[IDEM libro singulari ad senatus consultum Libonianum. ] §48.10.22.prImpuberem in hoc edictum incidere dicendum non est, quoniam falsi crimine uix possit teneri, cum dolus malus in eam aetatem non cadit.
[BY THE SAME, in his single book on the Senatus Consultum Libonianum.] It should not be said that an impuberes falls under this edict, since he can scarcely be held liable for the crime of forgery, given that unlawful intent (dolus malus) does not apply to that age.
§48.10.22.1Si ei filio, qui apud hostes est, adscripserit pater legatum, dicendum est reuerso eo incidere in poenam senatus consulti: quod si ibi decesserit, innocens pater existimatur.
If a father should write in a legacy for his son who is with the enemy, it must be said that, upon the son's return, the father falls under the penalty of the senatus consultum; but if the son dies there, the father is deemed innocent.
§48.10.22.2Sed et si emancipato filio adscribit, recte id faciet: item in adoptionem dato.
But also, if he writes it in for an emancipated son, he will do so lawfully; likewise for a son given in adoption.
§48.10.22.3Item si seruo, cui moram fecit in fideicommissaria libertate praestanda, adscripserit, dicendum est extra sententiam senatus consulti eum esse, quoniam placet omne, quod per huiusmodi seruum adquisitum est, restitui oportere manumisso.
Likewise, if he writes it in for a slave to whom he has caused delay in granting trust-bequeathed freedom, it must be said that he is outside the meaning of the senatus consultum, because it is accepted that everything acquired through a slave of this kind must be restored to the manumitted person.
§48.10.22.4Et si ei seruo, qui bona fide seruit, aliquid adscribsit, quod ad cogitationem animi nocens est, quia ei adscribit, quem suum putat: sed quoniam neque legatum neque hereditas bonae fidei possessori adquiritur, dicamus eum poenae eximendum esse.
And if he wrote in something for a slave who serves in good faith, which as to his mental intent is culpable, because he writes it in for one whom he thinks is his own; yet, since neither a legacy nor an inheritance is acquired by a possessor in good faith, let us say that he should be exempted from the penalty.
§48.10.22.5Si dominus adscripserit seruo legatum, cum liber erit, dicimus senatus consulto dominum excusatum esse, qui compendio suo nullo modo prospexerit.
If a master writes in a legacy for a slave for when he shall be free, we say that the master is excused under the senatus consultum, since he in no way looked to his own advantage.
eadem et de filio postea emancipato dici potest.
The same can also be said of a son subsequently emancipated.
§48.10.22.6Qui codicillos ante testamentum factos, in quibus legatum ei adscriptum erat, confirmat, in senatus consultum incidit: quod et Iulianus scribit.
Anyone who confirms codicils made before a will, in which a legacy had been written in for himself, falls under the senatus consultum; and this Julian also writes.
§48.10.22.7Adimendo quoque aliquid incidere in poenam debet, quasi sibi aliquid dederit: ueluti si seruo legato sibi eodemque manumisso libertatem sua manu ademerit (hoc ita, si uoluntate testatoris ademerit: nam si ignorante eo, libertas ualet): item si, rogatus restituere legatum sibi adscriptum, fideicommissum ademerit.
Also by revoking something, one ought to fall under the penalty, as if one had given something to oneself: for example, if one deprives a slave bequeathed to oneself and manumitted of his freedom by one's own hand (this is so if one deprives him with the consent of the testator; for if the testator is ignorant of it, the freedom is valid); likewise, if, having been asked to restore a legacy written in for oneself, one revokes the trust-bequest.
§48.10.22.8Qui liberti adsignationem sua manu adscripsit, non uerbis, sed sententia senatus consulti tenetur.
Anyone who has written in the assignment of a freedman with his own hand is bound not by the words, but by the meaning of the senatus consultum.
§48.10.22.9Item non continetur uerbis seruus, qui alieno testamento fideicommissam libertatem sibi adscripsit.
Likewise, a slave who has written in for himself a trust-bequeathed freedom in someone else's will is not contained in the words.
sed de hoc potest haesitari, quoniam, ut supra diximus, senatus ita demum ei, qui sibi libertatem fideicommissam in testamento domini adscripsit, poenam remisit, si dominus subscripsit.
But there can be hesitation about this, since, as we have said above, the senate remitted the penalty for one who wrote in for himself a trust-bequeathed freedom in his master's will only if the master subscribed to it.
immo magis dicendum est hunc contra senatus consultum facere, quam eum qui legatum sibi adscribit, cum libertas omnimodo ipsi competitura sit, legatum autem domino adquiri possit.
Rather, it must be said that this man acts against the senatus consultum more than he who writes in a legacy for himself, since freedom will accrue to him in any case, whereas a legacy can be acquired by his master.
§48.10.22.10Si testamentarius seruo suo fideicommissam libertatem dederit, uideamus, ne extra poenam sit, quoniam nullum ipsius commodum est: nisi ideo adscripserit, ut seruus magno pretio redimatur ab eo et manumittatur.
If a writer of a will has given trust-bequeathed freedom to his own slave, let us consider whether he is outside the penalty, since there is no advantage to himself; unless he wrote it in for the reason that the slave might be redeemed from him at a high price and manumitted.
§48.10.22.11Sed et ille, qui, cum Titio fundus legaretur, adiecit sua manu condicionem pecuniae sibi dandae, in uoluntatem senatus consulti incidit.
But also, he who, when a tract of land was being bequeathed to Titius, added with his own hand a condition of money to be given to himself, falls under the spirit of the senatus consultum.
§48.10.22.12Qui autem uoluntate patris se exheredat uel legatum sibi adimit, neque uerbis senatus consulti neque sententia continetur.
However, he who disinherits himself or deprives himself of a legacy in accordance with his father's will is contained neither in the words nor in the meaning of the senatus consultum.