[IDEM libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. ] §26.10.3.9Quod si quis ita tutor datus sit: 'quoad in Italia erit, tutor esto' uel 'quoad trans mare non ierit', an possit suspectus postulari ex eo gestu, quem administrauit, antequam trans mare abesset? et magis est, ut postulari possit, quasi una tutela sit habens interualla.
[THE SAME, On the Edict, Book 35.] But if anyone has been appointed tutor in this way: 'let him be tutor as long as he is in Italy,' or 'as long as he does not go across the sea,' can he be accused as suspect on account of that administration which he conducted before he was absent across the sea? And it is more reasonable that he can be accused, as if there were one tutelage having intervals.
§26.10.3.10Si quis afuturus rei publicae causa desiderauit in locum suum constitui alium tutorem, an reuersus ex ante gesto suspectus postulari possit? et quia potest ex priore gestu utili actione conueniri, cessabit postulatio.
If anyone who is about to be absent on public service has requested that another tutor be appointed in his place, can he, upon his return, be accused as suspect on account of his prior administration? And since he can be sued concerning his prior administration by an equitable action, the accusation will not apply.
§26.10.3.11Si curator uentri bonisque datus fraudulenter uersatus sit, deinde tutor datus, an postulari suspectus propter fraudes in cura admissas possit, dubitari potest.
If a curator appointed for an unborn child and for property has behaved fraudulently, and is then appointed tutor, it may be doubted whether he can be accused as suspect on account of the frauds committed during the curatorship.
et si quidem habet contutores, non poterit postulari, quia conueniri potest, si non habet, amoueri potest.
And indeed, if he has co-tutors, he cannot be accused, because he can be sued; if he does not have them, he can be removed.
§26.10.3.12Si tutor inimicus pupillo parentibusue eius sit et generaliter si qua iusta causa praetorem mouerit, cur non debeat in ea tutela uersari, reicere eum debebit.
If a tutor is hostile to the pupil or to his parents, and generally if any just cause moves the praetor why he ought not to be engaged in that tutelage, the praetor ought to reject him.
§26.10.3.13Seuerus et Antoninus rescripserunt Epicurio tutores, qui res uetitas sine decreto distraxerunt, nihil quidem egisse, uerum si per fraudem id fecerunt, remoueri eos oportere.
Severus and Antoninus replied by rescript to Epicurius that tutors who sold forbidden property without a decree did indeed effect nothing, but if they did so fraudulently, they ought to be removed.
§26.10.3.14Tutor, qui ad alimenta pupillo praestanda copiam sui non faciat, suspectus est poteritque remoueri.
A tutor who does not make himself available for providing maintenance to the pupil is suspect and can be removed.
§26.10.3.15Sed si non latitet, sed praesens nihil posse decerni contendit quasi inopibus, si datis pupillo aduocatis in mendacio reuincatur, ad praefectum urbis remittendus est: neque enim interest id agere quemquam, ut corrupta fide inquisitionis tutor constituatur, an bona fide constitutum uelut praedonem bonis alienis incumbere: hic ergo non quasi suspectus remouebitur, sed remittetur puniendus ea poena, qua solent adfici, qui tutelam corruptis ministeriis praetoris redemerunt.
But if he does not hide, but being present contends that nothing can be decreed, as if they were destitute, if, upon advocates being granted to the pupil, he is convicted of falsehood, he must be sent to the prefect of the city; for there is no difference between anyone endeavoring to have a tutor appointed by corrupting the integrity of the inquiry, and one who, having been appointed in good faith, broods over another's property like a robber. Therefore, this man will not be removed as if suspect, but will be sent to be punished with that penalty with which those who have purchased a tutelage by corrupting the officers of the praetor are accustomed to be afflicted.
§26.10.3.16Qui pecuniam ad praediorum emptionem conferre neque pecuniam deponere peruicaciter perstant, quoad emptionis occasio inueniatur, uinculis publicis iubentur contineri, et insuper pro suspectis habentur.
Those who persistently refuse to contribute money for the purchase of estates or to deposit the money until an opportunity for purchase is found, are ordered to be kept in public custody, and furthermore are held as suspect.
sed sciendum est non omnes hac seueritate debere tractari, sed utique humiliores: ceterum eos, qui sunt in aliqua dignitate positi, non opinor uinculis publicis contineri oportere.
But it must be known that not all ought to be treated with this severity, but certainly those of lower status; on the other hand, those who are placed in some dignity, I do not think ought to be kept in public custody.
§26.10.3.17Is tutor, qui inconsideranter pupillum uel dolo abstinuit hereditate, potest suspectus postulari.
That tutor who inconsiderately or fraudulently has made the pupil abstain from an inheritance can be accused as suspect.
§26.10.3.18Qui ob segnitiam uel rusticitatem inertiam simplicitatem uel ineptiam remotus sit, in hac causa est, ut integra existimatione tutela uel cura abeat.
He who has been removed on account of slackness, rusticity, inactivity, simplicity, or silliness, is in such a position that he departs from the tutelage or curatorship with his reputation intact.
sed et si quis ob fraudem non remouebit aliquem, sed ei adiunxerit, non erit famosus, quia non est abire tutela iussus.
But even if someone, on account of fraud, does not remove a person but associates a co-administrator with him, he will not be infamous, because he was not ordered to depart from the tutelage.