[ULPIANUS libro sexto disputationum. ] §22.3.18.prQuotiens operae quasi a liberto petuntur, probationes ab eo qui se patronum dicit exiguntur: et ideo Iulianus scripsit, licet in praeiudicio possessor patronus esse uidetur, uerum partibus actoris non libertum fungi debere, sed eum qui se patronum esse contendit.
[ULPIAN, in the sixth book of Disputations.] Whenever services are claimed as if from a freedman, proof is required from him who says he is the patron; and therefore Julian wrote that, although in a preliminary trial the possessor is seen to be the patron, yet it is not the freedman who must perform the role of the plaintiff, but the one who contends that he is the patron.
§22.3.18.1Qui dolo dicit factum aliquid, licet in exceptione, docere dolum admissum debet.
He who says that something was done by fraud, even in an exception, must show that fraud was committed.
§22.3.18.2Interrogationis factae probationem actori imponi debere, id est ei, qui in iure interrogatum dixit respondisse se solum heredem esse. uel si tacuisse dicatur interrogatus, aeque tantumdem erit dicendum impositam improbationem non ei qui excepit se non respondisse, sed actori.
The proof of an interrogation having been made must be imposed on the plaintiff, that is, on him who said that the person questioned in court answered that he was the sole heir; or if the person questioned is said to have remained silent, it must likewise be said that the burden of proof is imposed not on him who pleaded by way of exception that he did not answer, but on the plaintiff.