1Marcianus, Institutes, Book XIV. The penalty of the Cornelian Law is inflicted upon anyone who, with malicious intent, has suborned false witnesses, or caused spurious evidence to be introduced. 1Likewise, anyone who receives money, or makes an agreement to receive it, for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining legal assistance or evidence, or forms a conspiracy to render innocent persons liable, is punished by the Decree of the Senate. 2Moreover, anyone who receives money for the production or the suppression of witnesses, and the giving or withholding of testimony, is punished by the Cornelian Law; and also anyone who corrupts a judge, or takes any steps for the purpose of corrupting him. 3If, however, a judge neglects to enforce the Imperial Constitutions he will be punished. 4Those who have been guilty of deceit with reference to accounts, wills, public documents, or anything else which is not sealed, or have fraudulently appropriated property, shall be punished for these crimes, just as if they had committed forgery. It was for just such an offence that the Divine Severus condemned the Prefect of Egypt, under the Cornelian Law relating to Deceit, because during the time when he governed the province he had falsified his own records. 5He who opens the will of a person who is living is liable to the penalty of the Cornelian Law. 6He who alleges that documents deposited with another have been delivered by him to his adversaries can be prosecuted for deceit. 7The Decree of the Senate applies to military wills, and by its terms anyone is liable under the Cornelian Law who has written the bequest of a legacy or a trust for his own benefit. 8There is this difference between the drawing up of a will by a son, a slave, or a stranger; for, so far as the stranger is concerned, if the signature of the testator is made, accompanied by the statement: “I dictated this to So-and-So, and I have read it over,” the penalty will not be incurred, and the bequest can be claimed. In the case of a son or a slave, however, a general signature will be sufficient both for the purpose of avoiding the penalty, and of obtaining the bequest. 9Guardians, as well as curators, who, after their term of office has expired, do not render their accounts of the guardianship or curatorship, are liable to the penalty of this law—as was decided by the Divine Severus and Antoninus—and they cannot contract with the Treasury; but if anyone, in violation of this law, secretly makes an agreement with the Treasury, he shall be punished just as if he had committed forgery. 10This Constitution, however, does not apply (as the Emperors themselves have stated in Rescripts), to those who, before undertaking the guardianship, have transacted business of this kind. For they are held to have given excuses, but not to have been guilty of fraud. 11The same Emperors stated in a Rescript that anyone who has not yet rendered an account of his guardianship or curatorship should not contract with the Treasury while he whose guardianship has been administered is living; but if the latter should die, he can legally contract with it, although he may not yet have rendered his account to the heir. 12Where, however, the guardian or curator has succeeded by hereditary right to a contract made with the Treasury, even if this occurs before an account has been rendered, I do not think that there will be ground for the infliction of a penalty; although the person whose guardianship or curatorship has been administered may still be living. 13The penalty for forgery, or quasi-forgery, is deportation, and confiscation of all property. When a slave commits any of these crimes, he shall be condemned to death.

2Paulus, On Sabinus, Book III. He who has fraudulently appropriated a will, or concealed it, or taken it by force, or erased or defaced it, or substituted another for it, or unsealed it; or anyone who has forged a will, or sealed it, or fraudulently published it; or anyone through whose fraudulent acts these things have been done, shall suffer the penalty of the Cornelian Law.

3Ulpianus, Disputations, Book IV. Anyone who, not knowing that a will is forged, either enters upon an estate or accepts a legacy, or acknowledges it in any way whatsoever, is not barred from declaring in court that the will is forged.

4The Same, Disputations, Book VIII. Where anyone who caused a legacy to be fraudulently inserted into a will for his own benefit dies, his heir can be deprived of it. Hence where a certain person, who had been appointed heir by his father, had torn up a codicil, and then died, the Divine Marcus held that the Treasury could claim the estate, to the amount to which the heir would have been deprived by the codicil; that is to say three-fourths of the estate.

5Julianus, Digest, Book LXXXVI. The Senate remitted the penalty in the case of a person charged with the payment of legacies who had taken them away by a codicil written in his own hand. But because this had been done by the order of his father, and he was under twenty-five years of age, he was also permitted to take the estate.

