De publicis iudiciis libri
Ex libro I
Dig. 47,12,8Macer libro primo publicorum. Sepulchri violati crimen potest dici ad legem Iuliam de vi publica pertinere ex illa parte, qua de eo cavetur, qui fecerit quid, quo minus aliquis funeretur sepeliaturve: quia et qui sepulchrum violat, facit, quo quis minus sepultus sit.
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. The crime of violating a sepulchre may be considered as coming within the terms of the Julian Law relating to public violence, and that part in which it is provided that he shall be punished who prevents anyone from celebrating funeral ceremonies, or burying a corpse; because he who violates a sepulchre commits an act preventing interment.
Dig. 47,13,2Macer libro primo publicorum iudiciorum. Concussionis iudicium publicum non est: sed si ideo pecuniam quis accepit, quod crimen minatus sit, potest iudicium publicum esse ex senatus consultis, quibus poena legis Corneliae teneri iubentur, qui in accusationem innocentium coierint quive ob accusandum vel non accusandum, denuntiandum vel non denuntiandum testimonium pecuniam acceperit.
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. The prosecution of extortion is not public, but if anyone has received money because he threatened another with a criminal accusation, the prosecution may become public under the Decrees of the Senate, by which all those are ordered to be liable to the penalty of the Cornelian Law who have joined in the denunciation of innocent persons, and have received money in consideration of accusing, or not accusing others, or of giving, or not giving testimony against them.
Dig. 47,14,2Macer libro primo publicorum iudiciorum. Abigeatus crimen publici iudicii non est, quia furtum magis est. sed quia plerumque abigei et ferro utuntur, si deprehendentur, ideo graviter et puniri eorum admissum solet.
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. The crime of driving away cattle is not subject to public prosecution, because it is rather to be classed as a theft; but since most offenders of this description go armed, if they are arrested, they are usually more severely punished on this account.
Dig. 47,15,3Macer libro primo publicorum iudiciorum. Praevaricationis iudicium aliud publicum, aliud moribus inductum est. 1Nam si reus accusatori publico iudicio ideo praescribat, quod dicat se eodem crimine ab alio accusatum et absolutum, cavetur lege Iulia publicorum, ut non prius accusetur, quam de prioris accusatoris praevaricatione constiterit et pronuntiatum fuerit. huius ergo praevaricationis pronuntiatio publici iudicii intellegitur. 2Quod si advocato praevaricationis crimen intendatur, publicum iudicium non est: nec interest, publico an privato iudicio praevaricatus dicatur. 3Si ideo quis accusetur, quod dicatur crimen iudicii publici destituisse, iudicium publicum non est, quia neque lege aliqua de hac re cautum est, neque per senatus consultum, quo poena quinque auri librarum in desistentem statuitur, publica accusatio inducta est.
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. The judgment for prevarication is either public or introduced by custom. 1If the defendant opposes the prosecutor in a criminal case, alleging that he already has been accused of the same crime by another and acquitted, it is provided by the Julian Law relating to public prosecutions that he cannot be prosecuted until the crime charged by the first accuser and the judgment rendered with reference to it have been investigated. Therefore, the decision of cases of this kind is understood to belong to the category of public prosecutions. 2Where the crime of prevarication is said to have been committed by an advocate, a public prosecution cannot be instituted; and it makes no difference whether he is said to have committed it in a public or a private proceeding. 3Therefore if anyone is accused of having abandoned a public prosecution, the case will not be public, because no provision was made for this by any law; and a public accusation is not authorized by that decree of the Senate which prescribes the penalty of five pounds of gold against anyone who abandons a case.
Dig. 48,1,1Macer libro primo de publicis iudiciis. Non omnia iudicia, in quibus crimen vertitur, et publica sunt, sed ea tantum, quae ex legibus iudiciorum publicorum veniunt, ut Iulia maiestatis, Iulia de adulteriis, Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, Pompeia parricidii, Iulia peculatus, Cornelia de testamentis, Iulia de vi privata, Iulia de vi publica, Iulia ambitus, Iulia repetundarum, Iulia de annona.
Macer, On Criminal Prosecutions, Book I. All cases in which crime is involved are not public, but only those which are derived from the laws relating to the prosecution of crimes, such as the Julian Law on Treason; the Julian Law on Adultery; the Cornelian Law on Assassins and Poisoners; the Pompeian Law on Parricide; the Julian Law on Peculation; the Cornelian Law on Wills; the Julian Law on Private Violence; the Julian Law on Public Violence; the Julian Law on the Bribery of Voters; the Julian Law on Extortion; and the Julian Law on Raising the Price of Food.
