The Same, On the Julian Law Relating to Adultery, Book II. What should we understand the term “notify” to mean? Does it mean an application to the court, or merely an ordinary notice? I think that if application is not made to the court, it will be sufficient for him to state that he is about to bring an accusation for adultery. 1What then should be done, if he did not serve notice, but filed a written accusation before the woman married again; and she should marry, whether he was aware of this fact, or did not know it? I think that she should not be considered as notified, and therefore that the accuser cannot begin with her. 2But what if he only notified her not to marry, but did not add why; shall she be considered to be legally married? The better opinion is, to hold that the notice seems to reserve the choice for the prosecutor who brings the accusation. Therefore if he mentions the crime of adultery in the notice, even if he did not give the name of the judge, we think that the woman can be accused, just as if the notice had been served. 3What, however, would be the result if, in the notice, it was stated specifically with whom she had committed adultery, and the complainant should afterwards wish to accuse her of adultery with someone else? The better opinion is, that he ought not to be heard, for he does not bring the accusation for the crime mentioned in the notice. 4If, however, he serves notice by an agent, I think that he can bring the accusation if he desires to do so; and that the notice by the agent will be sufficient. 5Therefore, if he serves notice by his steward, that is to say, if a master serves notice by his slave, it will be valid. 6The question arises whether one person can prosecute the adulteress, and another the adulterer; so that, although both cannot be prosecuted at the same time by the same person, they can each be accused by a different individual. It is not reasonable to adopt the opinion that different accusers can be permitted to prosecute, for if the woman should marry before having been notified, she cannot be accused first; hence she must wait for the decision to be rendered with reference to the adulterer. If he should be acquitted, the woman will gain her case through him, and cannot afterwards be accused. If he should be convicted, she will not, for this reason, be condemned, but she can defend her case, and perhaps gain it either by favor, justice, or the assistance of the law. For what if the adulterer was oppressed by the efforts of an enemy, or by false testimony, or was overwhelmed by suborned witnesses before the court, or was either unwilling or unable to take an appeal, and the woman, having obtained an upright judge, defended her chastity? 7But if the adulterer, before he was convicted,

Ulpianus, On the Julian Law Relating to Adultery, Book II. Should die, it has been decided that even if he was dead, the woman could be accused without being able to plead an exception. 1If, however, not death, but some penalty imposed upon him should remove the defendant, we say that the woman can still be prosecuted. 2If at the time when the person to be prosecuted was chosen, the adulteress was not married, but was married when he was acquitted, it must be said that even if the adulterer was acquitted she could still be accused, because she was not married at the time when the adulterer was selected to be prosecuted first. 3If the adulterer should be acquitted, a married woman cannot be accused, even by the person who prosecuted the adulterer and was defeated, nor can she be accused by anyone else. Hence, if the accuser should be in collusion with the adulterer, and the latter is acquitted, he renders the married woman secure against prosecution brought by anyone. It is clear that she can be accused if she should cease to be married, for the law only protects a woman as long as she is married.

Ulpianus, On the Julian Law Relating to Adultery, Book II. It is provided as follows in the Fifth Section of the Julian Law: “That where a husband has surprised an adulterer with his wife, and is either unwilling or unable to kill him, he can hold him for not more than twenty consecutive hours of the day and night, in order to obtain evidence of the crime, and make use of his right without endangering it.” 1I think that what has been stated with reference to the husband should be observed, so far as the father is concerned. 2Even if the husband should not surprise the adulterer in his house, he can hold him. 3Where, however, the adulterer is immediately released, he cannot be brought back. 4What must be done if he escapes; can he be brought back and kept under guard for twenty hours? I think that it is better to hold that he can be brought back and guarded for the purpose of obtaining evidence. 5The following clause, “In order to obtain evidence of the crime,” means that he can introduce witnesses who will afterwards testify that the offender was taken in adultery.