cognito adversus furem transivit, omnimodo liberari eum qui rem commodatam accepit, quemcumque causae exitum dominus adversus furem habuerit: eadem definitione optinente, sive in partem sive in solidum solvendo sit is qui rem commodatam accepit. Sed is, apud quem res deposita est, 17 custodiam non praestat, sed tantum in eo obnoxius est, si quid ipse dolo malo fecerit : qua de causa si res ei subrepta fuerit, quia restituendae eius nomine depositi non tenetur nec ob id eius interest rem salvam esse, furti agere non potest, sed furti actio domino competit. In summa sciendum est 18 quaesitum esse, an impubes rem alienam amovendo furtum faciat. et placet, quia furtum ex affectu consistit, ita demum obligari eo crimine impuberem, si proximus pubertati sit et ob id intellegat se delinquere. Furti actio sive dupli sive 19 quadrupli tantum ad poenae persecutionem pertinet: nam ipsius rei persecutionem extrinsecus habet dominus, quam aut vindicando aut condicendo potest auferre. sed vindicatio quidem adversus possessorem est, sive fur ipse possidet sive alius quilibet condictio autem adversus ipsum furem heredemve eius, licet non possideat, competit. (Gaius iii. 206, Q. Mucius, Dig. 13. 6. 5, Celsus, Julianus, and Papinian, Dig. 47. 2. 14 ; ib. 15. 2; ib. 48. 4. etc.) were for observing the same rules where a thing was commodata as where it was locata. Justinian's enactment is in Cod. 6. 2. 22. § 17. If a depositary fraudulently enabled a depositum to be stolen, he was liable to actio depositi, and could not sue the thief himself, 'non enim debet ex dolo suo furti quaerere actionem' Dig. 47. 2. 14. 3 and 4. He was also liable if he had undertaken the custodia, note on Bk. iii. 14. 3 supr., and then apparently could bring the penal action, Dig. 47. 2. 14. 16; 47. 8. 2. 23 and 24. § 18. For proximus pubertati see on Bk. iii. 19. 10 supr. § 19. The option allowed to the owner of stolen property between a real and a personal action is noted as an anomaly in Tit. 6. 4 inf. after Gaius iv. 4. Furtum in no case transferred ownership, so that, as the owner of the goods stolen remained their owner, the only action logically open to him was a vindicatio. If the goods had been destroyed, or if, being money, it had been spent or mixed with money belonging to the thief, his ownership would have been extinguished, and (though only in this and some analogous cases, Bk. ii. 1. 26 and note supr.) a condictio would have been lain; but if he could not prove this, e. g. if the property had been lost or concealed, he was, strictly speaking, debarred from a II. VI BONORUM RAPTORUM. Qui res alienas rapit, tenetur quidem etiam furti (quis enim magis alienam rem invito domino contrectat, quam qui vi rapit? ideoque recte dictum est eum improbum furem esse): sed tamen propriam actionem eius delicti nomine praetor introduxit, quae appellatur vi bonorum raptorum et est intra annum quadrupli, post annum simpli. quae actio utilis est, etiamsi quis unam rem licet minimam rapuerit. quadruplum autem non totum poena est et extra poenam rei persecutio, sicut in actione furti manifesti diximus : sed in quadruplo inest et rei persecutio, ut poena tripli sit, personal action, which, however, he was allowed to institute in every case, if he preferred it, to vindicatio, in order to relieve him from the necessity of ascertaining the facts. If then the owner knew who possessed the stolen property, his natural remedy was vindicatio against him; but if he did not know where it was, he could bring condictio furtiva against the thief or his heir for the recovery either of it with fruits, accessions, etc., or of its value with interest, Dig. 13. 1. 3 ; ib. 8. 2. That this latter remedy is not delictual, and that the obligation which it enforces does not arise ex delicto, is clear from this very fact, that the heir is liable in solidum, not merely 'pro eo quo divitior factus est.' The treatment of furtum as a civil wrong is quite in keeping with the history of Roman law, in which the notion of crime was of exceedingly slow development; see Hunter's Roman Law p. 904, Maine's Ancient Law chap. x. Under the empire, however, the general rule was that any one who could bring a penal action on a delict (other than damnum) might, if he preferred it, prosecute the delinquent before a criminal tribunal, Dig. 47. I. 3, forfeiting, however, thereby his right to recover the poena, Dig. 47. 2. 56. 