[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo quinto ad edictum. ] §38.2.14.prQui, cum maior natu esset quam uiginti quinque annis, libertum capitis accusauerit aut in seruitutem petierit, remouetur a contra tabulas bonorum possessione.
[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo quinto ad edictum.] Anyone who, when he was older than twenty-five years, has accused a freedman of a capital crime or claimed him into slavery, is excluded from the possession of goods contrary to the will.
§38.2.14.1Si uero accusauerit minor, dicendum est hunc non excludi, siue ipse siue tutor eius uel curator accusauerit.
But if a minor has accused, it must be said that he is not excluded, whether he himself accused or his tutor or curator did.
§38.2.14.2Sed si minor quidem instituerit accusationem, maior autem factus sententiam acceperit, benigne erit dicendum ignosci ei debere, quia minor coepit, neque enim imputare ei possumus, cur non deseruit accusationem uel cur abolitionem non petierit, cum, alterum si fecisset, in Turpillianum incideret, alterum non facile impetretur.
But if indeed he initiated the accusation as a minor, but having become of full age received the judgment, it must be said leniently that he ought to be pardoned, because he began as a minor; for we cannot impute to him why he did not abandon the accusation or why he did not seek an abolition, since, if he had done the former, he would fall under the Senatusconsultum Turpilianum, and the latter is not easily obtained.
certe si abolitione publice data repetit iamiam maior, dicendum est hunc esse remouendum: maior enim factus potuit sine timore deserere abolitam accusationem.
Certainly, if after a public abolition has been granted, he, being now of full age, resumes the accusation, it must be said that he is to be excluded; for having become of full age, he could without fear abandon the abolished accusation.
§38.2.14.3Is demum uidetur capitis accusasse, qui tali iudicio appetit, cuius poena aut supplicium habuit aut exilium, quod sit uice deportationis, ubi ciuitas amittitur.
Only he is deemed to have accused of a capital crime who attacks by such a trial, the penalty of which involved either death or exile, which is in place of deportation, where citizenship is lost.
§38.2.14.4Si tamen quis libertum eo crimine accusauerit, cuius poena non est capitis, uerumtamen iudicanti placuit augere poenam, non obest hoc patroni filio: neque enim imperitia aut seueritas iudicantis obesse debet patroni filio, qui crimen leuius inportauit.
If, however, someone has accused a freedman of a crime the penalty of which is not capital, but it nevertheless pleased the judge to increase the penalty, this does not prejudice the son of the patron; for neither the inexperience nor the severity of the judge ought to prejudice the son of the patron, who brought a lighter charge.
§38.2.14.5Sed si non accusauerit, sed testimonium in caput liberti dixit aut subiecit accusatorem, puto eum a contra tabulas remoueri.
But if he did not accuse, but gave testimony against the life of the freedman or suborned an accuser, I think he is excluded from the possession contrary to the will.
§38.2.14.6Si libertus maiestatis patroni filium accusauit et patroni filius calumniae eum capitis puniri desiderauit, non debet repelli hoc edicto.
If a freedman has accused the son of his patron of treason, and the son of the patron has desired that he be punished with a capital penalty for false accusation, he ought not to be rejected by this edict.
idem puto et si ab eo petitus retorsit in eum crimina: ignoscendum enim est ei, si uoluit se ulcisci prouocatus.
I think the same if, being sued by him, he retorted the charges upon him; for he ought to be pardoned if, having been provoked, he wished to avenge himself.
§38.2.14.7Si patris mortem defendere necesse habuerit, an dicendum sit hic quoque ei succurrendum, si libertum paternum propter hoc accusauit, medicum forte patris aut cubicularium aut quem alium, qui circa patrem fuerat? et puto succurrendum, si affectione et periculo paternae substantiae ducente necesse habuit accusationem uel calumniosam instituere.
If he had a necessity to defend his father's death, should it be said that here too he is to be assisted, if he accused his father's freedman for this reason, perhaps his father's physician or chamberlain or someone else who had been around his father? And I think he is to be assisted, if, led by affection and the danger of his father's estate, he had a necessity to institute an accusation, even a groundless one.
§38.2.14.8Accusasse autem eum dicimus, qui crimina obiecit et causam perorari usque ad sententiam effecit: ceterum si ante quieuit, non accusauit: et hoc iure utimur.
But we say that he has accused who has brought charges and caused the case to be pleaded to the end, up to the judgment; for the rest, if he desisted before, he did not accuse; and we observe this rule of law.
sed si appellatione interposita desiit, benigne dicetur non pertulisse accusationem.
But if he desisted after an appeal had been interposed, it will be said leniently that he did not carry through the accusation.
si igitur pendente appellatione decessit libertus, patroni filius admittetur ad bonorum possessionem, quia sententiae libertus morte subtractus est.
If therefore the freedman died while the appeal was pending, the patron's son will be admitted to the possession of goods, because the freedman was removed from the judgment by death.
§38.2.14.9Si patroni filius aduocationem accusatori liberti praestitit, non est repellendus: neque enim aduocatus accusat.
If the patron's son has provided advocacy to the accuser of the freedman, he is not to be rejected; for an advocate does not accuse.
§38.2.14.10Si pater testamento cauerit, ut accusaretur libertus, quasi uenenum sibi parasset aut quid aliud in se admisisset: magis est, ut ignosci liberis deberet, qui non sponte accusauerunt.
If a father has provided in his will that his freedman should be accused, on the ground that he had prepared poison for him or committed some other crime against him, it is more reasonable that the children, who did not accuse of their own free will, ought to be pardoned.
§38.2.14.11Sed et si accusauerit libertum et probauerit crimen patroni filius posteaque hic libertus sit restitutus, non erit repellendus: crimen enim quod intendit etiam perfecit.
But also if the patron's son has accused the freedman and proved the crime, and afterwards this freedman has been restored, he is not to be rejected; for he also accomplished the crime which he intended to prove.