De testibus
(Concerning Witnesses.)
1Arcadius, also called Charisius, On Witnesses. The employment of witnesses is frequent and necessary, and the testimony of those whose integrity is established should especially be taken. 1Witnesses can also be produced not only in criminal cases, but also in actions involving money, in accordance with the circumstances, and those can give evidence who are not forbidden to do so, or are excused from testifying by any law. 2Although a considerable number of witnesses is prescribed by certain laws, still, according to the Constitutions of the Emperors, this requirement is confined to a sufficient number of the same, in order that the judges may regulate it, and permit only that number of witnesses to be called which they deem necessary, lest a superfluous multitude may, through unrestricted power, be summoned for the purpose of annoying the parties to the suit.
2Modestinus, Rules, Book VIII. The rank, the integrity, the manners, and the gravity of witnesses must be taken into consideration, and therefore those who make contradictory statements, or who hesitate while giving their evidence, should not be heard.
3Callistratus, Concerning Judicial Inquiries, Book IV. The integrity of witnesses should be carefully investigated, and in consideration of their personal characteristics, attention should be, in the first place, paid to their rank; as to whether the witness is a Decurion or a plebeian; whether his life is honorable and without blame, or whether he has been branded with infamy and is liable to censure; whether he is rich or poor, lest he may readily swear falsely for the purpose of gain; whether he is an enemy to him against whom he testifies, or whether he is a friend to him in whose favor he gives his evidence. For if the witness is free from suspicion, either because his personal character is beyond reproach, for the reason that he is neither influenced by the expectation of gain, nor by any inducements of favor or enmity, he will be competent. 1Therefore, the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript addressed to Vivius Verus, the Governor of Cilicia, that he who hears a case has the best means of judging how much confidence should be reposed in witnesses. The following are the terms of the Rescript: “You are best qualified to ascertain how much faith should be placed in witnesses, who they are, what is their rank and reputation, whether they seem to speak sincerely, whether or not they have agreed upon and planned the same statements together, and whether they, without hesitation, return suitable answers to the questions put to them.” 2Another Rescript of the same Emperor, addressed to Valerius Verus, on the subject of ascertaining the confidence to be placed in witnesses, is extant, and is in the following words: “It cannot be laid down with precision what evidence will be sufficient for the proof of any matter, just as it is not always essential to establish the existence of any fact by means of public documents, although this is frequently done. Otherwise, the number of witnesses, as well as their rank and authority, and their general reputation, would tend to confirm the proof of the subject under investigation. “I can only say to you in general terms, that a judicial inquiry should not be confined merely to one kind of evidence, but that it is necessary for you to form your opinion as to what you believe to have been proved, or what you may think has not been satisfactorily established, through the exercise of your own judgment.” 3The Divine Hadrian also stated in a Rescript to Julius Rufinus, Proconsul of Macedonia, that he must pay more attention to the witnesses than to their evidence. The words of the Rescript on this point are as follows: “Alexander accused Aper of certain crimes before me, but he did not prove them, or produce any witnesses; but he desired to use evidence which I am unwilling to admit, for I am accustomed to examine witnesses, and I have sent him back to the Governor of the province that he may make inquiry with reference to the credibility of the witnesses, and unless he proves what he alleges, he shall be sent into exile.” 4The same Emperor stated the following in a Rescript to Gabinius Maximus: “The weight to be attached to the oral evidence of witnesses who are present is one thing, and that of written testimony which is to be read is another. Therefore deliberate carefully whether you desire to retain them, and if you do, allow them their costs.” 5It is proved by the Lex Julia relating to violence, that those shall not be permitted to give testimony against a defendant who has been freed by him or by his father; or who have not yet arrived at puberty; or anyone who has been condemned for a public crime, and has not been restored to his former condition, or who is in chains, or in prison, or has hired himself out to fight with wild beasts; or any woman who openly prostitutes herself, or has already done so; or anyone who has been sentenced or convicted of having received money for giving or withholding testimony. For, indeed, certain persons should not be allowed to testify on account of the reverence due to their position; others on account of the unreliability of their judgment; and still others because of the notorious infamy of their lives. 6Witnesses should not hastily be summoned from a long distance, and still less should soldiers be called away from their standards or their stations for the purpose of giving evidence; and this the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript. The Divine Brothers also stated in a Rescript that: “With reference to the summoning of witnesses, the judge should carefully ascertain what is the custom in the province over which he presides; for if it should be proved that witnesses are frequently summoned to another city for the purpose of testifying, there is no doubt that those can be summoned whom the judge may decide are necessary to be called in the case.”
