[NERATIUS libro tertio membranarum. ] §40.7.17.prSi decem heredi dedisset, iussus est liber esse: decem habet et tantundem domino debet: dando haec decem non liberabitur.
[NERATIUS, from the third book of parchments.] If he had been ordered to be free on condition of giving ten to the heir: he has ten and owes as much to his master: by giving these ten, he will not be freed.
nam quod statulibero ex peculio suo dare explendae condicionis causa concessum est, ita interpretari debemus, ut non etiam ex eo dare possit, quod extra peculium est.
For the fact that a statuliber is allowed to give from his peculium for the sake of fulfilling the condition must be interpreted in such a way that he cannot also give from that which is outside his peculium.
nec me praeterit hos nummos peculiares posse dici, quamuis, si nihil praeterea seruus habeat, peculium nullum sit.
Nor does it escape me that these coins can be called part of the peculium, even though, if the slave has nothing else besides, there is no peculium.
sed dubitari non oportet, quin haec mens fuerit id constituentium, ut quasi ex patrimonio suo dandi eo nomine seruo potestas esset, quia id maxime sine iniuria dominorum concedi uidebatur.
But there ought to be no doubt that this was the intention of those who established this rule, that the slave should have the power of giving under that name as if from his own patrimony, because this seemed especially to be granted without injury to the masters.
quod si ultra quis progredietur, non multum aberit, quin etiam eos nummos, quos domino subripuerit, dando statuliberum condicioni satisfacturum existimet.
But if anyone goes further than this, it will not be far from thinking that a statuliber would satisfy the condition by giving even those coins which he has stolen from his master.