[PAULUS libro nono ad Sabinum. ] §47.2.32.prQuidam tabularum dumtaxat aestimationem faciendam in furti actione existimant, quia, si iudici, apud quem furti agatur, possit probari, quantum debitum fuerit, possit etiam apud eum iudicem eadem probare, apud quem pecuniam petat: si uero in furti iudicio probare non potest, ne illud quidem posse ostendi, quanti eius intersit.
[PAULUS in the ninth book on Sabinus.] Some think that in the action for theft only the valuation of the tablets is to be made, because, if it can be proved to the judge before whom the action for theft is brought how much was owed, he can also prove the same before that judge from whom he claims the money; but if indeed he cannot prove it in the trial for theft, not even this can be shown, namely, how much it is of interest to him.
sed potest post furtum factum tabulas nanctus esse actor, ut ex eo probet, quanti sua interfuerit, si tabulas nanctus non esset.
But the plaintiff may, after the theft has been committed, have obtained the tablets, so that he may prove from this how much it would have been of interest to him if he had not obtained them.
§47.2.32.1De lege Aquilia maior quaestio est, quemadmodum possit probari, quanti eius intersit: nam si potest alias probare, non patitur damnum.
Under the Aquilian law, there is a greater question as to how it can be proved how much it is of interest to him; for if he can prove it by other means, he suffers no damage.
quid ergo, si forte pecuniam sub condicione credidit et interim testium ei copia est, testimonio quorum probationem habeat, qui possunt mori pendente condicione? aut puta me petisse creditum et, quia testes et signatores, qui rem meminissent, praesentes non haberem, uictum rem amississe: nunc uero, cum furti agam, eorum memoria et praesentia ad fidem creditae pecuniae uti possum.
What then if, for example, he lent money under a condition, and in the meantime has an abundance of witnesses by whose testimony he has proof, who may die while the condition is pending? Or suppose that I sued for a loan, and because I did not have present the witnesses and signers who remembered the transaction, I was defeated and lost the case: but now indeed, when I sue for theft, I can use their memory and presence to establish the credit of the money lent.