[IDEM libro septimo disputationum. ] §22.3.19.prIn exceptionibus dicendum est reum partibus actoris fungi oportere ipsumque exceptionem uelut intentionem implere: ut puta si pacti conuenti exceptione utatur, docere debet pactum conuentum factum esse.
[THE SAME, in the seventh book of Disputations.] In exceptions, it must be said that the defendant ought to perform the role of the plaintiff, and that he himself must complete the exception as if it were a statement of claim. For example, if he uses the exception of an agreed pact, he must show that the pact was agreed.
§22.3.19.1Cum quis promisisset iudicio se sisti et rei publicae causa afuisse dicat et ob id non stetisse, uel dolo malo aduersarii factum quo minus sisteretur, uel ualetudinem sibi impedimento fuisse uel tempestatem, probare eum id oportet.
When anyone has promised to appear in court, and says that he was absent on public business and therefore did not appear, or that it was due to the malice of his adversary that he did not appear, or that illness or a storm was an obstacle to him, it is necessary that he prove this.
§22.3.19.2Sed et si procuratoria quis exceptione utatur, eo quod non licuisset aduersario dare uel fieri procuratorem, probare id oportet obicientem exceptionem.
But also, if anyone uses an exception concerning a proxy, on the ground that it was not permitted for the adversary to appoint or to become a proxy, the one raising the exception must prove this.
§22.3.19.3Idem erit dicendum et si ea pecunia petatur, quae pensata dicitur.
The same must be said if money is claimed which is said to have been paid.
§22.3.19.4Hoc amplius, si iudicatae rei uel iurisiurandi condicio delata dicatur de eo quod nunc petitur, siue in alea gestum esse contendatur, eum implere probationes oportet.
Furthermore, if, concerning what is now claimed, the defense of res judicata or the condition of an oath having been tendered is asserted, or if it is contended that the transaction took place in gambling, he must fulfill the burden of proof.