6Africanus, Questions, Book III. When anyone writes a bequest of a legacy to himself, he is liable to the penalty of the Cornelian Law, although the legacy is void; for it is established that he is liable who writes a bequest of a legacy to himself in a will which is afterwards broken, even if it was not legally executed in the beginning. This, however, is only true when the will is perfect, for if it should not be sealed, the better opinion is that the Decree of the Senate will not apply; just as there would be no ground for an interdict to compel the production of the will; for it is necessary, in the first place, that there should be a will of some kind, even if it was not drawn up according to law, in order for the Decree of the Senate not to be applicable. For in order that a will may be properly designated as forged, it is essential that, after the forgery has been removed from it, it still can properly be called a will. Therefore, in like manner, a will is said to be made contrary to law in which, if all the regular formalities had been observed, it could be said that it was legally executed. 1If the appointed heir has written the disinheritance of a son, or of any other persons, mentioning them by name, he will be liable under the Decree of the Senate. 2In like manner he who, with his own hand, has deprived the testator’s slave of freedom, and, above all, if he is charged with the payment of legacies, or the execution of a trust, he will be liable under the Decree of the Senate. 3If a patron should write the bequest of a legacy in his own favor in the will of his freedman, and, after having obtained pardon for doing so, he has been ordered to relinquish the legacy, can he obtain the benefit of prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will? The better opinion is that he cannot do so. It does not, however, result from this that if a wife should include the bequest of her dower for her benefit in a will, or a creditor writes a bequest of what is due to him at a certain time, for his own benefit; and, in like manner, having been pardoned, they are ordered to surrender the legacies, an action for her dowry should not be refused to the woman, as well as one for his claim to the creditor, in order that neither of them may be deprived of that to which they are actually entitled.

7Marcianus, Institutes, Book II. Slaves cannot, under any circumstances, appear against their masters in court, as they are not considered persons by either the Civil, the Prætorian Law, or in extraordinary proceedings; except where, by way of favor, the Divine Marcus and Commodus stated in a Rescript that when a slave complains that a will in which freedom was granted him has been suppressed, he should be allowed to file an accusation for suppressing it.

8Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. Anyone who scrapes gold coins, or stains them, or makes them, if he is a freeman, shall be thrown to wild beasts; if he is a slave, he shall undergo the extreme penalty.

9The Same, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VIII. It is provided by the Cornelian Law that anyone who adds any alloy to gold, or who makes base silver coins, is liable to punishment for forgery. 1He also is liable to the same penalty who, when he was able to prevent these things, did not do so. 2It is provided by the same law that no one shall fraudulently purchase or sell coins made of lead, or of any other base metal. 3The penalty of the Cornelian Law is inflicted upon him who knowingly and fraudulently seals, or causes to be sealed, any other written instrument than a will; as well as upon anyone who, with fraudulent intent, has brought together persons for the purpose of giving false testimony, or who produces any false evidence on one side or the other. 4Anyone who has suborned an informer in a case in which pecuniary interests are involved is liable to the same penalty as those who have received money for the sake of causing litigation.

10Macer, 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.

11Marcianus, On Public Prosecutions, Book I. If a father should write anything for the benefit of his son, who is a soldier, and under his control, and with whom he himself is serving, and he knows this to be the case, for the reason that nothing is acquired by the father, he will not be liable to punishment. Where a son had written a clause for the benefit of his mother, the Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that as he had done this by order of the testator, he should go unpunished, and that his mother was entitled to the bequest.

12Papinianus, Opinions, Book XIII. Where anyone accused of fraud dies before the accusation of the crime has been filed, or judgment has been rendered, the Cornelian Law does not apply, because what was acquired by the crime is not left to the heir.

13The Same, Opinions, Book XV. The solemn assertion of a false name or surname is punished with the penalty of forgery. 1An advocate having been degraded for ten years from his rank of decurion, because he read a forged document in the presence of the Governor while hearing a case, I gave it as my opinion that he would recover his rank after the expiration of the time, as he did not come within the terms of the Cornelian Law, having read, but not drawn up a forged document. For the same reason, when a plebeian is punished with temporary exile for the same cause, he can legally be created a decurion after his return.

