[IDEM libro octauo disputationum. ] §48.5.2.prEx lege Iulia seruatur, ut, cui necesse est ab adultero incipere, quia mulier ante denuntiationem nupsit, non alias ad mulierem possit peruenire, nisi reum peregerit.
[The same, in the eighth book of Disputations.] According to the Julian law, it is observed that anyone who is obliged to begin with the adulterer, because the woman married before the denunciation, cannot proceed against the woman unless he has prosecuted the accused to the end.
peregisse autem non alias quis uidetur, nisi et condemnauerit.
Moreover, a person is not deemed to have prosecuted to the end unless he has also obtained a conviction.
§48.5.2.1Marito iure mariti accusanti illa praescriptio obicitur, si legem prodidisse dicatur ob hoc, quod adgressus accusationem adulterii destitit.
Against a husband prosecuting by virtue of his right as a husband, that objection is raised if he is said to have betrayed the law because, having undertaken the accusation of adultery, he abandoned it.
§48.5.2.2Lenocinii quidem crimen lege Iulia de adulteris praescriptum est, cum sit in eum maritum poena statuta, qui de adulterio uxoris suae quid ceperit, item in eum, qui in adulterio deprehensam retinuerit.
Indeed, the crime of pandering is defined by the Julian law on adulteries, since a penalty is established against that husband who has received anything on account of his wife's adultery, and likewise against him who has retained a wife caught in adultery.
§48.5.2.3Ceterum qui patitur uxorem suam delinquere matrimoniumque suum contemnit quique contaminationi non indignatur, poena adulterum non infligitur.
However, upon him who allows his wife to transgress, despises his marriage, and is not indignant at the defilement, the penalty of adulterers is not inflicted.
§48.5.2.4Qui hoc dicit lenocinio mariti se fecisse, releuare quidem uult crimen suum, sed non est huiusmodi compensatio admissa.
He who says that he did this because of the husband's pandering wishes indeed to mitigate his own crime, but compensation of this kind is not admitted.
ideo si maritum uelit reus adulterii lenocinii reum facere, semel delatus non audietur.
Therefore, if the person accused of adultery wishes to accuse the husband of pandering, having once been himself indicted, he will not be heard.
§48.5.2.5Si publico iudicio maritus uxorem ream faciat, an lenocinii allegatio repellat maritum ab accusatione? et putem non repellere: lenocinium igitur mariti ipsum onerat, non mulierem excusat.
If a husband should accuse his wife in a public trial, does the allegation of pandering bar the husband from the prosecution? I should think it does not bar him; therefore, the husband's pandering burdens himself, but does not excuse the woman.
§48.5.2.6Unde quaeri potest, an is, qui de adulterio cognoscit, statuere in maritum ob lenocinium possit? et puto posse.
Hence it can be asked whether he who tries a case of adultery can pronounce sentence against the husband on account of pandering? And I think he can.
nam Claudius Gorgus uir clarissimus uxorem accusans cum detectus est uxorem in adulterio deprehensam retinuisse, et sine accusatore lenocinio damnatus est a diuo Seuero.
For Claudius Gorgus, a man of illustrious rank, while accusing his wife, when it was discovered that he had retained his wife caught in adultery, was condemned for pandering by the divine Severus, even without an accuser.
§48.5.2.7Extraneus autem nequaquam lenocinium obiciens, posteaquam reus factus est, se releuabit, nec maritum poenae subiciet.
An outsider, however, by raising an objection of pandering after he has been made an accused, will by no means relieve himself, nor will he subject the husband to punishment.
§48.5.2.8Si simul ad accusationem ueniant maritus et pater mulieris, quem praeferri oporteat, quaeritur.
If the husband and the father of the woman come to accuse at the same time, it is asked which of them ought to be preferred.
et magis est, ut maritus praeferatur: nam et propensiore ira et maiore dolore executurum eum accusationem credendum est, in tantum, ut et si pater praeuenerit et libellos inscriptionum deposuerit, marito non neglegente nec retardante, sed accusationem parante et probationibus instituente atque muniente, ut facilius iudicantibus de adulterio probetur, idem erit dicendum.
And it is more accepted that the husband should be preferred; for it is to be believed that he will prosecute the accusation with a readier anger and a greater pain, to such an extent that even if the father has anticipated him and filed the bills of accusation, provided the husband is not negligent or dilatory, but is preparing the accusation and organizing and securing the proofs so that the adultery may be more easily proved to the judges, the same must be said.
§48.5.2.9Sed et quotiens alii, qui post maritum et patrem accusare possunt, ad accusandum prosiliunt, lege expressum est, ut is, cuius de ea re notio est, de iusto accusatore constituat.
But also, as often as others who can accuse after the husband and the father leap forward to accuse, it is expressly provided by the law that he who has jurisdiction over the matter shall decide on the proper accuser.