[ULPIANUS libro quinquagesimo ad edictum. ] §29.5.3.prSi quis in graui ualetudine adfectus opem domino ferre non potuerit, subueniendum est ei.
[ULPIANUS, from the fiftieth book on the Edict.] If any slave, affected by a severe illness, was unable to bring assistance to his master, he must be relieved.
§29.5.3.1Si quis moriens dixisset a seruo uim mortis allatam esse sibi, dicendum est non esse credendum domino, si moriens hoc dixit, nisi potuerit et probari.
If any master, while dying, had said that the violence of death was inflicted upon him by his slave, it must be said that the master should not be believed, even if he said this while dying, unless it can also be proved.
§29.5.3.2Si maritus uxorem noctu intra cubiculum secum cubantem necauerit uel uxor maritum, serui poena senatus consulti liberabuntur.
If a husband kills his wife who is sleeping with him at night in their bedroom, or a wife her husband, the slaves will be exempt from the penalty of the senate decree.
sed si exaudissent et opem non tulissent, plectendi erunt, non tantum si proprii essent mulieris, sed etiam si mariti.
But if they had heard and had not brought assistance, they must be punished, not only if they were the property of the woman, but also if they belonged to the husband.
§29.5.3.3Si tamen maritus in adulterio deprehensam occidat, quia ignoscitur ei, dicendum est non tantum mariti, sed etiam uxoris seruos liberandos, si iustum dolorem exsequenti domino non restiterunt.
If, however, a husband kills his wife caught in adultery, because he is excused, it must be said that not only the husband's but also the wife's slaves should be exempted, if they did not resist the master who was executing his just anger.
§29.5.3.4Si cum omnes domini adgressuram paterentur, uni seruus opem tulit, an sit excusandus, an uero quia omnibus non tulit plectendus? et magis est, ut, si quidem omnibus ferre potuit, quamuis quibusdam tulit, supplicio adficiendum: si uero simul omnibus non potuit, excusandum, quia quibusdam opem tulerit.
If, when all their masters were undergoing an attack, a slave brought assistance to one of them, is he to be excused, or indeed, because he did not bring it to all, to be punished? And it is more reasonable that, if indeed he was able to bring it to all, although he brought it to some, he must be punished with death; but if he was unable to do so to all at the same time, he must be excused, because he brought assistance to some.
nam illud durum est dicere, si, cum duobus auxilium ferre non possit, elegit alteri esse auxilio, electione crimen eum contraxisse.
For it is harsh to say that, if, when he cannot bring aid to two, he chose to be of assistance to one, he contracted a crime by that choice.
§29.5.3.5Quare et si seruus mulieris marito dominae magis auxilio fuit quam dominae uel contra, dicendum est ignosci ei debere.
Wherefore, even if the wife's slave was of more assistance to the mistress's husband than to the mistress, or vice versa, it must be said that he ought to be excused.
§29.5.3.6Subuenitur eis, qui eo tempore quo dominus dominaue occisa est clausi ita fuerunt sine dolo malo, ut erumpere succurrendi causa aut comprehendendi eos, qui caedem fecerint, non potuerint: nec interest, a quo clausi continebuntur: sic tamen, si non data opera uoluerint se ita includi, ne opem ferre possint.
Those who, at the time when the master or mistress was killed, were so shut up without malicious intent that they could not break out for the purpose of helping or of apprehending those who committed the murder, are relieved; nor does it matter by whom they were kept shut up; provided, however, that they did not intentionally wish to be so shut up so that they could not bring assistance.
clusos accipere debemus et si sunt uincti, si tamen ita uincti, ut omnino rumpere uincula et auxilio esse non potuerint.
We must also regard as shut up those who are bound, provided, however, that they were so bound that they could not break their bonds at all and be of assistance.
§29.5.3.7Ignoscitur etiam his qui aetate defecti sunt.
Those who are incapacitated by age are also excused.
§29.5.3.8Surdus quoque inter inbecillos numerandus est aut inter eos qui sub eodem tecto non sunt, quia ut illi per spatium, ita hic per morbum nihil audit.
The deaf person also must be numbered among the weak, or among those who are not under the same roof, because just as the latter hear nothing through distance, so the former hears nothing through disease.
§29.5.3.9Caecus quoque ueniam mereri debet.
The blind person also ought to deserve pardon.
§29.5.3.10Mutum simili modo excipimus, sed ibi, ubi uocis tantum auxilium superfuit.
The mute we except in a similar manner, but only in that case where the assistance of the voice alone remained possible.
§29.5.3.11Furiosos excipi nequaquam dubium est.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the insane are excepted.
§29.5.3.12Si quis quem eorum seruum seruamue ex ea familia, qui eius facinoris noxius erit, receperit uel celauerit sciens dolo malo, in ea causa est, ac si lege quae de sicariis lata est facinoris noxius fuerit.
If anyone knowingly and with malicious intent has received or concealed any of those male or female slaves from that household who is guilty of that crime, he is in the same legal position as if he were guilty of the crime under the law enacted concerning assassins.
§29.5.3.13Si ex stipulatu seruus debeatur et caedem domini arguerit et pro hoc praemio liber esse iussus sit, ex stipulatu actio stipulatori non datur: nam et si supplicio adfectus fuisset, non daretur.
If a slave is owed under a stipulation and he has prosecuted the murder of his master, and for this reward has been ordered to be free, the action on the stipulation is not granted to the stipulator; for even if he had been put to death, it would not have been granted.
quod si sub eodem tecto non fuit, ex stipulatu actio in aestimatione serui utilis erit creditori.
But if he was not under the same roof, the action on the stipulation will be available to the creditor for the value of the slave.
§29.5.3.14Utrum autem is solus uideatur indicasse uel arguisse, qui ad hoc prosilit ultro, an etiam is, qui, cum accusaretur ipse, detorsit in alium crimen? et magis est, ut ille hoc praemio dignus sit, qui ultro ad accusationem prosilit. H
Now, does he alone seem to have informed or prosecuted who leaps forward to do this voluntarily, or also he who, when he himself was accused, turned the charge onto another? And it is more reasonable that he who leaps forward to the accusation voluntarily is worthy of this reward.