14Paulus, Questions, Book XXII. An emancipated son, while writing his father’s will by the order of the latter, drew up the bequest of a legacy to a slave owned in common by himself and Titius. I ask how this question should be decided. The answer was, you have combined several questions; and under the Decree of the Senate by which we are forbidden to write the bequest of a legacy to ourselves or to those whom we have under our control, the said emancipated son will be liable to the same penalty, even though he wrote the bequest by the order of his father; for he is considered to be excused who is under the control of another, just as is the case with a slave, provided the order of the testator is evident from his signature; for I have ascertained that this was the intention of the Senate. 1The next question is, as it has been decided that anything that is unlawfully written is considered not to have been written at all, shall what was inserted for the benefit of a slave owned in common by the writer and another be considered as not written at all; or only that which has reference to the person who did the writing, so that the entire amount will be due to the other joint-owner? I found that Marcellus had made a note on Julianus, for as Julianus has stated, if someone inserted a clause for the benefit of Titius and himself, or for that of a slave owned in common, and it should be considered as not inserted at all, it would be very easy to ascertain how much was acquired by Titius and his joint-owner. Marcellus added that the other joint-owner would be entitled to the amount, just as if the name of the slave had been omitted on account of its being false. This rule should be observed in deciding the present question. 2A husband manumitted a dotal slave, and in his will inserted the bequest of a legacy to him. The question arose, what could the woman recover under the Julian Law? I answered that it must be said that the patron, as well as the emancipated son, was liable to the penalty of the Edict of the Divine Claudius, although if they should die, prætorian possession of their estates could be demanded. Hence, if the patron did not obtain anything from the estate of the freedman, he would not be liable to an action by the woman. But would he be liable for the reason that it was added in the law, “Or committed any fraudulent act to prevent it from coming into his hands”? He, however, did not commit any fraud against the woman, for merely to have formed this design was not doing anything to her disadvantage. Therefore, should we not grant an action to the woman, as the husband will be obliged to make restitution? But if he who wrote the bequest of the legacy by order of the testator had also, at the same time, by the order of the testator, entered into an agreement to deliver it to another, the Senate directed that he must, nevertheless, relinquish his legacy, and that it should remain in the hands of the heir, together with the charge of the trust.

15Callistratus, Questions, Book I. The Divine Claudius ordered by an Edict that the following should be added to the Cornelian Law: “If anyone, while writing the will or the codicil of another, should insert with his own hand the bequest of a legacy to himself, he shall be liable, just as if he had violated the Cornelian Law; and no pardon shall be granted to those who pretend to have been ignorant of the severity of the Edict.” Not only one who has drawn up the bequest of a legacy for his own benefit, with his own hand, is considered to have done so; but also he who, through the agency of his slave, or his son who is under his control, is honored by a legacy at the dictation of the testator. 1It is clearly provided by the Imperial Constitutions that if a testator specifically states, over his signature, that he has dictated to a slave belonging to anyone, that a legacy should be paid the master of the latter by his own heirs, the bequest will be valid; but the general signature of the testator will not avail against the authority of the Decree of the Senate, and therefore the bequest will be considered as not having been written, and the slave who wrote it for his own benefit should be pardoned. I think, however, that it would be safer for pardon to be asked from the Emperor, of course after the parties interested have relinquished their claim to what was left to them. 2The Senate likewise decreed that if a slave, by the order of his master, should write the bequest of his own freedom in a will or a codicil, for the very reason that it is written with his own hand he will not become free; but freedom can be granted to him under the terms of a trust, provided that, after the writing had been done, the testator signed the will or the codicil with his own hand. 3And as only the kind of freedom acquired by means of a trust was embraced in this Decree of the Senate, the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that the spirit of the Decree, rather than the letter of the same should be followed; for when slaves obey their masters, they are excused through the necessity of the power to which they are subjected; but when the authority of the master is added, he having stated over his signature that he had dictated and read what had been written, he says that it is considered to have been written by the hand of the master himself, when this had been done by his desire. This, however, should not be extended so as to include free persons over whom the testator has no right. Still, it must be ascertained whether the same necessity for obedience did not exist, and whether those who did not comply had an honorable excuse when they failed to do what was not permitted. 4It was decided that pardon for violating the Cornelian Law should also be granted to a mother, for whose benefit the bequest of a legacy had been written by her slave at the dictation of her son. 5The Senate also made the same decision with reference to a daughter who, at the dictation of her mother, through ignorance of the law, wrote a bequest to herself. 6If anyone, after having appointed two heirs, should add that if either one of them died without leaving children, the estate should be given to the survivor, if he had children, but if both should die without any, the estate (what follows was written in another hand) should be given to the person who wrote the will: it is held that he who wrote the will should be released from the penalty of the Cornelian Law; but it would be more beneficent to permit him to acquire what has been mentioned above.

16Paulus, Opinions, Book III. Answered that the offence of having purloined written instruments is not a cause for public prosecution, unless it is proved that the will of someone has been stolen. 1Paulus gave it as his opinion that all those who sealed any forged instrument whatsoever, with the exception of wills, were liable to the penalty of the Cornelian Law. 2And also others who have made false entries in registers, public documents, or anything else of the kind, without sealing them, or, in order to prevent the truth from being known, have concealed or stolen anything, or made a substitution, or unsealed a paper, there is no doubt that it is customary for them to be punished with the same penalty.

