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

one correctly recurs to the number of witnesses.

22. Whether the testimony of one induces half of a full proof and suffices for the offering of an oath, has been questioned by interpreters of the law. We think the negative side can be defended in schools, against the common opinion, from which, however, we think one should not at all depart when judging.

23. Furthermore, only those things which consist in fact are proved by witnesses. For when the law is certain, it needs no proof, nor can it be supported by the aid of witnesses, unless it is joined with some fact, as in proving custom, which we do not doubt can be proved by two witnesses, provided that they testify at the same time to the just requirements of the custom along with the reason for their knowledge.

24. They ought to testify about those things which they were able to perceive and know certainly and truly by their own bodily senses, as if a witness in the form of deposition says that he saw, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled, according as the quality of the fact has demanded it. For testimony must be given from certain and proper knowledge, and not upon credulity or hearsay, unless in certain cases, for instance in proving reputation original: "fama" and business done long ago, and things like these.

25. For the Emperors Carus, Carinus, and Numerianus decreed that a produced attestation alone, not approved by other aids, is of no moment. Therefore, it is necessary that he render the reason or cause of his statement, and especially when he has been questioned about it, by which it becomes probable that he certainly knows what he said, since we cannot know the truth of things except through the cause.

26. But in this place it is elegantly asked, can witnesses testify about a negative? We say that they cannot regularly, so much so that those testifying about it are suspicious of falsehood. Therefore, it is not without great error that a negative is placed in such articles, since the things that can be posited and proved are the same. And we do not doubt that the rescript of the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian looks to this, namely that by the nature of things, there is no proof of someone denying a fact.

27. And although they ought to testify only about the proposed articles, because they swear only upon these, yet since they seem to be introduced for all things that in any way relate to the case, for the sake of investigating the fuller truth of the controversial matters, they are correctly examined even upon the interrogatories of the opposite party, and also upon matters connected with, and the circumstances of place, time, and other things of that