3 There are two kinds of theft, theft detected in the commission, and simple theft: the possession of stolen goods discovered upon search, and the introduction of stolen goods, are not (as will appear below) so much specific kinds of theft as actionable circ.u.mstances connected with theft. A thief detected in the commission is termed by the Greeks ep'autophoro; in this kind is included not only he who is actually caught in the act of theft, but also he who is detected in the place where the theft is committed; for instance, one who steals from a house, and is caught before he has got outside the door; or who steals olives from an olive garden, or grapes from a vineyard, and is caught while still in the olive garden or vineyard. And the definition of theft detected in the commission must be even further extended, so as to include the thief who is caught or even seen with the stolen goods still in his hands, whether the place be public or private, and whether the person who sees or catches him be the owner of the property, or some third person, provided he has not yet escaped to the place where he intended to take and deposit his booty: for if he once escapes there, it is not theft detected in the commission, even if he be found with the stolen goods upon him. What is simple theft is clear from what has been said: that is to say, it is all theft which is not detected in the commission.

4 The offence of discovery of stolen goods occurs when a person's premises are searched in the presence of witnesses, and the stolen property is found thereon; this makes him liable, even though innocent of theft, to a special action for receiving stolen goods. To introduce stolen goods is to pa.s.s them off to a man, on whose premises they are discovered, provided this be done with the intent that they shall be discovered on his premises rather than on those of the introducer. The man on whose premises they are found may sue the latter, though innocent of theft, in an action for the introduction of stolen goods. There is also an action for refusal of search, available against him who prevents another who wishes to look in the presence of witnesses for stolen property; and finally, by the action for nonproduction of stolen goods, a penalty is imposed by the praetor's edict on him who has failed to produce stolen property which is searched for and found on his premises.

But the lastnamed actions, namely, those for receiving stolen goods, for introducing them, for refusal of search, and for nonproduction, have now become obsolete: for the search for such property is no longer made in the old fashion, and accordingly these actions went out of use also.

It is obvious, however, that any one who knowingly receives and hides stolen property may be sued by the action for simple theft.

5 The penalty for theft detected in the commission is four times the value, and for simple theft twice the value, of the property stolen, whether the thief be a slave or a free person.

6 Theft is not confined to carrying away the property of another with the intent of appropriation, but comprises also all corporeal dealing with the property of another against the will of the owner. Thus, for a p.a.w.nee to use the thing which he has in p.a.w.n, or to use a thing committed to one's keeping as a deposit, or to put a thing which is lent for use to a different use than that for which it was lent, is theft; to borrow plate, for instance, on the representation that the borrower is going to entertain his friends, and then to carry it away into the country: or to borrow a horse for a drive, and then to take it out of the neighbourhood, or like the man in the old story, to take it into battle.

7 With regard, however, to those persons who put a thing lent for use to a different purpose than the lender contemplated, the rule is that they are guilty of theft only if they know it to be contrary to the will of the owner, and that if he had notice he would refuse permission; but if they believe that he would give permission, it is not theft: and the distinction is just, for there is no theft without unlawful intention.

8 It is also said not to be theft if a man turns a thing lent for use to a use other than he believes its owner would sanction, though in point of fact its owner is consenting. Whence arose the following question: if Antoninus solicits the slave of Peri to steal property of the latter, and convey it to him, and the slave informs Peri of it, who, wishing to detect Antoninus in the very act, allows the slave to convey the property to him; can an action of theft, or for corrupting the slave, or neither, be maintained against Antoninus? The case was submitted to us, and we examined the conflicting opinions of the earlier jurists on the matter: some of whom thought that neither action lay, and others, that Peri might sue on theft only. But we, in order to put an end to such quibbles, have enacted by our decision that in such case both the action on theft and that for corrupting a slave shall lie. It is true that the slave has not been corrupted by the advances made to him, so that the case does not come within the rules which introduced the action for such corruption: yet the wouldbe corrupter's intention was to make him dishonest, so that he is liable to a penal action, exactly as if the slave had actually been corrupted, lest his immunity from punishment should encourage others to perpetrate a similar wrong on a slave less strong to resist temptation.

9 A free man too may be the subject of a theft--for instance, a child in my power, if secretly removed from my control.

10 So too a man sometimes steals his own property--for instance, a debtor who purloins the goods which he has pledged to a creditor.

11 Theft may be chargeable on a person who is not the perpetrator; on him, namely, by whose aid and abetment a theft is committed. Among such persons we may mention the man who knocks money out of your hand for another to pick up, or who stands in your way that another may s.n.a.t.c.h something from you, or scatters your sheep or your oxen, that another may steal them, like the man in the old books, who waved a red cloth to frighten a herd. If the same thing were done as a frolic, without the intention of a.s.sisting a theft, the proper action is not theft, but on the case. Where, however, t.i.tius commits theft with the aid of Maevius, both are liable to an action on theft. A man, too, is held to have aided and abetted a theft who places a ladder under a window, or breaks open a window or a door, in order that another may steal, or who lends tools for the breaking of them open, or a ladder to place under a window, if he knows the object for which they are borrowed. It is clear that a man is not liable on theft, who, though he advises and instigates an offence, does not actually aid in its commission.

