Christo auspice: Impetrato consensu amplissimi ordinis facultatis Iuridicae, in inclyta Academia Basiliensi, pro solenni gradu in utroque Iure consequendo, has propositas assertiones de Testibus defendet Caspar Niess Tremonianus

the truth appears in no way, most of these can be compelled, especially by pontifical law, for the sake of the good and the equitable, so that the truth is not concealed. But it was doubted who ought to prove that the truth cannot otherwise appear and be investigated: the producer, or the adversary, or the witness to be produced? We affirm that the producer must show this lack of proofs.

18. One alleging a defect in a witness, for instance a crime, infamy, or another stain or impediment, ought to object to it clearly and specifically before the judge with its circumstances and demonstrate it, so that the judge may estimate its quality with his supreme prudence. If it is fully established to him immediately by such a crime or impediment, which removes all faith in the witness, he can repel this witness from his office at the very entrance of the examination. But if there is no express prohibition of the law, and it is not clearly established that the witness is unworthy of all faith, it will be better that he be admitted, and that the exceptions which can be objected to him be reserved for the time of the arguments.

19. From the aforementioned, this daily question of the doctors in the forum has arisen: If he who has objected a crime to a witness produced against him, and has failed in the proof of it, can he also be sued for injuries by the witness? We shall defend that in a case of property he is held for injuries, but in a criminal case, not so.

20. Regarding the number of witnesses, a vulgar rule is handed down, that wherever a certain number is not expressed by law or statute, two suffice to make full faith. Hence, the testimony of one is not to be heard at all, even if he shines with the honor of a glorious court, as Emperor Constantine decreed. The same obtains if there are several, but they say separate and different things, so that their words cannot be joined; then each is held as a single witness.

21. Otherwise, it is true what Arcad. writes, that one should not look so much to the multitude as to the sincere faith of the testimonies, and especially of those upon whom the light of truth attends. For a judge ought to consider three degrees in the conflict of witnesses, lest the movement of his mind be confused and he go blind in judging the truth: I. the authority of the persons, which consists in dignity, character, and gravity; II. the quality of the testimonies, that is, which are more appropriate to the nature of the matter about which it is being acted, and are supported by better reasons; III. if the witnesses are equal in the integrity of persons and the faith of testimonies, then at last