5 quia ipsis fit iniuria. Quodsi usus fructus in servo Titii est, proprietas Maevii est, magis Maevio iniuria fieri intellegitur. 6 Sed si libero, qui tibi bona fide servit, iniuria facta sit, nulla tibi actio dabitur, sed suo nomine is experiri poterit: nisi in contumeliam tuam pulsatus sit, tunc enim competit et tibi iniuriarum actio. idem ergo est et in servo alieno bona fide tibi serviente, ut totiens admittatur iniuriarum actio, quotiens in tuam contumeliam iniuria ei facta sit.

7 Poena autem iniuriarum ex lege duodecim tabularum propter membrum quidem ruptum talio erat: propter os vero fractum nummariae poenae erant constitutae quasi in magna veterum paupertate. sed postea praetores permittebant ipsis qui iniuriam passi sunt eam aestimare, ut iudex vel tanti condemnet, quanti iniuriam passus aestimaverit, vel minoris prout ei visum fuerit. sed poena quidem iniuriae, quae ex lege duodecim tabularum introducta est, in desuetudinem abiit: quam autem praetores introduxerunt, quae etiam honoraria appellatur, in iudiciis frequentatur. nam secundum gradum dignitatis vitaeque honestatem crescit aut minuitur aestimatio iniuriae: qui gradus condemnationis et in servili persona non immerito servatur, ut aliud in servo actore, aliud in medii actus homine, aliud in vilissimo vel compedito con

judge should consider not only the shares, but also the dignitas, of the joint owners so that if a more honourable and a less honourable man own a slave in moieties, and the former could recover 100/. if he were sole dominus, while the latter, under the same supposition, would get only 50, the judge ought to award 50l. to the one, and 257. to the

other.

§ 5. But if the insult was intended to be offered to Titius, he could sue, Dig. 47. 10. 15. 47.

§ 7. To fractum Gaius (iii. 223) adds 'aut collisum.' The difference between membrum ruptum and os fractum is not clear, but, if we may rely on the interpretation of ruptum under the lex Aquilia as corruptum, the former is intended to express permanent disablement. The penalty in such cases (the exaction of which was permitted by the statute to the nearest relative of the injured person, 'talione proximus cognatus ulciscitur' Cato in Priscian 6. 710) was a limb for a limb only if the parties were unable to agree as to compensation: 'si membrum rupit, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto' (Twelve Tables in Festus); but it would seem that the delinquent could resist talio if he pleased, and insist on a judicial fine: 'si reus, qui depacisci noluerat, iudici talionem imperanti non parebat,

stituatur. Sed et lex Cornelia de iniuriis loquitur et iniuriarum 8 actionem introduxit. quae competit ob eam rem, quod se pulsatum quis verberatumve domumve suam vi introitam esse dicat. domum autem accipimus, sive in propria domo quis habitat sive in conducta vel gratis sive hospitio receptus sit. Atrox iniuria aestimatur vel ex facto, veluti si quis ab aliquo 9 vulneratus fuerit vel fustibus caesus: vel ex loco, veluti si cui in theatro vel in foro vel in conspectu praetoris iniuria

aestimata lite iudex hominem pecunia damnabat' Gell. 20. 1. The pecuniary penalties fixed by the Twelve Tables were 300 asses if the broken bone were a free man's, 150 if it were a slave's; for all other iniuriae 25 asses, Gaius loc. cit. That the grossest libel could be atoned for by payment of this small sum argues the old Romans to have been not over sensitive to abuse, unless it took the form of ribald songs, in which case the penalty of death, fustuarium supplicium, was ordained by the Twelve Tables, Paul. sent. rec. 5. 4. 6: cf. Cic. de republ. 4. 1o, Tusc. 4. 2. After the introduction of the praetorian penalties, the sum to be paid in cases of atrox iniuria (§ 9 inf.) was in Gaius' time practically fixed by the praetor, Gaius iii. 224. That Justinian does not mention this is perhaps to be accounted for by supposing that atrox iniuria was usually proceeded against either criminally, § 10 inf., or under the lex Cornelia, § 8 inf. The praetorian action could be brought only within an annus utilis of the commission of the offence, Cod. 9. 35. 5, and condemnation entailed infamia, Tit. 16. 2 inf. The right of action was extinguished by the death either of the person injured, or of the delinquent, the wrong being purely personal, Dig. 47. 10. 13. pr.; this of course must be understood to mean that the action was neither actively nor passively transmissible; the former, perhaps, because in many cases more than one person could sue on the same iniuria.