12 If a child in power, or a slave, steal property of his father or master, it is theft, and the property is deemed stolen, so that no one can acquire it by usucapion until it has returned into the hands of the owner; but no action will lie on the theft, because between a son in power and his father, or between a slave and his master, no action will lie on any ground whatsoever. But if the offender is aided and abetted by a third person, the latter is liable to an action on theft, because a theft has in fact been committed, and by his aid and abetment.

13 The action on theft will lie at the suit of any person interested in the security of the property, even though he be not its owner: indeed, even the owner cannot maintain the action unless he suffers damage from the loss.

14 Hence, when a p.a.w.n is stolen the p.a.w.nee can sue, even though his debtor be perfectly able to pay the debt; for it is more advantageous to him to rely on the pledge, than to bring a personal action: and this rule is so unbending that even the p.a.w.nor who steals a p.a.w.n is suable for theft by the p.a.w.nee.

15 So, if clothes are delivered to be cleaned or finished or mended for a certain remuneration, and then are stolen, it is the fuller or tailor who can sue on the theft, and not the owner; for the owner suffers nothing by the loss, having the action of letting against the fuller or tailor for the recovery of his property. Similarly a purchaser in good faith, even though a good t.i.tle as owner is not given to him, can bring the action of theft if the property is stolen, exactly like the p.a.w.nee.

The action is, however, not maintainable at the suit of a fuller or tailor, unless he is solvent, that is to say, unless he is able to fully indemnify the owner; if he is insolvent, the owner cannot recover from him, and so can maintain an action against the thief, being, on this hypothesis, interested in the recovery of the property. Where the fuller or tailor is only partly instead of wholly solvent the rule is the same.

16 The older lawyers held that what has been said of the fuller and tailor applied also to the borrower for use, on the ground that as the remuneration which the fuller receives makes him responsible for custody, so the advantages which the borrower derives from the use requires him to keep it safely at his peril. Our wisdom, however, has amended the law in this particular in our decisions, by allowing the owner the option of suing either the borrower by action on the loan, or the thief by action of theft; though when his choice has been determined he cannot change his mind, and resort to the other action. If he prefers to sue the thief, the borrower is absolutely released from liability; but if he proceeds against the borrower, he cannot in any way himself sue the thief on the stealing, though this may be done by the borrower, who is defendant in the other action, provided that the owner knew, at the time when he began his action against the borrower, that the thing had been stolen. If he is ignorant of this, or even if he is merely doubtful whether the borrower still has the property in his possession or not, and sues him on the loan, he may, on subsequently learning the facts, and if he wishes to drop the action which he has commenced, and sue the thief instead, adopt this course, in which case no obstacle is to be thrown in his way, because it was in ignorance that he took action and sued the borrower on the loan. If, however, the owner has been indemnified by the borrower, in no case can he bring the action of theft against the thief, as his rights of action pa.s.s to the person who has compensated him for the loss of his property. Conversely it is clear, that if, at the outset, the owner began an action on the loan against the borrower, not knowing that the property had been stolen, and subsequently, on learning this, proceeded against the thief instead, the borrower is absolutely released from liability, whatever may be the result of the owner's action against the thief; the rule being the same, whether the borrower be wholly or only partially insolvent.

17 As a depositary is not answerable for the safe keeping of the thing deposited, but only for fraud, and, if it is stolen, is not compellable to make rest.i.tution by action of deposit, he has no interest if it is lost, and therefore the action of theft is maintainable only by the depositor.

18 Finally, it has been a question whether a child below the age of p.u.b.erty, who carries away the property of another, is guilty of theft.

The answer is that, as theft depends on intention, obligation by theft is not incurred unless the child is near p.u.b.erty, and so understands its delinquency.

19 The object of the action on theft, whether it be for double or quadruple the value of the goods stolen, is merely the recovery of the penalty; to recover the goods themselves or their value the owner has an independent remedy by vindication or condiction. The former is the proper remedy when it is known who is in possession of the goods, whether this be the thief or any one else: the latter lies against the thief or his heir, whether in possession of the stolen property or not.

t.i.tLE II. OF ROBBERY

Robbery is chargeable also as theft; for who deals with the property of another more against that other's will than the robber? And thus the description of the robber as an audacious thief is a good one. However, as a special remedy for this offence the praetor has introduced the action for robbery, or rapine with violence, which may be brought within a year for four times the value, after a year for simple damages, and while lies even when only a single thing of the slightest value has been taken with violence. This fourfold value, however, is not all penalty, nor is there an independent action for the recovery of the property or its value, as we observed was the case in the action of theft detected in the commission; but the thing or its value is included in the fourfold, so that, in point of fact, the penalty is three times the value of the property, and this whether the robber be taken in the act or not; for it would be absurd to treat a robber more lightly than one who carries off property merely secretly.

