[IDEM libro septimo decimo digestorum. ] §22.3.12.prQuingenta testamento tibi legata sunt: idem scribtum est in codicillis postea scriptis: refert, duplicare legatum uoluerit an repetere et oblitus se in testamento legasse id fecerit: ab utro ergo probatio eius rei exigenda est? prima fronte aequius uidetur, ut petitor probet quod intendit: sed nimirum probationes quaedam a reo exiguntur: nam si creditum petam, ille respondeat solutam esse pecuniam, ipse hoc probare cogendus est.
[THE SAME, in the seventeenth book of the Digests.] Five hundred [sesterces] have been bequeathed to you by testament; the same thing is written in codicils written afterwards. It is of importance whether he wished to double the legacy, or to repeat it and did so having forgotten that he had bequeathed it in the testament. From which of the two, therefore, must the proof of this matter be demanded? At first sight, it seems more equitable that the claimant should prove what he asserts; but indeed certain proofs are demanded from the defendant. For if I should sue for a loan, and he should answer that the money has been paid, he himself must be compelled to prove this.
et hic igitur cum petitor duas scripturas ostendit, heres posteriorem inanem esse, ipse heres id adprobare iudici debet.
And so in this case also, when the claimant shows two documents, if the heir asserts that the latter is without effect, the heir himself must prove this to the judge.