Interdictorum libri
Ex libro IV
Dig. 43,29,2Venuleius libro quarto interdictorum. (nihil enim multum a specie servientium differunt, quibus facultas non datur recedendi):
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book IV. For there is not much difference between slaves and persons who have not the power to depart at their pleasure.
Dig. 43,29,4Venuleius libro quarto interdictorum. Si quis liberum hominem ignorantem suum statum retineat, tamen si dolo malo retinet, cogitur exhibere. 1Trebatius quoque ait non teneri eum, qui liberum hominem pro servo bona fide emerit et retineat. 2Nullo tempore dolo malo retineri homo liber debet, adeo ut quidam putaverint nec modicum tempus ad eum exhibendum dandum, quoniam praeteriti facti poena praestanda est. 3Creditori non competit interdictum, ut debitor exhiberetur: nec enim debitorem latitantem exhibere quisquam cogitur, sed in bona eius ex edicto praetoris itur.
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book IV. If anyone restrains of his liberty a freeman who is not aware of his own condition, he will still be required to reproduce him, if he fraudulently retains him under his control. 1Trebatius, also, says that anyone who in good faith purchases a freeman as a slave, and retains him under his control, is not liable. 2A man who is free should, at no time, be fraudulently restrained of his liberty, and this is so far true that some authorities hold that not even the least delay should be allowed the person required to produce him, as he is liable to the penalty for an act which has been committed. 3This interdict does not lie in favor of a creditor, for the purpose of producing his debtor in court; for no one is obliged to produce a debtor who conceals himself, but under the Edict of the Prætor his property may be taken in execution.
Dig. 43,30,5Venuleius libro quarto interdictorum. Si filius sua sponte apud aliquem est, inutile hoc interdictum erit, quia filius magis apud se quam apud eum est, in quem interdicetur, cum liberam facultatem abeundi vel remanendi haberet: nisi si inter duos, qui se patres dicerent, controversia esset et alter ab altero exhiberi eum desideraret.
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book IV. If a son is in the possession of another with his own consent, this interdict cannot be employed, because he is rather in his own possession than in that of him against whom proceedings may be instituted under the interdict, as he has free power to depart or remain; unless there is a dispute between two persons, each of whom alleges that he is his father, and one of whom demands that the child shall be produced by the other.