[IDEM libro undecimo ad edictum. ] §4.4.20.prPapinianus libro secundo responsorum ait exuli reuerso non debere prorogari tempus in integrum restitutionis statutum, quia afuit, cum potuerit adire praetorem per procuratorem, nec dixit, uel praesidem ubi erat.
[THE SAME in the eleventh book on the Edict.] Papinianus, in the second book of his Opinions, says that the time prescribed for restitution in integrum ought not to be extended for a returned exile on the ground that he was absent, because he could have applied to the praetor through a procurator; and he did not add, "or to the governor of the province where he was." But when the same author says that he is also unworthy of it on account of the punishment imposed upon him, he is not correct; for what has an offense in common with the indulgence granted to age?
sed quod idem dicit et indignum esse propter irrogatam poenam, non recte: quid enim commune habet delictum cum uenia aetatis? Si quis tamen maior uiginti quinque annis intra tempus restitutionis statutum contestatus postea destiterit, nihil ei proficit ad in integrum restitutionem contestatio, ut est saepissime rescriptum.
However, if anyone over twenty-five years of age, having contested his case within the prescribed time for restitution, should afterwards abandon it, the contesting of the suit is of no benefit to him for restitution in integrum, as has very frequently been stated in rescripts.