circa fructùs interveniunt, quæ diximus intervenire de singularum rerum petitione. Illorum autem fructuum quos culpa suȧ possessor non perceperit, sivè illorum, quos perceperit, in utrâque actione eadem ratio penè habetur, si prædo fuerit. Si verò bonæ fidei possessor fuerit, non habetur ratio nèque consuptorum, neque non percepto rum. Post inchoatam autem petitionem etiam illorum fructuum ratio habetur, qui culpâ possessoris percepti non sunt, vel percepti consumpti sunt.

of the condemnation and costs of suit, if he should fail to make restitution within the time appointed. And, if an inheritance be sued for, a judge ought to determine in the same man, ner as to the profits, as he would in a suit for some particular thing only; for, if the defendant appear to have been a possessor malâ fide, then almost the same reasoning prevails in both actions as to the profits, whether they were taken or neglected by the possessor: but, if the defendant be a possessor bonâ fide, then no account is expected, either of produce consumed or not collected before the suit. But all produce must be accounted for from the date of the action, whether used or neglected.

cau

§ III. Si ad exhibendum actum fuerit, non sufficit, si exhibeat rem is, cum quo actum est; sed opus est, ut etiam rei causam debeat exhibere, id est, ut eam sam habeat actor, quam habiturus esset, si, cum primum ad exhibendum egisset, exhibita res fuisset : ideòque, si inter moras exhibendi, usucapta sit res à possessore, nihilominus condemnabitur. Præterea fructuum medii temporis, id est, ejus, quod post acceptum ad exhibendum judicium, ante rem judicatam, intercesserit, rationem habere debet judex. Quod si neget reus, cum quo ad exhibendum actum est, in præsenti se exhibere posse, et tempus exhibendi causâ

3. If a man proceed by an action ad exhibendum, it is not sufficient, that the defendant should exhibit the thing in question, but he must also be answerable for all profits and emoluments accruing from it; that the plaintiff may be in the same state, as if his property had been restored to him when he first brought his action: and therefore, if the possessor, during his delay to surrender the thing in dispute, shall gain a prescriptive title to it, he shall nevertheless be condemned to restitution. Morever it is the duty of the judge to take an account of the mesne profits accruing between the suit and the sentence. But, when the defendant declares, that he is not able

petat, idque sinè frustratione postulare videatur, dari ei debet, ut tamen caveat, se restituturum. Quod si neque statim jussu judicis rem exhibeat, neque postea se exhibiturum caveat, condemnandus sit in id, quod actoris intererat, si ab initio res exhibita esset.

instantly to produce the thing adjudged, and prays a farther time, without apparent affectation of delay, time should be allowed, on his giving security for restitution. But, if he neither obey the command of the magistrate by instantly producing the thing adjudged, nor in giving sufficient security for the production of it at a future day, he must be condemned in the full damages, which the plaintiff hath sustained by not having the article delivered to him at the commencement of the suit.

6 IV. Si familiæ erciscundæ ju dicio actum sit, singulas res singulis hæredibus adjudicare debet; et, si in alterius personà prægravare videatur adjudicatio, debet hunc invicèm cohæredi certâ pecuniâ (sicuti jam dictum est) condemnare. Eo quoque nomine cohæredi quis que suo condemnandus est, quod solus fructus hæreditarii fundi perceperit, aut rem hæreditariam corruperit, aut consumpserit. Quæ quidem similiter inter plures quoque quam duos cohæredes subsequuntur.

Communi

SV. Eadem interveniunt, etsi communi dividundo de pluribus rebus actum sit. Quod si de unâ re, veluti de fundo; siquidem iste fundus commodè regionibus divi

§ When a suit is commenced for the partition of an inheritance, the judge must decree to each heir his respective portion; and, if the partition, when made, be more advantageous to the one than to the other, the judge ought as we have before observed, to oblige him, who has the largest part, to make a full recompense in money to his co-heir: it therefore follows, that every co-heir, who hath taken the profits of an inheritance to his sole use, and consumed them, is liable to be compelled to make restitution. And this is the law whether there are two heirs, or many.

dividundo.

5. The law is the same, when a suit is brought communi dividundo, for one particular thing only, it being but a part or parcel of an inheritance, as a field, or any piece

sionem recipiat, partes ejus singulis adjudicare debet: et, si unius pars prægravare videtur, is invicèm certâ pecuniâ alteri condemnandus est. Quod si commodè dividi non possit, vel si homo fortè aut mulus erit, de quo actum sit, tunc totus uni adjudicandus est, et is invicem alteri certâ pecuniâ condemnandus est.

of ground, which, if it can be conveniently divided, ought to be adjudged to each claimant in equal portions; and if the share of one be larger than the others, the party having the largest portion, must be condemned to make a recompense in money. But, if the thing sued for be of such a nature, that it cannot be divided, as a slave, or a horse, it must be given entirely to one of the co-partners, who must be ordered to make satisfaction in money to the other.

§ VI. Si finium regundorum actum fuerit, dispicere debet judex, an necessaria sit adjudicatio; quæ sanè uno casu necessaria est, si evidentioribus finibus distingui agros commodius sit, quam olim fuissent distincti: nam tunc necesse est, ex alterius agro partem aliquam alterius agri domino adjudicari; quo casu conveniens est, ut is alteri certâ pecuniâ debeat condemnari. Eo quoque nomine condemnandus est quisque hoc judicio, quod fortè circa fines aliquid malitiosè commisit; verbi gratiâ, quia lapides finales furatus est, vel arbores finales excidit. Contumaciæ quoque nomine quisque eo judicio condem

6. When the action finium regundorum is brought for the determination of boundaries, the judge ought first to examine, whether it be absolutely requisite to proceed to an adjudication; in one case, it is undoubtedly so; viz. when it becomes expedient, that grounds should be divided by more conspicuous boundaries than formerly; for necessity then requires, that a part of one man's ground should be adjudged to another, in which case it is incumbent upon a judge to condemn him, whose estate is enlarged, to pay an equivalent to the other, whose estate is diminished. By this action, that any one may be prosecuted, who hath

IV. Item lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, quæ non solùm temeratores alienarum nuptiarum gladio punit, sed et eos, qui cum masculis nefandam libidinem exercere audent. Sed eâdem lege etiam stupri flagitium punitur, cum quis sinè vi vel virginem vel viduam honestè viventem stupraverit. Pœnam autem eadem lex irrogat stupratoribus; si honesti sunt, publicationem partis dimidiæ bonorum; si humiles, corporis coercitionem cum relegationę.

4. The law Julia, for the suppression of adulteries, not only punishes with death those who violate the marriage bed of others, but those also, who commit acts of detestable lewdness with persons of their own sex. It also inflicts punishment upon all who are guilty of the crime called stuprum: that is, the debauching a virgin, or a widow of honest fame, without force. The punishment of this crime in persons of condition is the confiscation of a moiety of their possessions; offenders of low degree, undergo corporal chastisement with relegation,

SV. Item lex Cornelia de sicariis, quæ homicidas ultore ferro persequitur, vel eos, qui hominis occidendi causâ cum telo ambulant.

§ 5. The law Cornelia de sicariis punishes those, who commit murder, with death, and those also, who carry weapons, with intent to kilk