The practice of introducing witnesses for establishing proof has long been prevalent in order to prevent plaintiffs from easily concealing facts, and to prevent actions from running the risk of being lost through the fraudulent inclinations constantly existing in the minds of men. For it is not merely for the purpose of rendering matters more clear that witnesses are introduced, but to increase the certainty of the testimony. For when persons, being well aware of what has taken place, make statements which are either contradictory or false, they show, by such a course, that they are unwilling that the truth should become known and judgment be rendered in accordance with it; for they state occurrences which never existed, and ask that their allegations shall solely be taken into consideration in the determination of the case. For when the parties, being aware of certain facts give conflicting evidence, or make statements that are absolutely false, they, by means of this very fact, show that they do not wish the truth to become known, or a decision to be promulgated in accordance with it; but they give evidence concerning matters that never existed, and seek to have judgment rendered upon such testimony. It would therefore be extremely inadvisable to exclude the testimony of experienced witnesses, since there are many facts which cannot become known except by the introduction of evidence. Former legislators, indeed, forbade persons of abject condition to testify, but they introduced many exceptions to this rule, and even deprived many of the privilege of giving testimony. But as, in spite of these prohibitions, the statements of witnesses are not always correct, We have deemed it proper to add something to this subject, and to diminish as far as possible the amount of false testimony. We have just learned of a case which occurred before the illustrious judge of the Province of Bithynia with reference to a will, in which witnesses were convicted and found guilty of the worst kind of forgery; for at the time the will was executed the testatrix was actually dead, but some of the witnesses held her hand for the purpose of making a cross, so that she would be believed to have herself traced this venerable symbol, which they themselves had made upon the paper. Therefore We, having carefully considered this matter, thought that it was necessary to enact certain rules with reference to the production of witnesses, as well as others concerning their civil status. Hence We confirm, without exception, the regulations enacted by legislators with reference to certain persons being forbidden to testify.

  We especially decree with regard to this Great and Most Fortunate City where (through the favor of God) there is a very large number of estimable men, that witnesses must be persons of good reputation, or not liable to suspicion because of their rank, office, wealth, or dignity ; and when they do not belong to these classes, that they shall be considered as worthy of confidence by both parties; and if this be the case they can testify. Artisans, however, whose employment is ignoble, or who belong to the lowest order of society and whose civil status is obscure, shall not be allowed to give evidence; and where any doubt as to their competency exists, it can easily be removed by showing that their lives are regular and blameless.
  (1) If, however, any witnesses, who are absolutely unknown, appear to attempt to pervert the truth, they may be subjected to corporeal punishment; and if the judges are magistrates, they themselves can inflict it. But where they are not of such rank, they must, in this City, apply to an official of the Most Magnificent Praetor of the People, and, in the provinces, to the public defender; and by means of them scourge the witnesses until they no longer conceal the truth, or until they acknowledge that they have been induced to give their testimony in consideration of the payment of money, or that they have been actuated by malice.

  Although We have, for a long time, forbidden oral evidence to be given of the discharge of an obligation contracted by a written instrument, unless in accordance with the rule which We have prescribed, We, nevertheless, now revoke this provision. For where a debt is based upon a written contract, and oral testimony given by witnesses of the payment of the same is produced by the parties interested, We desire it to be admitted by the judges, provided the witnesses are men worthy of confidence, and are called for the purpose of testifying as to the payment of the debt, arid to prove it was made to someone, or to testify concerning the admissions of the person who has received the property; for it is in this way that witnesses establish the facts by their evidence. But We do not desire that frivolous testimony, based upon what has been heard while people are passing, should, under any circumstances, be valid; or that the evidence of those who state that they met certain persons accidentally, and heard them say that they had received money from someone, or that they were indebted to another. Statements of this kind seem to Us to be absolutely suspicious, and deserving of no attention whatever; and We have sometimes encountered similar ones while dispensing justice, when, for instance, the claim is made that a large sum of money has been paid, and two notaries have alleged that they were present at the payment of the same (but there was no witness to this), and that the debt was contracted in writing, while it was well known that the creditor knew how to write, and could in his own hand have rendered the release of the debtor clear beyond all doubt. Hatred for occurrences of this kind has induced Us to enact the present law. Another similar case has recently been brought to Our attention, in which a certain individual, in the presence of witnesses summoned expressly for that purpose, and before a notary, acknowledged that he owed a debt. He did this for money, having taken the place of the true debtor, and having afterwards died, the amount was collected from the first debtor, while it was actually due from the one who had acknowledged that he owed it. God does not allow a transaction of this kind to remain concealed.

  Therefore We place no confidence in such testimony, nor (as We have already stated) in the statements of notaries, for the reason that when persons are educated and wish to acknowledge anything, they should do this in writing, or in court, and thereby render it indubitable. We do not permit evidence liable to suspicion to be accepted as true, and where any of this kind is given We do not admit it; but We require witnesses to testify as to the very transaction when they were called to acknowledge the execution of an instrument by the person who produces them; and it is necessary (which is the case where wills are concerned) that the witnesses should be summoned expressly for that purpose, and should be persons of good repute, for under such circumstances testimony obtained from them will be positive; but We forbid any statement to be admitted as to the execution of an instrument, when the witnesses were not present and did not sign it. Where witnesses are not of high rank (as We have previously stated) they shall be subjected to torture; and where they openly contradict one another, the judges must be careful to notice this, and if they should ascertain that their statements are not true, they shall reject them, and accept such as they may decide to be more worthy of confidence, and which are established by the larger number of witnesses. If it should appear that the witnesses fraudulently and maliciously contradict one another, they shall not go unpunished, unless it can be proved that this was due to an accidental error, and not through design.

  For the reason that many persons repeatedly produce witnesses even up to three times, and then annoy Us by their applications, desiring to be permitted to take their testimony a fourth time, We direct Our judges to give special attention to this, and where witnesses have been produced three times, not to allow this to be done again by the party who has already offered them, and has accepted their testimony; since there is reason to fear that it may be set aside, and that he who demands a new hearing may be less desirous for the production of the witnesses than that some explanation or correction of the preceding evidence may be made. But where anyone, after having produced witnesses, has not yet accepted their testimony, or they have not completed it whether he himself, or one of his advocates, is responsible for this, and his adversary alone has accepted the testimony, or has disputed it without, however, having communicated the fact to him who has already presented the witnesses three different times, and if the party who produced them suspects that they have not told everything, and demands that they add to their testimony, under such circumstances a fourth production of the witnesses shall be granted him; but he must first be sworn that neither he himself, nor his advocates, nor any other persons acting in his behalf, have suppressed any evidence or requested this to be done; and that it is not through fraud, design, or artifice that he asks that a fourth production of the witnesses may take place, but for the reason that he has not been able to avail himself of the testimony previously given. If he should do this, he will not have need of an Imperial order which was formerly necessary, but the provisions of this law will be sufficient, and he can cause the witnesses to testify a fourth time. He is, however, forbidden to produce them again, in order that an excuse may not be made to protract the litigation, for We desire the judge to dispose of it with all speed, in accordance with his good judgment.
  (1) There is, however, no doubt that although he may have produced the witnesses only once or twice, if their statements have been contradicted, or if his adversary having done this, he should accept it as true, and in this way should have ascertained what the evidence was, he shall not be permitted thereafter to again produce the witnesses, even if an Imperial order should direct him to do so.

  Your Eminence will hasten to carry into effect the matters which it has pleased Us to include in this Imperial Law.