Numerous occurrences, at the first glance, appear to be crimes, but, after having been carefully examined, We declare that this should not be classed as such. What do I mean by this? It very frequently happens that a person is injured by the cast of a stone, which act was not intentional but accidental; and when the matter is investigated, the person who threw the stone is decided to be innocent, and after diligent inquiries no good reason is found for holding him guilty. Wherefore it is proper to consider the circumstances of an occurrence, rather than the nature of the case itself, in order to determine whether it is fortuitous or not. Why have these matters been mentioned here? Because sometimes a person having been compelled to open a will, it is afterwards left in this condition, and then time destroys the impression, and the instrument is deprived of the effect it had when it was sealed, so that doubt may arise with reference to its validity. It has seemed to Us proper that wills should remain good under such circumstances, and We order, even though the seals may not remain unbroken, that the signature shall be sufficient to establish their validity. For just as signatures prove a will that has not yet been opened, even though the seals may not have been preserved, as may readily happen; so, We consider it just that when a will has been opened, but has not been closed again, and its seal has been destroyed by lapse of time, it shall still remain valid, provided the signatures are legible. We also direct that if the judge should fail to have a new seal attached to a will, he shall be subjected to a fine of twelve pounds for his carelessness.