[IDEM libro quinto ad edictum. ] §42.4.2.prPraetor ait: 'in bona eius, qui iudicio sistendi causa fideiussorem dedit, si neque potestatem sui faciet neque defenderetur, iri iubebo'. §42.4.2.1Potestatem autem sui non facit, qui id agit, ne aduersarius eius copiam sui habeat: ergo latitantis bona iubet possideri.
[THE SAME, in the fifth book on the Edict.] The praetor says: 'I will order possession to be taken of the property of him who gave a surety for the purpose of appearing in court, if he neither makes himself available nor is defended.' Now, he does not make himself available who acts to the end that his adversary does not have access to him; therefore, the praetor orders the property of one who is hiding to be possessed.
§42.4.2.2Quid si non latitet, sed absens non defendatur? nonne uidetur potestatem sui non facere?
What if he is not hiding, but being absent, is not defended? Is he not deemed to fail to make himself available?
§42.4.2.3Defendi autem uidetur, qui per absentiam suam in nullo deteriorem causam aduersarii faciat.
But he is deemed to be defended who, by his absence, makes his adversary's position in no way worse.
§42.4.2.4Haec uerba 'defenderetur' παρατατικῶς scripta sunt, ut neque sufficiat umquam defendisse, si non duret defensio, neque obsit, si nunc offeratur.
These words 'defenderetur' are written continuously (παρατατικῶς), so that it is neither sufficient to have defended at some time if the defense does not last, nor is it prejudicial if a defense is offered now.