The Same, On Adultery, Book III. The actions for embezzlement and the exploitation of estates include an accusation, but they are not criminal prosecutions.

The Same, On Adultery, Book III. There is no doubt that slaves can also be accused of adultery. Those, however, who are forbidden to accuse freemen of adultery are themselves forbidden to accuse slaves. A master, however, can, under a Rescript of the Divine Marcus, bring an accusation against his own slave for this offence. Therefore, since the promulgation of this rescript, the master is obliged to accuse his slave, but if his wife is legally married she can plead an exception in bar.

The Same, On Adultery, Book III. When an accuser demands that a slave charged with adultery shall be put to torture, whether he himself intends to be present or not, the judges shall order the slave to be appraised; and when this has been done, they must direct that he who has denounced the slave as guilty shall pay the amount of the appraisement, and as much more, to the party interested. 1Let us, however, consider to whom this penalty should be paid, as the law mentions the party in interest. Thus, a bona fide purchaser is such a person; and although he may have bought the slave from one who is not his owner, we can properly say that he is the party in interest. 2We will do well to include in the same category one who has received property in pledge; because it is to his interest that the torture should not take place. 3When, however, the usufruct of the slave belongs to another, his appraised value should be divided between the owner and the usufructuary. 4If the slave is owned in common by several persons, his estimated value should be divided among them. 5When a freeman, supposed to be a slave, is tortured for the reason that he himself is ignorant of his condition, Cæcilius is of the opinion that he is entitled to a prætorian action against the person who falsely accused him, in order that he may not go unpunished for having subjected a freeman to torture, just as if he had been a slave. 6The law directs that torture shall be applied to the male or female slaves of the man or woman complained of, or to those of the parents of either of them; if the said slaves have been given to the accused by his or her parents for their own use. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript addressed to Cornelius Latianus that the slaves of strangers should be tortured. 7The man and woman who are accused, their patrons, and the person who has brought the accusation, are ordered to be present at the torture, and the power of questioning is granted to the patrons. 8It is still more advisable that a slave in whom the accused person had the usufruct should be tortured, for although he was not actually his slave, he is still considered to have been in servitude; for in everything relating to torture the question of ownership is not so much involved as the fact of the service. 9Therefore, if a slave belonging to another serves the accused in good faith, anyone will admit that he can be interrogated while undergoing torture. 10Where, however, the slave is one who is entitled to his freedom under the terms of a trust, or who expects to be free on compliance with a condition, the better opinion is that he can be tortured. 11The law directs that slaves who have been put to the torture in this manner shall become public property; hence we confiscate a part of a slave owned in common, and the mere ownership of one in whom another enjoys the usufruct; and where the accused has only the usufruct, the better opinion is that the enjoyment of the usufruct begins to belong to the government; but we do not confiscate a slave who is the property of another. The reason for the confiscation of slaves is that they may tell the truth without fear; while, if they were apprehensive of again being brought under the power of the accused persons, they might become obdurate under torture. 12They are not, however, confiscated before being subjected to torture. 13Even if they should deny everything, they will, nevertheless, be confiscated. The reason for this is the same, as well as to prevent them from entertaining the hope of again coming under the control of their masters, if they should make denials with the expectation of being rewarded for perseverence in uttering falsehoods. 14Even the slaves of the accuser are confiscated, if they are put to the torture. For slaves of this kind should be taken from their masters to prevent them from lying, but those of strangers have no one to please. 15When the accused party of either sex is acquitted, the law provides that, if the slaves should die, the loss shall be estimated by the judges, according to what they were worth before being tortured; and if they live, to an amount in proportion to the damage caused or inflicted upon them. 16It must be noted that it is provided by the Ninth Section, when a slave is charged with adultery, and the accuser does not wish him to be put to torture, the law orders double his value to be paid to his master; but this is simple damages.

Ulpianus, On Adultery, Book III. The judges must determine the measure of torture, and therefore it should be inflicted in such a way that the slave may be preserved either for his acquittal, or his punishment.