4Paulus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book II. It is provided by the Lex Julia having reference to public prosecutions, that a man, if unwilling, cannot be compelled to give testimony in court against his father-in-law, his son-in-law, his step-father, his stepson, his cousin, whether male or female, his cousin’s child, or any of those who are related in a nearer degree. Nor can the freedman of anyone, or of his children, his parents, his or her wife or husband, be permitted to testify against him, if he is accused. The same rule applies to a patron, and a patroness, for neither of them can be compelled to give testimony against their freedman, nor a freedman against his patron.
5Gaius, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book IV. In the laws where the exception is made that neither a son-in-law nor a father-in-law, if unwilling, can be compelled to give testimony; it is held that the betrothed of the daughter is included in the term “son-in-law,” and also that the father of the betrothed woman is included in the term “father-in-law.”
6Licinius Rufinus, Rules, Book II. Those witnesses are not considered to be competent who can be commanded to testify.
7Modestinus, Rules, Book III. The evidence of a slave must be believed when there is no other way of ascertaining the truth.
9Paulus, On Sabinus, Book I. A father is not a competent witness for his son, nor a son for his father.
10Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book I. No one is held to be a competent witness in his own case.
11The Same, Decrees, Book XXXIII. A party who has not been summoned as a witness is allowed to testify for the purpose of proving a transaction.
12Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXVII. Where the number of witnesses is not specified by law, two are sufficient, for the term “several” is embraced in the number two.
13Papinianus, On Adultery, Book I. I know that the question has arisen whether those who have been convicted of calumny in public trials can testify in a public prosecution. They are not, however, forbidden to do so by the Lex Remmia; and the Lex Julia relating to violence, extortion, and peculation, does not prohibit such persons from giving evidence, nevertheless, what is omitted by the laws should not be omitted by the conscientious judge, whose duty it is to carefully weigh the credibility of the witness and determine whether he gives his testimony as a man of integrity should do.
14The Same, On Adultery. I am aware that it has also been discussed whether one who has been convicted of adultery can give evidence for the purpose of proving a will; and it is clear that he is justly forbidden from testifying in court. Therefore I think that a will which must be proved by a witness of this kind is not valid, either by the Civil Law, or by the Prætorian Law which follows it; so that neither an estate can be entered upon, nor the possession of the property of the deceased be granted on such testimony.
17Ulpianus, Rules. A father, and a son who is under his control, and also two brothers, subject to the authority of the same father, can be witnesses in the case of a will, or in the same transaction; since there is nothing to prevent several witnesses belonging to one household from testifying in a matter in which another party is interested.
18Paulus, On Adultery, Book II. Since the Lex Julia de Adulteriis prohibits a woman who has been convicted of adultery from testifying, it follows that even women have the right to give evidence in court.
19Ulpianus, On the Office of Proconsul, Book VIII. Farmers of the revenue cannot be compelled to testify; nor can anyone who has not absented himself to avoid giving testimony; nor anyone who may be employed in furnishing provisions to the army. 1Nor can wards be required to testify.
20Venuleius, On Public Prosecutions, Book II. An accuser should not call as a witness one who has been convicted of a crime, or who is under twenty years of age.
21Arcadius, also called Charisius, On Witnesses. A person who has been convicted of having written a libellous poem is incompetent to testify. 1It is also undeniable that, where the case demands it, not only private individuals, but even magistrates, if they are present, can be forced to testify. The Senate also decreed that a Prætor must also give his evidence in a case of adultery. 2Where the circumstances are such that we are compelled to accept a gladiator, or some person of this kind as a witness, his evidence is not to be believed, unless he is subjected to torture. 3When all the witnesses are of equal integrity and reputation, and the nature of the transaction, as well as the opinion of the court, coincides with their assertions, all their testimony should be accepted. Where, however, some of them make statements different from those made by the others, even the smaller number of them may be believed. Moreover, if the evidence corresponds with the nature of the transaction, and no suspicion of either hostility or favor exists, the judge must confirm the impressions of his mind by the arguments and testimony which are most applicable to the case, and which he ascertains to be nearest to the truth. For it is not necessary to take into consideration the number of the witnesses, but rather their sincerity, as well as such evidence as appears to be more illuminated with the light of truth.
22Venuleius, On the Office of Proconsul, Book II. The magistrates of every district should be careful to afford facilities to all who wish to make wills, and themselves be witnesses and sign wills with others, by means of which matters may be more easily explained, and the proof of facts be secure.
23The Same, On Public Prosecutions, Book I. A witness cannot be produced against a defendant who has already given evidence against him.
25Arcadius, also called Charisius, On Witnesses. It is provided by the Imperial Mandates that Governors shall see that patrons do not testify in cases which they are conducting; and this rule must also be observed in the case of those who are transacting the business of others.