1 This action is maintainable only where the robbery is attended with wrongful intention; consequently, if a man by mistake thought that property was his own, and, in his ignorance of law, forcibly carried it off in the belief that it was lawful for an owner to take away, even by force, a thing belonging to himself from a person in whose possession it was, he cannot be held liable to this action; and similarly on principle he would not in such a case be suable for theft. Lest, however, robbers, under the cloak of such a plea, should discover a method of gratifying a grasping habit with impunity, the law has been amended upon this point by imperial const.i.tutions, by which it is enacted that it shall not be lawful for any one to forcibly carry off movable property, inanimate or animate, even though he believe it to belong to him; and that whosoever disobeys this shall forfeit the property, if, in fact, it be his, and if it be not, shall restore it, and along with it its value in money.

And by the said const.i.tutions it is also declared that this provision relates not only to movables (of which alone robbery can be committed), but also to forcible entries on land and houses, so as to deter men from all violent seizing upon property whatsoever under the cloak of such excuses.

2 In order to support this action it is not necessary that the goods of which robbery has been committed should belong to the plaintiff, provided they were taken from among his property. Thus, if a thing be let, or lent, or pledged to t.i.tius, or even deposited with him under such circ.u.mstances that he has an interest in its not being carried off--for instance, by his having undertaken the entire responsibility for its safe custody;--or if he possesses it in good faith, or has a usufruct or any other right in it whereby he suffers loss or incurs liability through its being forcibly taken from him, the action will be maintainable by him; not necessarily in order to restore to him the ownership, but only to compensate him for what it is alleged he has lost by its being taken from his goods or withdrawn from his means. In fact, it may be said generally that where, supposing property to be taken secretly, the action of theft will lie, the action on robbery will lie at suit of the same person, if it be taken with violence.

t.i.tLE III. OF THE LEX AQUILIA

Unlawful damage is actionable under the lex Aquilia, whose first chapter provides that if a slave of another man, or a quadruped from his flocks or herds, be unlawfully killed, the offender shall pay to the owner whatever was the highest value thereof within the year next immediately preceding.

1 From the fact that this enactment does not speak of quadrupeds simply, but only of such quadrupeds as are usually included under the idea of flocks and herds, it is to be inferred that it has no application to wild animals or to dogs, but only to such beasts as can properly be said to graze in herds, namely horses, mules, a.s.ses, oxen, sheep, and goats.

It is settled, too, that swine come under its operation, for they are comprehended in 'herds' because they feed in this manner; thus Homer in his Odyssey, as quote by Aelius Marcia.n.u.s in his Inst.i.tutes, says, You will find him sitting among his swine, and they are feeding by the Rock of Corax, over against the spring Arethusa.'

2 To kill unlawfully is to kill without any right; thus a man who kills a robber is not liable to this action, if he could in no other way escape the danger by which he was threatened.

3 So, too, where one man kills another by misadventure, he is not liable under this statute, provided there is no fault or carelessness on his part; otherwise it is different, for under this statute carelessness is as punishable as wilful wrongdoing.

4 Accordingly, if a man, while playing or practising with javelins, runs your slave through as he pa.s.ses by, a distinction is drawn. If it be done by a soldier in his exercising ground, that is to say, where such practice is usually conducted, he is in no way to blame; but if it be done by some one else, his carelessness will make him liable; and so it is with the soldier, if he do it in some place other than that appropriated to military exercises.

5 So, too, if a man is tr.i.m.m.i.n.g a tree, and kills your slave as he pa.s.ses by with a bough which he lets fall, he is guilty of negligence, if it is near a public way, or a private path belonging to a neighbour, and he does not call out to give people warning; but if he calls out, and the slave takes no pains to get out of the way, he is not to blame.

Nor would such a man be liable, if he was cutting a tree far away from a road, or in the middle of a field, even if he did not call out; for strangers had no business to be there.

6 Again, if a surgeon operates on your slave, and then neglects altogether to attend to his cure, so that the slave dies in consequence, he is liable for his carelessness.

7 Sometimes, too, unskilfulness is undistinguishable from carelessness--as where a surgeon kills your slave by operating upon him unskilfully, or by giving him wrong medicines;

8 and similarly, if your slave is run over by a team of mules, which the driver has not enough skill to hold, the latter is suable for carelessness; and the case is the same if he was simply not strong enough to hold them, provided they could have been held by a stronger man. The rule also applies to runaway horses, if the running away is due to the rider's deficiency either in skill or strength.

