[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo primo ad edictum. ] §43.29.3.prquod et lex Fabia prospexit.
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, book seventy-one.] This is also what the Lex Fabia provided for.
neque hoc interdictum aufert legis Fabiae exsecutionem: nam et hoc interdicto agi poterit et nihilo minus accusatio legis Fabiae institui: et uersa uice qui egit Fabia, poterit nihilo minus etiam hoc interdictum habere, praesertim cum alius interdictum, alius Fabiae actionem habere possit.
Nor does this interdict take away the execution of the Lex Fabia: for it will be possible both to act under this interdict and, nevertheless, to institute a prosecution under the Lex Fabia: and conversely, he who has acted under the Lex Fabia will nevertheless be able to have this interdict as well, especially since one person can have the interdict, and another the action of the Lex Fabia.
§43.29.3.1Haec uerba 'quem liberum' ad omnem liberum pertinent, siue pubes sit siue impubes, siue masculus siue femina, siue unus siue plures, siue sui iuris sit siue alieni: hoc enim tantum spectamus, an liber sit.
These words 'whom [you hold as] a free person' pertain to every free person, whether they are of age or under age, male or female, one or many, independent (sui iuris) or dependent (alieni iuris): for we look only to this, whether he is free.
§43.29.3.2Is tamen, qui in potestate habet, hoc interdicto non tenebitur, quia dolo malo non uidetur habere qui suo iure utitur.
However, he who has someone in his power will not be held by this interdict, because he who exercises his own right is not deemed to hold with malicious intent.
§43.29.3.3Si quis eum, quem ab hostibus redemit, retineat, in ea causa est, ut interdicto non teneatur: non enim dolo malo facit.
If anyone detains a person whom he has ransomed from enemies, he is in such a position that he is not held by the interdict: for he does not act with malicious intent.
plane si offertur pretium, interdictum locum habet.
Clearly, if the price is offered, the interdict takes place.
sed et si eum remisit pretio non accepto, dicendum est interdicto locum fore, si, posteaquam semel remisit, uelit retinere.
But even if he released him without receiving the price, it must be said that there will be room for the interdict, if, after he has once released him, he wishes to detain him again.
§43.29.3.4Si eum quis retineat filium, quem non habet in potestate, plerumque sine dolo malo facere uidebitur: pietas enim genuina efficit sine dolo malo retineri, nisi si euidens dolus malus intercedat.
If anyone detains a son whom he does not have in his power, he will generally be seen to act without malicious intent: for genuine affection (pietas) causes him to be detained without malicious intent, unless evident malicious intent should intervene.
proinde et si libertum suum uel alumnum uel noxae deditum adhuc impuberem, idem erit dicendum.
Accordingly, the same must be said also if he detains his own freedman, or his foster-child, or one surrendered for damage (noxae deditus) who is still under age.
et generaliter qui iustam causam habet hominis liberi apud se retinendi, non uidetur dolo malo facere.
And generally, he who has a just cause for detaining a free person with him is not deemed to act with malicious intent.
§43.29.3.5Si quis uolentem retineat, non uidetur dolo malo retinere.
If anyone detains a person who is willing, he is not deemed to detain with malicious intent.
sed quid si uolentem quidem retineat, non tamen sine calliditate circumuentum uel seductum uel sollicitatum, neque bona uel probabili ratione hoc facit? recte dicetur dolo malo retinere.
But what if he detains one who is indeed willing, but who has been circumvented, led away, or enticed not without craftiness, and he does this without a good or probable reason? It will be rightly said that he detains with malicious intent.
§43.29.3.6Is, qui nescit apud se esse hominem liberum, dolo malo caret: sed ubi certioratus retinet, dolo malo non caret.
He who does not know that a free person is at his place is free from malicious intent; but when, having been informed, he detains him, he is not free from malicious intent.
§43.29.3.7Plane si dubitat, utrum liber an seruus sit, uel facit status controuersiam, recedendum erit ab hoc interdicto et agenda causa libertatis.
Clearly, if he doubts whether the person is free or a slave, or if someone raises a dispute over status, this interdict must be departed from and the case of freedom must be pleaded.
etenim recte placuit tunc demum hoc interdictum locum habere, quotiens quis pro certo liber est: ceterum si quaeratur de statu, non oportet praeiudicium fieri alienae cognitioni.
For indeed, it has been rightly approved that this interdict has place only when a person is certain to be free; otherwise, if there is a question concerning status, it is not proper that prejudice be created for another trial.
§43.29.3.8Ait praetor 'exhibeas'.
The praetor says 'produce'.
exhibere est in publicum producere et uidendi tangendique hominis facultatem praebere: proprie autem exhibere est extra secretum habere.
To produce is to bring out into public and to afford the opportunity of seeing and touching the person; but strictly speaking, to produce is to have the person outside of secrecy.
§43.29.3.9Hoc interdictum omnibus competit: nemo enim prohibendus est libertati fauere.
This interdict is open to all: for no one should be prohibited from favoring freedom.
§43.29.3.10Plane ex causa suspectae personae remouendae sunt, si forte talis persona sit, quam uerisimile est colludere uel calumniari.
Clearly, for reasons of suspicion, persons must be excluded if by chance they are of such a character that it is likely they will collude or act vexatiously.
§43.29.3.11Sed et si mulier uel pupillus hoc interdictum desiderent pro cognato uel parente uel adfine suo solliciti, dandum esse eis interdictum dicendum est: nam et publico iudicio reos facere possunt, dum suas suorumque iniurias exsequuntur.
But even if a woman or a ward, anxious for their kinsman, parent, or relative by marriage, should desire this interdict, it must be said that the interdict is to be given to them: for they can also accuse defendants in a public trial while they pursue wrongs done to themselves and their family.
§43.29.3.12Si tamen plures sunt, qui experiri uolent, eligendus est a praetore, ad quem maxime res pertinet uel is qui idoneior est: et est optimum ex coniunctione, ex fide, ex dignitate actorem hoc interdicto eligendum.
If, however, there are several who wish to sue, the praetor must choose the one to whom the matter most pertains or who is more suitable: and it is best that the plaintiff for this interdict be chosen on the basis of connection, good faith, and social standing.
§43.29.3.13Si tamen, posteaquam hoc interdicto actum est, alius hoc interdicto agere desideret, palam erit postea alii non facile dandum, nisi si de perfidia prioris potuerit aliquid dici.
If, however, after action has been taken under this interdict, another should desire to sue under this interdict, it will be obvious that subsequently it should not easily be given to another, unless something can be said about the treachery of the prior plaintiff.
itaque causa cognita amplius quam semel interdictum hoc erit mouendum.
Therefore, after an inquiry into the case, this interdict will be brought more than once.
nam nec in publicis iudiciis permittitur amplius agi quam semel actum est quam si praeuaricationis fuerit damnatus prior accusator.
For even in public trials, it is not permitted to sue more than once after action has been taken, unless the prior accuser has been convicted of collusion.
si tamen reus condemnatus malit litis aestimationem sufferre quam hominem exhibere, non est iniquum saepius in eum interdicto experiri uel eidem sine exceptione uel alii.
If, however, the defendant, having been condemned, prefers to pay the assessment of the suit rather than produce the person, it is not unjust to try the interdict against him more often, either by the same person without exception or by another.
§43.29.3.14Hoc interdictum et in absentem esse rogandum Labeo scribit, sed si non defendatur, in bona eius eundum ait.
Labeo writes that this interdict is to be demanded even against an absent person, but if he is not defended, action must be taken against his property.
§43.29.3.15Hoc interdictum perpetuum est.
This interdict is perpetual.