Dig. 48,5,19Macer libro primo de publicis iudiciis. vel antequam cum eo agi coepit,
Macer, On Public Prosecutions, Book I. Or before the accusation was brought against him,
Dig. 48,5,25Macer libro primo publicorum. Marito quoque adulterum uxoris suae occidere permittitur, sed non quemlibet, ut patri: nam hac lege cavetur, ut liceat viro deprehensum domi suae (non etiam soceri) in adulterio uxoris occidere eum, qui leno fuerit quive artem ludicram ante fecerit in scaenam saltandi cantandive causa prodierit iudiciove publico damnatus neque in integrum restitutus erit, quive libertus eius mariti uxorisve, patris matris, filii filiae utrius eorum fuerit (nec interest, proprius cuius eorum an cum alio communis fuerit) quive servus erit. 1Et praecipitur, ut is maritus, qui horum quem occiderit, uxorem sine mora dimittat. 2Ceterum sui iuris an filius familias sit maritus, nihil interesse a plerisque dictum est. 3Illud in utroque ex sententia legis quaeritur, an patri magistratum occidere liceat? item si filia ignominiosa sit aut uxor contra leges nupta, an id ius nihilo minus pater maritusve habeat? et quid, si pater maritus leno vel aliqua ignominia notatus est? et rectius dicetur eos ius occidendi habere, qui iure patris maritive accusare possunt.
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. A husband is also permitted to kill a man who commits adultery with his wife, but not everyone without distinction, as the father is; for it is provided by this law that the husband can kill the adulterer if he surprises him in his own house, but not if he surprises him in the house of his father-in-law; nor if he was formerly a pander; or had exercised the profession of a mountebank, by dancing or singing on the stage; or had been convicted in a criminal prosecution and not been restored to his civil rights; or is the freedman of the husband or the wife, or of the father or mother, or of the son or the daughter of any of them; nor does it make any difference whether he belonged exclusively to one of the persons above mentioned, or owed services to two patrons in common, or was a slave. 1It is also provided that a husband who has killed any one of these must dismiss his wife without delay. 2It is held by many authorities to make no difference whether the husband is his own master, or a son under paternal control. 3With reference to both parties, the question arises, in accordance with the spirit of the law, whether the father can kill a magistrate; and also where his daughter is of bad reputation, or has been illegally married, whether the father or the husband will still retain his right; and what should be done if the husband is a pander, or is branded with ignominy for some reason or other. It may properly be held that those have a right to kill who can bring an accusation as a father or a husband.
Dig. 48,5,33Macer libro primo de publicis iudiciis. Nihil interest, adulteram filiam prius pater occiderit an non, dum utrumque occidat: nam si alterum occidit, lege Cornelia reus erit. quod si altero occiso alter vulneratus fuerit, verbis quidem legis non liberatur: sed divus Marcus et Commodus rescripserunt impunitatem ei concedi, quia, licet interempto adultero mulier supervixerit post tam gravia vulnera, quae ei pater infixerat, magis fato quam voluntate eius servata est: quia lex parem in eos, qui deprehensi sunt, indignationem exigit et severitatem requirit. 1Cum alterum ex adulteris elegerit maritus, alterum non ante accusare potest, quam prius iudicium finietur, quia duos simul ab eodem accusari non licet. non tamen prohibetur accusator simul cum adultero vel adultera eum quoque accusare, qui domum suam praebuit vel consilio fuit, ut crimen redimeretur.
Macer, On Public Prosecutions, Book I. It makes no difference whether the father kills his daughter surprised in adultery first, or not, provided he kills both guilty parties; for if he kills only one of them, he will be liable under the Cornelian Law. If, however, one of them should be killed, and the other wounded, he is not released under the terms of the law; but the Divine Marcus and Commodus stated in a Rescript that he ought to be granted impunity, for the reason that, although the adulterer was killed, and the woman survived, after having received serious wounds inflicted upon her by her father, she was saved rather by accident, than intentionally; because the law requires the same indignation and the same severity to be displayed toward all those who are taken in adultery. 1Where a husband has selected one of two culprits who have been guilty of adultery, he cannot accuse the other before the first case is terminated; because two persons cannot be accused by the same individual at the same time. Still, the prosecutor, while proceeding against the adulterer or the adulteress, is not prevented from also accusing anyone who lent his house for the purpose, or advised that the charge be suppressed by the payment of money.
