[ULPIANUS libro quinto decimo ad Sabinum. ] §28.4.1.prQuae in testamento legi possunt, ea inconsulto deleta et inducta nihilo minus ualent, consulto non ualent: id uero quod non iussu domini scriptum inductum deletumue est, pro nihilo est.
[ULPIANUS, Book 15 on Sabinus.] What can be read in a testament, if deleted or crossed out unintentionally, is nonetheless valid; if intentionally, it is not valid. But that which has been written, crossed out, or deleted not by the order of the testator is considered as nothing.
'legi' autem sic accipiendum non intellegi, sed oculis perspici quae sunt scripta: ceterum si exstrinsecus intelleguntur, non uidebuntur legi posse.
"To be read," moreover, must be understood in this way: not "to be understood," but that what is written is perceived by the eyes. Otherwise, if they are understood from external sources, they will not be deemed able to be read.
sufficit autem, si legibilia sint inconsulto deleta siue ab ipso siue ab alio, sed nolentibus.
But it is sufficient if they are legible, [even if] deleted unintentionally, whether by [the testator] himself or by another, but against their will.
'inducta' accipiendum est et si perducta sint.
"Crossed out" must be understood also if they are scribbled over.
§28.4.1.1Quod igitur incaute factum est, pro non facto est, si legi potuit: et ideo, etsi nouissime, ut solet, testamento fuerit adscriptum: 'lituras inductiones superductiones ipse feci', non uidebitur referri ad ea quae inconsulto contigerunt.
What therefore was done incautiously is as if not done, if it could be read; and therefore, even if, as is customary, it was written at the very end of the testament: "I myself made the erasures, crossings-out, and overwritings," it will not be seen to refer to those things which happened unintentionally.
proinde et si inconsulto superscripti induxisse se, manebunt et si ademit, non erunt adempta.
Accordingly, even if those written above crossed themselves out unintentionally, they will remain; and if he took [something] away, they will not be taken away.
§28.4.1.2Sed si legi non possunt quae inconsulto deleta sunt, dicendum est non deberi, sed hoc ita demum, si ante consummationem testamenti factum est.
But if what was deleted unintentionally cannot be read, it must be said that it is not due; but this only if it was done before the completion of the testament.
§28.4.1.3Sed consulto quidem deleta exceptione petentes repelluntur, inconsulto uero non repelluntur, siue legi possunt siue non possunt, quoniam, si totum testamentum non exstet, constat ualere omnia quae in eo scripta sunt.
But if indeed they were deleted intentionally, the claimants are repelled by an exception; but if unintentionally, they are not repelled, whether they can be read or cannot be read, since, if the whole testament does not exist, it is established that all things written in it are valid.
et si quidem illud concidit testator, denegabuntur actiones, si uero alius inuito testatore, non denegabuntur.
And if indeed the testator cut it to pieces, actions will be denied; but if another did so against the will of the testator, they will not be denied.
§28.4.1.4Et hereditatis portio adempta uel tota hereditas, si forte sit substitutus, iure facta uidebitur, non quasi adempta, quoniam hereditas semel data adimi facile non potest, sed quasi nec data.
And a portion of the inheritance having been revoked, or the whole inheritance, if by chance there is a substitute, will be seen as lawfully done, not as if revoked (since an inheritance once given cannot easily be revoked), but as if it had not been given.
§28.4.1.5Si quis codicillos in testamento confirmauit et codicillis aliquid adscripsit, mox deleuit ita ut appareat, an debeatur? et Pomponius scribit codicillos deletos non ualere.
If someone has confirmed codicils in a testament, and written something in the codicils, and then deleted it so that it is visible, is it due? And Pomponius writes that the deleted codicils are not valid.