17The Same, Trusts, Book III. When anyone writes a bequest of a slave for his benefit, with his own hand, and is requested to manumit him, the Senate decided that he should be manumitted by all the heirs.

18The Same, Sentences, Book III. We are not forbidden to write a bequest for the benefit of a wife in another’s will. 1He who appoints himself the testamentary guardian of a minor child of the testator, although he is considered liable to suspicion for the reason that he seems to have aimed at the guardianship, still, if he is approved as being suitable, he should be appointed guardian, not under the will but by a decree of the magistrate; nor should any excuse given by him be accepted, because he is held to have consented to the wishes of the testator.

19The Same, Sentences, Book V. Those who have struck counterfeit money, but have not seemed disposed to entirely finish it, shall be released where evidence of a true repentance has been manifested. 1The accusation of having introduced a supposititious child is not barred by any prescription; and it makes no difference whether the woman alleged to have made the substitution is dead, or not.

20Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book VI. Those also are punished with the penalty of forgery of wills who have accepted money for the purpose of causing litigation by means of legal assistance, or the production of witnesses; or have caused obligations to be contracted, or agreements to be made; or have formed an association; or have taken any measures to enable this to be done.

21Paulus, On the Turpillian Decree of the Senate. Anyone who has sold the same entire property to two different persons under separate contracts is punished with the penalty for forgery of wills; and this was decided by the Divine Hadrian. He also is placed in the same category who has corrupted a judge; but it is usual to punish such persons less severely, as they are relegated for a certain time, and are not deprived of their property.

22The Same, On the Libonian Decree of the Senate. A child under the age of puberty should not be said to come within the scope of this Edict, for he can hardly be liable for the crime of forgery, as he is not capable of criminality at that age. 1If a father writes a bequest for the benefit of his son, who is in the hands of the enemy, it must be said that on his return his father will be liable to the penalty of the Decree of the Senate; but if he had died in captivity, his father would have been considered innocent. 2If, however, he should write a bequest for the benefit of his emancipated son, he can do this legally; and the same rule applies to a son given in adoption. 3Likewise, if he has written one for the benefit of his slave, to whom he is in default in granting freedom under the terms of a trust, it must be said that he is not liable under the terms of the Decree of the Senate, as it is established that everything acquired by means of a slave of this kind must be delivered to him after he has been manumitted. 4If he has written a bequest for the benefit of a slave who is serving him in good faith, he is guilty so far as his intention is concerned; because he wrote it for the benefit of one who he thought belonged to him. But as neither a legacy nor an estate is acquired by a bona fide possessor, we hold that he should be exempt from the penalty. 5Where a master writes a bequest for the benefit of his slave, “when he shall become free,” we say that the master is not affected by the Decree of the Senate, as he in no way had his own interests in view. The same rule applies to a son subsequently emancipated. 6Anyone who confirms a codicil, made before a will, in which a legacy was bequeathed to him, comes within the terms of the Decree of the Senate; as Julianus, also, has stated. 7A person becomes liable to the penalty by taking anything away, just as he does when he gives anything to himself; for instance, where a slave was bequeathed to him, and also was manumitted, he deprives him of his liberty with his own hands. This is the case, even if he deprives him of it in accordance with the wish of the testator, for if he is ignorant of the fact, the grant of freedom will be valid. The same rule will apply if, having been asked to pay a legacy with which he was charged, he erases the clause creating the trust! 8Anyone who, with his own hand, writes the assignment of a freedman, is liable, not according to the letter, but according to the spirit of the Decree of the Senate. 9In like manner, a slave who writes a bequest of freedom to himself, under a trust, in the will of another, is not included in the terms of the Decree of the Senate. A doubt may arise on this point, however, for (as we stated above), the Senate only remits the penalty in the case of a slave who has written a bequest of freedom for himself under a trust, in the will of his master, when the latter has stated the fact over his signature. And, indeed, there is still more reason to hold that he violates the Decree of the Senate to a greater extent than he who writes the bequest of a legacy to himself, as, under no circumstances, will he be entitled to his freedom, but he can acquire the legacy for his master. 10If the person who writes the will should grant freedom under a trust to his own slave, let us see whether he is not free from the penalty, as he obtains no advantage, unless he did this in order that the slave might be purchased from him at an exorbitant price, in order to be manumitted. 11He, also, who, when a tract of land was devised to Titius, added with his own hand, as a condition, that money should be paid to him, comes within the terms of the Decree of the Senate. 12He who, with the consent of his father, disinherits himself, or deprives himself of a legacy, is not liable, either according to the letter or the spirit of the Decree of the Senate.

