De testibus liber singularis
Dig. 22,5,1Arcadius qui et Charisius libro singulari de testibus. Testimoniorum usus frequens ac necessarius est et ab his praecipue exigendus, quorum fides non vacillat. 1Adhiberi quoque testes possunt non solum in criminalibus causis, sed etiam in pecuniariis litibus sicubi res postulat, ex his quibus non interdicitur testimonium nec ulla lege a dicendo testimonio excusantur. 2Quamquam quibusdam legibus amplissimus numerus testium definitus sit, tamen ex constitutionibus principum haec licentia ad sufficientem numerum testium coartatur, ut iudices moderentur et eum solum numerum testium, quem necessarium esse putaverint, evocari patiantur, ne effrenata potestate ad vexandos homines superflua multitudo testium protrahatur.
Arcadius, 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.
Dig. 22,5,21Arcadius qui et Charisius libro singulari de testibus. Ob carmen famosum damnatus intestabilis fit. 1Illud quoque incunctabile est, ut, si res exigat, non tantum privati, sed etiam magistratus, si in praesenti sint, testimonium dicant. item senatus censuit praetorem testimonium dare debere in iudicio adulterii causa. 2Si ea rei condicio sit, ubi harenarium testem vel similem personam admittere cogimur, sine tormentis testimonio eius credendum non est. 3Si testes omnes eiusdem honestatis et existimationis sint et negotii qualitas ac iudicis motus cum his concurrit, sequenda sunt omnia testimonia: si vero ex his quidam eorum aliud dixerint, licet impari numero, credendum est id quod naturae negotii convenit et quod inimicitiae aut gratiae suspicione caret, confirmabitque iudex motum animi sui ex argumentis et testimoniis et quae rei aptiora et vero proximiora esse compererit: non enim ad multitudinem respici oportet, sed ad sinceram testimoniorum fidem et testimonia, quibus potius lux veritatis adsistit.
Arcadius, 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.
Dig. 22,5,25Arcadius qui et Charisius libro singulari de testibus. Mandatis cavetur, ut praesides attendant, ne patroni in causa cui patrocinium praestiterunt testimonium dicant. quod et in exsecutoribus negotiorum observandum est.
Arcadius, 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.
Dig. 48,18,10Arcadius Charisius libro singulari de testibus. De minore quattuordecim annis quaestio habenda non est, ut et divus Pius Caecilio Iuventiano rescripsit. 1Sed omnes omnino in maiestatis crimine, quod ad personas principum attinet, si ad testimonium provocentur, cum res exigit, torquentur. 2Potest quaeri, an de servis filii castrensis peculii in caput patris quaestio haberi non possit: nam patris non debere torqueri in filium constitutum est. et puto recte dici nec filii servos in caput patris esse interrogandos. 3Tormenta autem adhibenda sunt, non quanta accusator postulat, sed ut moderatae rationis temperamenta desiderant. 4Nec debet initium probationum de domo rei accusator sumere, dum aut libertos eius quem accusat aut servos in testimonium vocat. 5Plurimum quoque in excutienda veritate etiam vox ipsa et cognitionis suptilis diligentia adfert: nam et ex sermone et ex eo, qua quis constantia, qua trepidatione quid diceret, vel cuius existimationis quisque in civitate sua est, quaedam ad inluminandam veritatem in lucem emergunt. 6In causis quoque liberalibus non oportet per eorum tormenta, de quorum statu quaeritur, veritatem requiri.
Arcadius, Charisius, On Witnesses. Torture should not be inflicted upon a minor under fourteen years of age, as the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Cæcilius Jubentinus. 1All persons, however, without exception, shall be tortured in a case of high treason which has reference to princes, if their testimony is necessary, and circumstances demand it. 2It may be asked whether torture cannot be inflicted upon slaves belonging to the castrense peculium of a son in order to obtain evidence against his father. For it has been established that a father’s slave should not be tortured to obtain evidence against his son. I think that it may be properly held that the slaves of a son should not be tortured to obtain evidence against his father. 3Torture should not be applied to the extent that the accuser demands, but as reason and moderation may dictate. 4The accuser should not begin proceedings with evidence derived from the house of the defendant, when he calls as witnesses the freedmen or the slaves of the person whom he accuses. 5Frequently, also, in searching for the truth, even the tone of the voice itself, and the diligence of a keen examination afford assistance. For matters available for the discovery of truth emerge into the light from the language of the witness, and the composure or trepidation he displays, as well as from the reputation which each one enjoys in his own community. 6In questions where freedom is involved, it is not necessary to seek for the truth by the torture of those whose status is in dispute.