9 The meaning of the words of the statute 'whatever was of the highest value thereof within the year' is that if any one, for instance, kills a slave of yours, who at the moment of his death is lame, or maimed, or blind of one eye, but within the year was sound and worth a price, the person who kills him is answerable not merely for his value at the time of his death, but for his highest value within the year. It is owing to this that the action under this statute is deemed to be penal, because a defendant is sometimes bound to pay a sum not merely equivalent to the damage he has done, but far in excess of it; and consequently, the right of suing under the statute does not pa.s.s against the heir, though it would have done so if the damages awarded had never exceeded the actual loss sustained by the plaintiff.

10 By juristic construction of the statute, though not so enacted in its terms, it has been settled that one must not only take account, in the way we have described, of the value of the body of the slave or animal killed, but must also consider all other loss which indirectly falls upon the plaintiff through the killing. For instance, if your slave has been inst.i.tuted somebody's heir, and, before he has by your order accepted, he is slain, the value of the inheritance you have missed must be taken into consideration; and so, too, if one of a pair of mules, or one of four chariot horses, or one of a company of slave players is killed, account is to be taken not only of what is killed, but also of the extent to which the others have been depreciated.

11 The owner whose slave is killed has the option of suing the wrongdoer for damages in a private action under the lex Aquilia, or of accusing him on a capital charge by indictment.

12 The second chapter of the lex Aquilia is now obsolete;

13 the third makes provision for all damage which is not covered by the first. Accordingly, if a slave or some quadruped which comes within its terms, is wounded, or if a quadruped which does not come within its terms, such as a dog or wild animal, is wounded or killed, an action is provided by this chapter; and if any other animal or inanimate thing is unlawfully damaged, a remedy is herein afforded; for all burning, breaking, and crushing is hereby made actionable, though, indeed, the single word 'breaking' covers all these offences, denoting as it does every kind of injury, so that not only crushing and burning, but any cutting, bruising, spilling, destroying, or deteriorating is hereby denominated. Finally, it has been decided that if one man mixes something with another's win or oil, so as to spoil its natural goodness, he is liable under this chapter of the statute.

14 It is obvious that, as a man is liable under the first chapter only where a slave or quadruped is killed by express design or through negligence on his part, so, too, he is answerable for all other damage under this chapter only where it results from some wilful act or carelessness of his. Under this chapter, however, it is not the highest value which the thing had within a year, but that which it had within the last thirty days, which is chargeable on the author of the mischief.

15 It is true that here the statute does not expressly say 'the highest value,' but Sabinus rightly held that the damages must be a.s.sessed as if the words 'highest value' occurred also in this chapter; the Roman people, who enacted this statute on the proposal of Aquilius the tribune, having thought it sufficient to use them in the first chapter only.

16 It is held that a direct action lies under this statute only when the body of the offender is substantially the instrument of mischief. If a man occasions loss to another in any other way, a modified action will usually lie against him; for instance, if he shuts up another man's slave or quadruped, so as to starve him or it to death, or drives his horse so hard as to knock him to pieces, or drives his cattle over a precipice, or persuades his slave to climb a tree or go down a well, who, in climbing the one or going down the other, is killed or injured in any part of his body, a modified action is in all these cases given against him. But if a slave is pushed off a bridge or bank into a river, and there drowned, it is clear from the facts that the damage is substantially done by the body of the offender, who is consequently liable directly under the lex Aquilia. If damage be done, not by the body or to a body, but in some other form, neither the direct nor the modified Aquilian action will lie, though it is held that the wrongdoer is liable to an action on the case; as, for instance, where a man is moved by pity to loose another's slave from his fetters, and so enables him to escape.

t.i.tLE IV. OF INJURIES

By injury, in a general sense, is meant anything which is done without any right. Besides this, it has three special significations; for sometimes it is used to express outrage, the proper word for which--contumely--is derived from the verb 'to contemn,' and so is equivalent to the Greek 'ubris': sometimes it means culpable negligence, as where damage is said to be done (as in the lex Aquilia) 'with injury,' where it is equivalent to the Greek 'adikema'; and sometimes iniquity and injustice, which the Greeks express by 'adikia'; thus a litigant is said to have received an 'injury' when the praetor or judge delivers an unjust judgement against him.

1 An injury or outrage is inflicted not only by striking with the first, a stick, or a whip, but also by vituperation for the purpose of collecting a crowd, or by taking possession of a man's effects on the ground that he was in one's debt; or by writing, composing, or publishing defamatory prose or verse, or contriving the doing of any of these things by some one else; or by constantly following a matron, or a young boy or girl below the age of p.u.b.erty, or attempting anybody's chast.i.ty; and, in a word, by innumerable other acts.