23The Same, On the Penalties of Civilians. The question is asked, what is a forgery? It is held to occur where anyone imitates the handwriting of another, or omits anything from a document, or an account, when he copies it; and not where a false result is given in a calculation, or an account.

24Scævola, Digest, Book XXII. Aithales, a slave, to whom freedom and a portion of his estate was left by the will of Vetitus Callinicus, his master, under the terms of a trust, with which the heirs appointed to eleven-twelfths of the estate were charged; stated to Maximilia, the daughter of the testator, who was appointed heir to a twelfth of the estate, that he could produce evidence to show that the will of Vetitus Callinicus was forged; and, having been interrogated by Maximilia before a magistrate, he declared that he would prove in what way the will had been forged. Maximilia signed an accusation of forgery against the writer of the will and Proculus, her co-heir, and the case having been heard, the Prefect of the City decided that the will was not forged, and ordered that the twelfth of the estate belonging to Maximilia should be forfeited to the Treasury. The question arose whether Aithales was entitled to his freedom, and if the trust should be executed after this decision. The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, this was the case.

25Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book VII. He who is alleged to have given forged letters in the name of the Prætor, or to have promulgated a forged Edict, is liable to a penal action in factum, even though he may have been prosecuted under the Cornelian Law.

26Marcellus, Digest, Book XXX. Where anyone has destroyed the will of his father, and acts as heir at law, just as if his father had died intestate, and then himself dies, it is perfectly just that the entire estate of his father should be taken from his heir.

27Modestinus, Rules, Book VIII. He declares that those who have given conflicting evidence between themselves are liable under the terms of the law as having committed forgery. 1It was also decided that he who gives false testimony against his own seal, is liable to the penalty for forgery. With reference to the impudence of a person who has testified differently in favor of two persons, and whose faith is so double and vacillating, there is no doubt whatever that he is liable for the crime of forgery. 2He who falsely represents himself to be a soldier, or makes use of decorations to which he is not entitled, or travels under a forged permit, should be severely dealt with, according to the nature of the offence committed.

28The Same, Opinions, Book IV. If an older date than the correct one is stated by a debtor in the obligation of a pledge, there will be ground for an accusation for crimen falsi.

29The Same, On Select Cases. Where anyone deceives the Governor of a province either by means of documents, or filing of petitions, it will be of no advantage to him; and moreover, if he is prosecuted, he must pay the penalty of his rashness, just as if he had committed forgery. There are rescripts extant on this point. It is sufficient for the sake of proof to give a single instance, which is as follows: “Alexander Augustus to Julius Maryllus. If your adversary, in the petition which he filed, did not assert what was true in the request made by him, he cannot avail himself of the instrument which he signed; and, moreover, if he is accused, he must suffer the penalty.”

30The Same, Pandects, Book XII. He who makes or carves a false seal is liable under the Cornelian Law relating to Wills. 1In case of the substitution of a child, the parents alone, or those who have an interest in the matter, are entitled to bring the accusation, but none of the people can institute a public prosecution.

31Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book III. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Claudius: “Any persons who introduce instruments into court which cannot be proved shall be punished according to the nature of each offence; or, if they seem to have deserved a more serious penalty than can be imposed upon them under this jurisdiction, the facts may be stated to the Emperor, in order that he may determine what punishment shall be inflicted upon them.” The Emperor Marcus, along with his Brother, however, influenced by feelings of humanity, mitigated this punishment; so that if, (as frequently happens), such documents should be produced by mistake, those who did anything of this kind may be pardoned.

32Modestinus, On Punishments, Book I. At present, those who fraudulently alter any Edicts which have been promulgated are punished with the penalty of forgery. 1If a vendor or a purchaser changes any measures used for wine, grain, or anything of this kind which have been publicly approved, or, with malicious intent, commits any other fraudulent act, he shall be condemned to pay double the value of the property; and it was provided by a Decree of the Divine Hadrian that those who used false weights or measures should be relegated to an island.

33The Same, On Punishments, Book III. If anyone should make use of forged constitutions, without giving any authority for doing so, he will be forbidden the use of water and fire under the Cornelian Law.