Ulpianus, On the Office of Proconsul, Book VII. It is proper for every good and worthy Governor to take care that the province over which he presides is peaceable and quiet. This he will accomplish without difficulty if he exerts himself to expel bad men, and diligently seek for them, as he must apprehend all sacrilegious persons, robbers, kidnappers, and thieves, and punish each one in proportion to his crime; he should also restrain those who harbor them, as without their assistance a robber cannot long remain concealed. 1In the case of insane persons who cannot be controlled by their relatives, it is the duty of the Governor to apply a remedy, namely, that of confinement in prison, as the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript. The Divine Brothers were of the opinion that where a man had committed parricide, a personal investigation should be made to learn whether he had perpetrated the deed while simulating insanity, or whether, in fact, he was not in possession of his faculties, for if he was feigning he should be punished, and if he was actually insane, he should be confined in prison.

Ulpianus, On the Office of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript to Minicius Natalus that holidays only cause suspension of judicial business, and that those matters which relate to military discipline can also be transacted on holidays. This also includes the examination of persons who are in prison.

Ulpianus, On the Office of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that, where a party wishes to search for a fugitive slave on the premises of another, he can apply to the Governor for letters to be furnished him; and, if the case demands it, an officer also, in order that he may be permitted to enter and make search, and the Governor can also inflict a penalty upon him who does not permit the search to be made. The Divine Marcus, in an Address which he delivered before the Senate, granted power to parties who wished to search for fugitive slaves to enter upon and search the land of the Emperor, as well as that of Senators and private individuals for fugitive slaves, and to examine the bed-rooms and tracks of those who concealed them.

The Same, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. When anyone accuses another of a crime, he must, first of all, sign the accusation. This rule has been introduced for the purpose of preventing anyone from rashly denouncing another, when he knows that his accusation, if false, will not go unpunished. 1Therefore, each accuser must state what crime is the subject of the accusation, and also that he will persevere in the prosecution until judgment has been rendered. 2The Governor should not permit the same person to be again accused of crime of which he has been acquitted. This the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Salvius Valens. But let us see, while under this Rescript a person cannot be accused by the same individual, whether he can not be by another. Where a case has been decided so far as certain persons are concerned, this does not prejudice others, if he who now appears as an accuser prosecutes on account of some injury of his own, and proves that he did not know that the accusation had been brought by another, I think there is good reason that he should be permitted to make the accusation. 3If, however, he should be prosecuted for another crime by the same accuser, who in the first proceeding calumniated him, I think he who has once been convicted of malicious prosecution should not readily be permitted to make a different accusation, although the son of the prosecutor must be allowed to do so, when he brings another criminal charge against the person whom his father had accused, as the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript to Julius Candidus. 4The same Emperor stated in a Rescript that slaves should be punished in the place where they are alleged to have perpetrated the offence, and if their master desires to defend them, he cannot have them sent back into his province, but must undertake their defence where the illegal act was committed. 5The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Pontius Proculus that, where a sacrilegious act had been committed in one province, and afterwards a less serious crime was perpetrated in another, after having taken cognizance of the offence committed in his own province, he must send the defendant into the one where he had been guilty of sacrilege.

Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript, in Greek, to the people of Antioch, that anyone who was ready to furnish sureties for his appearance should not be placed in prison, unless it was evident that he had committed so serious a crime that he should not be entrusted to the care of any sureties, or soldiers; but that he must undergo the penalty of imprisonment before suffering that for the crime of which he is guilty.

Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The crime of lese majesty may closely resemble that of sacrilege. 1The crime of lese majesty is committed against the Roman people, or against their safety, and he is guilty of it by whose agency measures are maliciously taken for the death of hostages, without the order of the Emperor; or when men armed with weapons or stones appear in the city, or are assembled against the State, and occupy public places or temples; or where assemblies have been called together, or men convoked for sedition; or where, by the malicious aid and advice of anyone, plans have been formed by which the magistrates of the Roman people, or other officials invested with command or authority may be killed; or where anyone bears arms against the government, or sends a messenger or letter to the enemies of the Roman people, or communicates to them any password; or commits any act with malicious intent by means of which the enemies of the Roman people may be assisted in their designs against the government; or where anyone solicits or inflames soldiers, in order that a sedition or a tumult may be excited against the State.

Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that whoever ravishes a freeborn boy should be punished, as follows: “I have ordered the submission to me of a petition presented by Domitius Silvanus, in the name of Domitius Silvanus, his paternal uncle, who, having been influenced by his complaint, in which it is stated that his son who was freeborn, and still very young, was carried away by force, shut up, and afterwards subjected to blows and tortures, with great danger to his life. My dear brother, I request you to hear him, and, if you ascertain that these offences have been committed, punish them severely.”

Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. He is liable under the Cornelian Law relating to Assassins who, while occupying the position of magistrate, commits some act involving the life of a man which is not authorized by law. 1When a man, through mere wantonness, causes the death of another, the decision of Ignatius Taurinus, Proconsul of Bsetica, who relegated the guilty party for a term of five years, was confirmed by the Divine Hadrian. 2The Divine Hadrian also stated the following in a Rescript: “It is forbidden by the Imperial Constitutions that eunuchs should be made, and they provide that persons who are convicted of this crime are liable to the penalty of the Cornelian Law, and that their property shall with good reason be confiscated by the Treasury. “But with reference to slaves who have made eunuchs, they should be punished capitally, and those who are liable to this public crime and do not appear, shall, even when absent, be sentenced under the Cornelian Law. It is clear that if persons who have suffered this injury demand justice, the Governor of the province should hear those who have lost their virility; for no one has a right to castrate a freeman or a slave, either against his consent or with it, and no one can voluntarily offer himself to be castrated. If anyone should violate my Edict, the physician who performed the operation shall be punished with death, as well as anyone who willingly offered himself for emasculation.”

Ulpianus, 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.

Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Proconsul should inflict the penalty for sacrilege either with greater or less severity or clemency, in accordance with the rank and condition of the culprit, taking into consideration the time, as well as his or her age and sex. I know that several magistrates have sentenced persons guilty of sacrilege to be thrown to wild beasts, others to be burned alive, and still others to be hanged on a gallows. The penalty, however, should be regulated by having those thrown to wild beasts who, with an armed band, have broken into a temple, and carried away the gifts of the gods by night; but where a person takes something of trifling value from a temple, he should be punished by being sentenced to the mines, or if he was born in a superior position, he should be deported to an island.

The Same, In the Same Book. Those who make public money, or stamp it with a public die, and manufacture it for themselves outside of the mint, or steal it after it has been stamped, are not considered to have counterfeited it, but as having committed a theft of the common coin which resembles the crime of peculation. 1If anyone should steal any gold or silver belonging to the State, he shall, according to an Edict of the Divine Pius, be punished with exile, or sentenced to the mines according to his rank. Anyone who lends his stamp to a thief is considered to have been convicted of manifest theft, and becomes infamous. He who has unlawfully extracted gold from a mine, and melted it, is condemned to quadruple damages.

Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript addressed to Salvius Carus, Proconsul of Crete, that where a guardian had filed an accusation in the name of his ward, and the latter, in whose behalf he had filed it, had died, he should not be compelled to proceed with the accusation.

Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. The Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript addressed to Julius Frontonus that anyone who is absent should not be convicted of crime. Likewise, no one should be convicted on suspicion; for the Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript to Assiduus Severus: “It is better to permit the crime of a guilty person to go unpunished than to condemn one who is innocent.” Persons, however, who are contumacious and do not obey either the notices or the edicts of Governors, can, even though absent, be sentenced, as is customary in private offences. Anyone can safely maintain that these things are not contradictory. What, then, should be done? With reference to parties who are absent it is better to decide that pecuniary penalties, or those which affect the reputation, even to the extent of relegation, can be imposed if they, having been frequently notified, do not appear through obstinacy; but if any more serious punishment should be inflicted, as, for instance, hard labor in the mines, or death, it cannot be imposed upon the parties while they are absent. 1It must be said that where an accuser is absent, heavier penalties are sometimes imposed than that prescribed by the Turpillian Decree of the Senate. 2A distinction must be made in more serious crimes, that is whether they have been committed intentionally, or accidentally. And, indeed, in all offences, this distinction should either induce a penalty to be inflicted in strict compliance with the law, or admit of moderation in this respect.