[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo primo ad Sabinum. ] §9.2.41.prSi quis testamentum deleuerit, an damni iniuriae actio competat, uideamus.
[ULPIANUS, in the forty-first book on Sabinus.] Let us see whether, if anyone destroys a testament, an action for wrongful damage lies.
et Marcellus libro quinto digestorum dubitans negat competere: quemadmodum enim, inquit, aestimatio inibitur? ego apud eum notaui in testatore quidem hoc esse uerum, quia quod interest eius aestimari non potest, uerum tamen in herede uel legatariis diuersum, quibus testamenta paene chirographa sunt.
And Marcellus, in the fifth book of his Digests, hesitantly denies that it lies; for, he says, how will the valuation be made? I noted on his text that, in the case of the testator, this is indeed true, because his interest cannot be estimated; however, the case is different for the heir or the legatees, for whom testaments are almost like written acknowledgments of debt.
ibidem Marcellus scribit chirographo deleto competere legis Aquiliae actionem.
In the same place, Marcellus writes that if a written acknowledgment of debt is destroyed, the action under the Lex Aquilia lies.
sed et si quis tabulas testamenti apud se depositas deleuerit uel pluribus praesentibus legerit, utilius est in factum et iniuriarum agi, si iniuriae faciendae causa secreta iudiciorum publicauit.
But also, if anyone destroys testamentary tablets deposited with him, or reads them in the presence of several people, it is more useful to bring an action on the facts and an action for injury, if he made public the secrets of the dispositions for the purpose of causing injury.
§9.2.41.1Interdum euenire Pomponius eleganter ait, ut quis tabulas delendo furti non teneatur, sed tantum damni iniuriae, ut puta si non animo furti faciendi, sed tantum damni dandi deleuit: nam furti non tenebitur: cum facto enim etiam animum furis furtum exigit.
Pomponius elegantly says that it sometimes happens that a person, by destroying tablets, is not held liable for theft, but only for wrongful damage; as, for example, if he destroyed them not with the intention of committing theft, but only of causing damage. For he will not be liable for theft; because theft requires, along with the act, also the intention of a thief.