What is the ruling when two witnesses testify to a man freeing a slave during his final illness, which amount to one-third of his estate, and a judge rules accordingly, followed by two other witnesses testifying to another manumission, also one-third, and then the first two witnesses retract their testimony?

Primary text

If the testimony of the first two witnesses preceded the second set, and the heirs do not accept their retraction, the first manumission is established, the retracting witnesses bear no financial penalty, and their retraction is not accepted. However, there is an alternative view suggesting they become liable for the purchase and freeing of the second slave because their initial testimony prevented that freeing. If the heirs accept the retraction but deny the original testimony, the second manumission takes effect, and the heirs are compensated for the value of the first slave from the first set of witnesses because their retracted testimony wrongfully deprived the heirs of the slave's servitude. If the first testimony was later than the second, the manumission based on the later testimony is void, as it is established that the deceased already freed one-third of his estate, and the witnesses in this later case bear no penalty as they did not cause loss.