1. Theft indeed was in the time of the classical jurists most usually made the subject of criminal proceedings, though not under any of the regular iudicia publica (Tit. 18. inf.): 'meminisse oportebit nunc furti plerumque criminaliter agi, et eum qui agit in crimen subscribere, non quasi publicum sit iudicium, sed quia visum est temeritatem agentium etiam extraordinaria animadversione coercendam' Ulpian in Dig. 47. 2. 92. For the nature of the punishment, which might be death, penal servitude, flogging, or relegatio, according to the character of the offence, see Hunter's Roman Law p. 911. Tit. II. Robbery was not originally distinguished from theft; the robber was liable to the penalties of furtum manifestum or nec manifestum according to the circumstances under which he was detected, Dig. sive comprehendatur raptor in ipso delicto sive non. ridiculum est enim levioris esse condicionis eum qui vi rapit, 47. 8. I; ib. 2. 26. Cicero tells us (pro Tullio 8) that it was constituted an independent delict by Lucullus when praetor in B.C. 77, by reason of the frequency of crimes of violence which ensued upon the social war. The terms of the edict are preserved: 'si cui dolo malo hominibus coactis damni quid factum esse dicetur, sive cuius bona rapta esse dicentur, . . . iudicium dabo' Dig. 47. 8. 2. pr. It thus introduced a new penalty for two classes of cases, those of damage to property, and those of robbery, 'hominibus coactis,' words which apply to both offences, Dig. ib. 2. 3 and 12. The original edict seems to have run 'hominibus armatis coactisque;' but the carrying of arms for the purposes of crime became so rare under the empire that the word was omitted and the definition of the offence thereby extended. Before long too the words 'hominibus coactis' were taken pro non scriptis: hoc enim quod ait, hominibus coactis, sic accipere debemus, etiam hominibus coactis: ut sive solus vim fecerit, sive etiam hominibus coactis, vel armatis, vel inermibus, hoc edicto teneatur' (Dig. 47. 8. 2. 7 with Heise's emendation). Lastly, the bearing of the edict of Lucullus on wilful damage to property was lost from sight, its practical importance being in the Corpus iuris confined to rapina, which indeed seems to have been the case as early as the time of Ulpian hae actio vulgo tibi (vi ?) bonorum raptorum dicitur' Dig. 47. 8. 2. 17. : The fact that every case of robbery was also a furtum makes it improbable that the actio bonorum vi raptorum was ever employed except within a year from the commission of the offence, and that only when the offence itself did not come within the definition of furtum manifestum. The penalty for which it lay being less than that recoverable by actio furti manifesti (viz. three times the value of the property), it is clear that if the raptor was detected 'antequam eo pervenerit quo perferre ac deponere rem destinasset' (Tit. 1. 3 supr.), the plaintiff would prefer the latter remedy, which had the further advantage of not being barred by the lapse of a year from the commission of the offence (see references inf.); and after the lapse of a year the plaintiff could still bring an actio furti, which, even if the offence were nec manifestum, would enable him to recover a substantial penalty, while by the actio bonorum vi raptorum he could get no penalty at all. In Gaius' time some had thought that the quadruplum recoverable by the actio bonorum vi raptorum was all penalty, and that a vindicatio or condictio lay in addition, as in the case of furtum, Gaius iv. 8. The uncertainty was due to the omission of the edict to say anything precise about the matter; and as the actiones furti and damni iniuria (which were relied on as precedents) were one of them purely penal and the other mixed (Gaius iv. 9, Tit. 6. 19 inf.) it was natural that opinions should differ. The annus within which the actio bonorum vi raptorum was genuinely 1 quam qui clam amovet. Quia tamen ita competit haec actio, si dolo malo quisque rapuerit: qui aliquo errore inductus suam rem esse et imprudens iuris eo animo rapuit, quasi domino liceat rem suam etiam per vim auferre possessoribus, absolvi debet. cui scilicet conveniens est nec furti teneri eum, qui eodem hoc animo rapuit. sed ne, dum talia excogitentur, inveniatur via, per quam raptores impune suam exerceant avaritiam: melius divalibus constitutionibus pro hac parte prospectum est, ut nemini liceat vi rapere rem mobilem vel se moventem, licet suam eandem rem existimet: sed si quis contra statuta fecerit, rei quidem suae dominio cadere, sin autem aliena sit, post restitutionem etiam aestimationem eiusdem rei praestare. quod non solum in mobilibus rebus, quae rapi possunt, constitutiones optinere censuerunt, sed etiam in invasionibus, quae circa res soli fiunt, ut ex hac 2 causa omni rapina homines abstineant. In hac actione non utique exspectatur rem in bonis actoris esse: nam sive in bonis sit sive non sit, si tamen ex bonis sit, locum haec actio habebit. quare sive commodata sive locata sive etiam penal was utilis, Dig. 47. 