Dig. 48,7,3Macer libro primo publicorum. nec interest, liberos an servos et suos an alienos quis ad vim faciendam convocaverit. 1Nec minus hi, qui convocati sunt, eadem lege tenentur. 2Sed si nulli convocati nullique pulsati sint, per iniuriam tamen ex bonis alienis quid ablatum sit, hac lege teneri eum qui id fecerit.
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. It makes no difference whether the crowd was convoked for the purpose of employing violence against freemen, or one’s own slaves, or slaves belonging to another. 1Those who have been assembled are none the less liable under the same law. 2If, however, no persons have been assembled, and none has been beaten, but something has been unjustly taken from property belonging to others, he who did so will be liable under this law.
Dig. 48,10,10Macer libro primo publicorum. De eo, qui ei in cuius potestate est eique qui in eadem potestate est adscripserit, nihil senatus consultis cavetur: sed hoc quoque casu committitur in legem, quia huius rei emolumentum ad patrem dominumve pertinet, ad quem pertineret, si filius servusve sibi adscripsissent. 1Illud constat, si extraneo quis adscripserit legatum, licet postea vivo testatore in potestate eum habere coeperit, senatus consultis locum non esse.
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. Nothing is provided by the Decrees of the Senate with reference to a person who has written something for the benefit of one who has control of him, or of another who is under the same control. But the law is violated also in this instance, because the profit derived from the act will belong to the father or the master, who would be entitled to it if the son or the slave had written the instrument for his own benefit. 1It is established that where anyone writes the bequest of a legacy for the benefit of a stranger, even though he may afterwards, during the lifetime of the testator, begin to have him under his control, there will be no ground for the application of the Decree of the Senate.
Dig. 48,11,3Macer libro primo publicorum. Lege Iulia repetundarum tenetur, qui, cum aliquam potestatem haberet, pecuniam ob iudicandum vel non iudicandum decernendumve acceperit:
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. He is liable under the Julian Law relating to Extortion who, while invested with any authority, accepts money for rendering a judgment or decree;
Dig. 48,11,5Macer libro primo publicorum. In comites quoque iudicum ex hac lege iudicium datur.
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. The attendants of judges can also be prosecuted under this law.
Dig. 48,11,7Macer libro primo iudiciorum publicorum. Lex Iulia de repetundis praecipit, ne quis ob iudicem arbitrumve dandum mutandum iubendumve ut iudicet: neve ob non dandum non mutandum non iubendum ut iudicet: neve ob hominem in vincula publica coiciendum vinciendum vincirive iubendum exve vinculis dimittendum: neve quis ob hominem condemnandum absolvendumve: neve ob litem aestimandam iudiciumve capitis pecuniaeve faciendum vel non faciendum aliquid acceperit. 1Apparet autem, quod lex ab exceptis quidem in infinitum capere permittit, ab his autem, qui hoc capite enumerantur, a nullo neque ullam quantitatem capere permittit. 2Illud quoque cavetur, ne in acceptum feratur opus publicum faciendum, frumentum publice dandum praebendum adpraehendendum, sarta tecta tuenda, antequam perfecta probata praestita lege erunt. 3Hodie ex lege repetundarum extra ordinem puniuntur et plerumque vel exilio puniuntur vel etiam durius, prout admiserint. quid enim, si ob hominem necandum pecuniam acceperint? vel, licet non acceperint, calore tamen inducti interfecerint vel innocentem vel quem punire non debuerant? capite plecti debent vel certe in insulam deportari, ut plerique puniti sunt.
Macer, Public Prosecutions, Book I. The Julian Law on Extortion prescribes that: “No one shall receive anything as an inducement to render a judgment or a decree, or for changing his opinion; or to prevent him from rendering a decision; or to throw a person into prison, or put him in chains; or order him to be chained, or delivered from his chains; or to convict or acquit a man; or to appraise the amount of a judgment; or to sentence anyone to a capital or a pecuniary penalty, or to refrain from doing so.” 1It is, however, apparent that the law permits all those, excepting such as have been excepted, to receive money without limit; but those enumerated in this Section are not allowed to receive anything from anybody. 2It is also provided: “That no public work which is to be constructed shall be accepted as completed, nor any public provisions which are to be distributed held to be transferred or obtained, nor any buildings considered as repaired, before they have been finished, accepted, and delivered according to law.” 3Persons guilty of extortion are at present arbitrarily dealt with by the law, and they are generally punished with exile, or even more severely, according to the crime which they have committed. What, however, should be done if they accept money as a reward for killing a man? Or even if they do not accept it, but, impelled by rage, they kill an innocent person, or one whom they should not punish? They should undergo a capital penalty, or be deported to an island, as indeed most of them are.