[IDEM libro septimo de officio proconsulis. ] §48.2.7.prSi cui crimen obiciatur, praecedere debet crimen subscriptio.
[THE SAME, on the Office of Proconsul, Book 7] If a charge is brought against anyone, a signature must precede the charge.
quae res ad id inuenta est, ne facile quis prosiliat ad accusationem, cum sciat inultam sibi accusationem non futuram.
This rule was introduced to prevent anyone from readily rushing into an accusation, when he knows that the accusation will not go unpunished for him.
§48.2.7.1Cauent itaque singuli, quod crimen obiciant, et praeterea perseueraturos se in crimine usque ad sententiam.
Therefore, individuals guarantee what charge they are bringing, and furthermore that they will persevere in the charge until the judgment.
§48.2.7.2Isdem criminibus, quibus quis liberatus est, non debet praeses pati eundem accusari, et ita diuus Pius Saluio Ualenti rescripsit: sed hoc, utrum ab eodem an nec ab alio accusari possit, uidendum est.
The governor ought not to allow the same person to be accused of the same charges of which he has been acquitted, and the divine Pius wrote back to Salvius Valens to this effect; but it must be considered whether this means he can be accused by the same person, or not even by another.
et putem, quoniam res inter alios iudicatae alii non praeiudicant, si is, qui nunc accusator exstitit, suum dolorem persequatur doceatque ignorasse se accusationem ab alio institutam, magna ex causa admitti eum ad accusationem debere.
And I should think that, since judgments between certain parties do not prejudice others, if he who has now stood forth as accuser is pursuing his own grievance and proves that he was ignorant of the accusation initiated by another, he ought to be admitted to the accusation for a major cause.
§48.2.7.3Si tamen alio crimine postuletur ab eodem, qui in alio crimine eum calumniatus est, puto non facile admittendum eum qui semel calumniatus sit: quamuis filium accusatoris admitti oportere aliam accusationem instituentem aduersus eum, quem pater accusauerat diuus Pius Iulio Candido rescripsit.
If, however, he is prosecuted for another charge by the same person who brought a false accusation against him on a different charge, I think that he who has once brought a false accusation should not readily be admitted; although the divine Pius wrote back to Julius Candidus that the son of an accuser, initiating another accusation against the person whom his father had accused, ought to be admitted.
§48.2.7.4Idem imperator rescripsit seruos ibi puniendos, ubi deliquisse arguantur, dominumque eorum, si uelit eos defendere, non posse reuocare in prouinciam suam, sed ibi oportere defendere, ubi deliquerint.
The same emperor wrote back that slaves should be punished where they are proved to have committed the offense, and that their master, if he wishes to defend them, cannot recall them to his own province, but must defend them where they committed the offense.
§48.2.7.5Cum sacrilegium admissum esset in aliqua prouincia, deinde in alia minus crimen, diuus Pius Pontio Proculo rescripsit, postquam cognouerit de crimine in sua prouincia admisso, ut reum in eam prouinciam remitteret, ubi sacrilegium admisit.
When sacrilege had been committed in one province, and afterwards a minor crime in another, the divine Pius wrote back to Pontius Proculus that, after he had taken cognizance of the crime committed in his own province, he should remit the accused to the province where he committed the sacrilege.