[ULPIANUS libro septimo ad edictum. ] §2.10.1.prAequissimum putauit praetor dolum eius coercere, qui impedit aliquem iudicio sisti.
[ULPIANUS, in the seventh book on the Edict.] The praetor considered it most equitable to restrain the malice of one who prevents someone from appearing in court.
§2.10.1.1Fecisse autem dolo malo non tantum is putatur, qui suis manibus uel per suos retinuerit, uerum qui alios quoque rogauit ut eum detinerent uel abducerent, ne iudicio sistat, siue scientes siue ignorantes quid esset quod comminisceretur.
Moreover, not only is he deemed to have acted with malice who has detained someone with his own hands or through his own people, but also he who has asked others to detain or carry him off, so that he does not appear in court, whether they knew or did not know what he was contriving.
§2.10.1.2Dolum autem malum sic accipimus, ut si quis uenienti ad iudicium aliquid pronuntiauerit triste, propter quod is necesse habuerit ad iudicium non uenire, teneatur ex hoc edicto: quamuis quidam putent sibi eum imputare, qui credulus fuit.
Furthermore, we understand malice in this way: if anyone announces something sorrowful to someone on his way to court, because of which it is necessary for him not to come to court, he is held liable under this edict; although some think that he who was credulous must impute it to himself.
§2.10.1.3Si reus dolo actoris non steterit, non habebit reus aduersus eum actionem ex hoc edicto, cum contentus esse possit exceptione, si ex stipulatu conueniatur de poena, quod ad iudicium non uenerit.
If the defendant has not appeared due to the malice of the plaintiff, the defendant will not have an action against him under this edict, since he can be satisfied with an exception if he is sued on a stipulation for a penalty for not coming to court.
aliter atque si ab alio sit impeditus: nam actionem propositam aduersus eum exercebit.
It is otherwise than if he was prevented by someone else; for then he will exercise the action provided against him.
§2.10.1.4Si plures dolo fecerint, omnes tenentur: sed si unus praestiterit poenam, ceteri liberantur, cum nihil intersit.
If several persons have acted with malice, all are held liable; but if one has paid the penalty, the others are released, since it makes no difference.
§2.10.1.5Serui nomine ex hac causa noxali iudicio agendum omnes consentiunt.
All agree that in the name of a slave, on this account, action must be brought by a noxal action.
§2.10.1.6Et heredi datur, sed non ultra annum.
It is also granted to an heir, but not beyond a year.
aduersus heredem autem hactenus puto dandam actionem, ut ex dolo defuncti heres non lucretur.
Against an heir, however, I think the action should be granted only to the extent that the heir does not profit from the malice of the deceased.