8. 2. 13; for the explanation of the term see on Bk. iii. 9. 9 supr. All praetorian penal actions had the same short prescription except that furti manifesti, which was perpetua because the penalty thereby recoverable was substituted for capital punishment, Gaius iv. 110, 111, Tit. 12. pr. inf. The heir of the robber was not liable to actio bonorum vi raptorum in any case, though he was suable by condictio to the extent to which the inheritance had been enriched by the proceeds of the wrong: 'adversus heredes autem vel caeteros successores non dabitur, quia poenalis actio in eos non datur. An tamen in id, quod locupletiores facti sunt, dari debeat, videamus. et ego puto ideo praetorem non esse pollicitum in heredes in id quod ad eos pervenit, quia putavit sufficere condictionem' Ulpian in Dig. 47. 8. 2. 27. § 1. The constitutions referred to are those of Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius in Cod. 8. 4. 7 'si quis in tantam furoris pervenerit audaciam, ut possessionem rerum apud fiscum vel apud homines quoslibet constitutarum ante adventum iudicialis arbitrii violenter invaserit, dominus quidem constitutus possessionem quam abstulit restituat possessori et dominium eiusdem rei amittat. Si vero alienarum rerum possessionem invasit, non solum eam possidentibus reddat, verum etiam aestimationem earundem rerum restituere compellatur.' For the relation of this enactment to the interdict unde vi see on Tit. 15. 6 inf. and Mr. Poste's note on Gaius iii. 209. § 2. The expression ex bonis is here opposed to dominium, to denote pignerata sive deposita sit apud Titium sic, ut intersit eius eam non auferri, veluti si in re deposita culpam quoque promisit, sive bona fide possideat, sive usum fructum in ea quis habeat vel quod aliud ius, ut intersit eius non rapi: dicendum est competere ei hanc actionem, ut non dominium accipiat, sed illud solum, quod ex bonis eius qui rapinam passus est, id est quod ex substantia eius ablatum esse proponatur. et generaliter dicendum est, ex quibus causis furti actio competit in re clam facta, ex isdem causis omnes habere hanc actionem. III. DE LEGE AQUILIA. Damni iniuriae actio constituitur per legem Aquiliam. cuius primo capite cautum est, ut si quis hominem alienum alienamve quadrupedem quae pecudum numero sit iniuria occiderit, quanti ea res in eo anno plurimi fuit, tantum domino the bonitarian form of which the phrase 'in bonis habere' was employed; this seems clear from the language towards the end of the paragraph, ‘ut non dominium accipiat, sed illud solum, quod ex bonis eius. ...' In other passages in bonis and ex bonis are not distinguished, e. g. Dig. 50. 16. 49; 41. I. 42; 35. 2. 32. 1, where in bonis has such a wide sense that nothing seems to be left for ex bonis to include. The distinction between the persons who could sue on theft, and those who could sue on robbery, seems to consist in the depositary being in some cases allowed the latter where he could not bring the former action, or perhaps in some persons having the actio bonorum vi raptorum who, though having an interest, have no real right, possession, or detention; 'utilius dicendum est, etsi cesset actio furti ob rem depositam, esse tamen vi bonorum raptorum actionem, quia non minima differentia est inter eum, qui clam facit, et eum, qui rapit, cum ille celet suum delictum, hic publicet et crimen etiam publicum admittat. Si quis igitur interesse sua vel modice docebit, debet habere vi bonorum raptorum actionem' Dig. 47. 8. 2. 24. The criminal alternative for the civil action on robbery was an indictment under the lex Iulia de vi, for the penalties inflicted by which see Tit. 18. 8 inf. Tit. III. 'Lex Aquilia omnibus legibus, quae ante se de damno iniuria locutae sunt, derogavit (repealed), sive duodecim tabulis sive alia quae fuit, quas leges nunc referre non est necesse. Quae lex Aquilia plebiscitum est, cum eam Aquilius, tribunus plebis, a plebe rogaverit' Dig. 9. 2. 1. pr.; its date, according to Theophilus, was the third secession of the plebs, circ. B. C. 287. The terms of cap. i. are preserved by Gaius in |