[IDEM libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. ] §26.10.3.prTutor quoque contutorem potest suspectum facere, siue duret adhuc tutor, siue iam desierit ipse, contutor autem maneat tutor: et ita diuus Seuerus rescripsit.
[THE SAME, On the Edict, Book 35.] A tutor also can accuse his co-tutor as suspect, whether he himself still remains tutor, or he himself has already ceased to be so, while the co-tutor remains tutor; and the deified Severus so replied by rescript.
plus diuus Pius Caecilio Paetino rescripsit posse tutorem suspectum remotum contutores suos suspectos facere.
Furthermore, the deified Pius replied by rescript to Caecilius Paetinus that a tutor who has been removed as suspect can accuse his co-tutors as suspect.
§26.10.3.1Liberti quoque pupillorum grate facient, si tutores uel curatores eorum male gerentes rem patronorum uel liberorum patronorum suspectos fecerint: sed si patronum suum ut suspectum in tutela facere uelint, melius est libertos ab accusatione repelli, ne in ipsa cognitione grauius aliquid emergat, cum hoc aliis omnibus pateat.
Freedmen of pupils will also perform an acceptable act if, when the tutors or curators of the pupils mismanage the property of their patrons or of the patrons' children, they accuse them as suspect; but if they wish to accuse their own patron as suspect in a tutelage, it is better for the freedmen to be rejected from the accusation, lest some more serious matter should arise during the investigation itself, since this is open to all others.
§26.10.3.2Non tantum autem adulescentis curator, sed etiam furiosi uel prodigi ut suspectus remoueri potest.
Moreover, not only the curator of a minor, but also that of an insane person or a spendthrift, can be removed as suspect.
§26.10.3.3Sed et si quis curam uentris bonorumue admistrat, non carebit huius criminis metu.
Furthermore, if anyone administers the care of an unborn child or of property, he will not be free from the fear of this charge.
§26.10.3.4Praeterea uidendum, an et sine accusatione possit suspectus repelli.
Furthermore, we must see whether a suspect can be rejected even without an accusation.
et magis est, ut repelli debeat, si praetori liqueat ex apertissimis rerum argumentis suspectum eum esse: quod fauore pupillorum accipiendum est.
And it is more reasonable that he ought to be rejected, if it is clear to the praetor from the most obvious proofs of facts that he is suspect; which must be accepted in favor of pupils.
§26.10.3.5Nunc uideamus, ex quibus causis suspecti remoueantur.
Now let us see for what reasons suspects are removed.
et sciendum est aut ob dolum in tutela admissum suspectum licere postulare, si forte grassatus in tutela est aut sordide egit uel perniciose pupillo uel aliquid intercepit ex rebus pupillaribus iam tutor.
And it must be known that one is allowed to demand that a tutor be declared suspect either on account of fraud committed in the tutelage, if, for instance, being already tutor, he has acted violently in the tutelage, or has behaved dishonorably or harmfully to the pupil, or has embezzled something from the pupil's property.
quod si quid admisit, ante tamen admisit, quam tutor esset, quamuis in bonis pupilli uel in tutela, non potest suspectus tutor postulari, quia delictum tutelam praecessit.
But if he committed some offense, yet committed it before he was tutor, although regarding the property of the pupil or regarding the tutelage itself, he cannot be accused as a suspect tutor, because the offense preceded the tutelage.
proinde si pupilli substantiam expilauit, sed antequam tutor esset, accusari debet expilatae hereditatis crimine, si minus, furti.
Therefore, if he plundered the estate of the pupil, but before he was tutor, he ought to be accused of the crime of plundered inheritance, if not, of theft.
§26.10.3.6Quaeri potest, si tutor fuerit pupilli idemque sit curator confirmatus adulescenti, an possit ex delictis tutelae suspectus postulari.
It may be asked, if a person was the tutor of a pupil, and the same person is confirmed as curator to him when a minor, whether he can be accused as suspect on account of offenses committed during the tutelage.
et cum possit tutelae a concuratoribus conueniri, consequens erit dicere cessare suspecti accusationem, quia tutelae agi possit deposito officio et alio sumpto.
And since he can be sued concerning the tutelage by his co-curators, the logical conclusion will be to say that the accusation of suspect does not apply, because action can be brought regarding the tutelage, after laying down the one office and assuming the other.
§26.10.3.7Idem erit quaerendum et si proponas aliquem desisse esse tutorem et rursum coepisse (ut puta usque ad tempus uel ad condicionem erat datus, deinde iterum uel superueniente condicione testamentaria uel etiam a praetore postea datus est), an suspectus postulari possit.
The same must be asked also if you suppose that someone has ceased to be tutor and has begun again (for example, he was appointed up to a certain time or under a condition, then again either by the fulfillment of the testamentary condition or also later appointed by the praetor), whether he can be accused as suspect.
et quia duae tutelae sunt, si est, qui eum tutelae iudicio conueniat, aequissimum erit dicere cessare crimen suspecti.
And since there are two tutelages, if there is someone to sue him in an action of tutelage, it will be most equitable to say that the charge of suspect does not apply.
§26.10.3.8Si autem ipse tutor est solus, numquid, quia tutelae cessat, remouendus sit ab hac administratione, quasi in hac suspectus ex eo, quod in alia male uersatus sit? ergo et in eo, qui curator solus post finitam tutelam confirmatus est, idem dici potest.
But if he himself is the sole tutor, should he, because the action of tutelage does not apply, be removed from this administration, as though suspect in this one from the fact that he behaved badly in the other? Therefore, the same can be said also in the case of one who, after the end of the tutelage, is confirmed as the sole curator.