too long from his business. The same was the case with causes relating to ἔρανοι (Pollux, 8.101; Harpocrat. and Suid. l.c.) [ERANI]; and Pollux (l.c.) includes in the list suits respecting dowry, which are omitted by Harpocration and Suidas. K. F. Hermann adds the γραφὴ ὕβρεως (Symb. ad doctrinam juris Att. de injuriarum act. p. 21). Pollux statement (8.101) as to the existence of distinct magistrates called εἰσαγωγεῖς οἱ τὰς ἐμμήνους δίκας εἰσάγοντες (cf. 93) ἦσαν δὲ προικός, ἐρανικαί, ἐμπορικαί, is confirmed by C. I. A. i. No. 37, where they are twice mentioned (see Köhler, Urkunden u. Untersuchungen z. Gesch. d. delisch-att. Bundes, p. 68); at a later period they were replaced by the thesmothetae (so with regard to the μεταλλικαὶ δίκαι, Pollux, 8.88). When the suits relating to trade were made ἔμμηνοι, which happened probably not till after the date of Xenophon's treatise on the Revenue (3, 3; [Dem.] de Halonn. p. 79.12), the ἡγεμονία was transferred from the ναυτοδίκαι to the thesmothetae (Dem. c. Apatur. p. 892.1). (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 94, 97, 525, 907.) [W.S] [H.H]
(Appendix). In Ath. Pol. 52, the εἰσαγωγεῖς are mentioned as still existing. They were five in number, appointed by lot δυοῖς φυλαῖν ἕκαστος, οἳ τὰς ἐμμήνους εἰσάγουσι δίκας. The list of the classes of cases coming under this head is longer and more detailed than that given elsewhere: προικὸς ἐάν τις ὀφείλων μὴ ἀποδῷ κἄν τις ἐπὶ δραχμῇ δανεισάμενος ἀποστερῇ (i. e. 12 per cent.: in Dem. c. Aphob. i. p. 818.17, c. Neaer. p. 1362.52, the interest as fixed by law is at the rate of 9 obols, i. e. 18 per cent. in case of non-fulfilment of marriage-contract or of divorce) κἄν τις ἐν ἀγορᾷ βουλόμενος ἐργάζεσθαι δανείσηται παρά τινος ἀφορμήθ.
αἰκίας (this action was brought before the Forty in the time of Demosthenes, Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 976.33; cf. Schol. Plat. de Republ. v. p. 464 E);
ἐρανικαὶ καὶ κοινωνικαί (Harpocr. s. v. κοινωνικῶν: τάχα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἑκούσιον κοινωνίαν συνθεμένων ἐμπορίας ἤ τινος ἄλλου: cf. Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 977.38, οἱ κοινωνοῦντες μετάλλου);
ἀνδραπόδων, ὑποζυγ[ίω]ν (cf. the title of Dinarch. c. Antiph. περὶ ἵππου, etc.);
The δίκαι μεταλλικαὶ and ἐμπορικαὶ are not mentioned, probably because they belonged to the ἡγεμονία of the thesmothetae (Dem. c. Apat. p. 892.12; Ἀθην. πολ. 100.59=Pollux, 8.88).
Then follows the sentence οὗτοι μὲν οὖν ταύτας δικάζουσιν ἐμμήνους εἰσάγ[ον]τες, οἱ δ᾽ ἀποδέκται τοῖς τελώναις καὶ κατὰ τῶν τελωνῶν, τὰ μὲν μεχρὶ δέκα δραχμῶν ὄντες κύριοι, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλ̓ εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον εἰσάγοντες ἔμμηνα (cf. Pollux, 8.97); here δικάζειν seems to refer to the ἡγεμονία.