§ 8. Whether this lex Cornelia, passed by Sulla B. C. 81, was confined to iniuriae, or was only a part of a larger statute, perhaps the lex Cornelia de sicariis, Tit. 18. 5 inf., is doubtful; the former view is supported by the fulness with which it seems to have treated iniuria, Dig. 47. 10. 5. 6-8; 48. 2. 12. 4. Its original object in any case was the criminal prosecution of the acts of violence to which it related ('apparet igitur omnem iniuriam, quae manu fiat, lege Cornelia contineri' Dig. 47. 10. 5. pr.), but by gradual usage a civil action was developed under its provisions, which, though its scope was less than that of the older praetorian remedy, had the advantage of being perpetua, i.e. not barred by lapse of a year: 'etiam ex lege Cornelia iniuriarum actio civiliter moveri potest, condemnatione aestimatione iudicis facienda' Dig. 47. 10. 37. I. The criminal proceedings under this statute apparently went out of use, Dig. 3. 3. 42. I.

§ 9. Gaius (iii. 223) and Paulus (sent. rec. 5. 4. 10) do not mention the position of the wound as sufficient to make an iniuria atrox.

acta sit: vel ex persona, veluti si magistratus iniuriam passus fuerit, vel si senatori ab humili iniuria facta sit, aut parenti patronoque fiat a liberis vel libertis: aliter enim senatoris et parentis patronique, aliter extranei et humilis personae iniuria aestimatur. nonnumquam et locus vulneris atrocem iniuriam facit, veluti si in oculo quis percussus sit. parvi autem refert, utrum patri familias an filio familias talis iniuria facta sit: 10 nam et haec atrox aestimabitur. In summa sciendum est de omni iniuria eum qui passus est posse vel criminaliter agere vel civiliter. et si quidem civiliter agatur, aestimatione facta secundum quod dictum est poena imponitur. sin autem criminaliter, officio iudicis extraordinaria poena reo irrogatur: hoc videlicet observando, quod Zenoniana constitutio introduxit, ut viri illustres quique supra eos sunt et per procuratores possint actionem iniuriarum criminaliter vel persequi vel suscipere secundum eius tenorem, qui ex ipsa 11 manifestius apparet. Non solum autem is iniuriarum tenetur qui fecit iniuriam, hoc est qui percussit: verum ille quoque continebitur, qui dolo fecit vel qui curavit, ut cui mala pugno 12 percuteretur. Haec actio dissimulatione aboletur: et ideo, si quis iniuriam dereliquerit, hoc est statim passus ad animum suum non revocaverit, postea ex paenitentia remissam iniuriam non poterit recolere.

§ 10. Criminal prosecution of iniuria was not under any recognised iudicium publicum, hence the necessity of an extraordinaria poena (cf. the passage cited from Dig. 47. 2. 92 on Tit. I. 19 supr.), though some forms of it would come under specific statutes, e. g. the leges Iuliae de adulteriis, Tit. 18. 4 inf., and de vi, ib. 8: Cornelia de sicariis, ib. 5, or Fabia de plagiariis, ib. 10. The ranks higher than illustris were those of consulares and patricii. For Zeno's constitution cf. Paul. sent. rec. 8. 4. 12 ‘iniuriarum non nisi praesentes accusare possunt: crimen enim, quod vindictae aut calumniae iudicium expectat, per alios intendi non potest,' Dig. 48. 1. 13. I ‘ad crimen iudicii publici persequendum frustra procurator intervenit, multoque magis ad defendendum.'

§ 12. For this use of dissimulatio cf. Dig. 23. 4. 27, Cod. 2. 22. I; 7. 13. 3. The meaning seems to be arrived at by supposing that a person who, after at first letting an iniuria go by, then brings his action, ‘dissembled' his anger. The reason of the rule is that the actio iniuriae 'ex bono et aequo est' Dig. 47. 10. II. I.

V.

DE OBLIGATIONIBUS QUAE QUASI EX DELICTO NASCUNTUR.

Si iudex litem suam fecerit, non proprie ex maleficio obligatus videtur. sed quia neque ex contractu obligatus est et utique peccasse aliquid intellegitur, licet per imprudentiam : ideo videtur quasi ex maleficio teneri, et in quantum de ea re aequum religioni iudicantis videbitur, poenam sustinebit. Item 1 is, ex cuius cenaculo vel proprio ipsius vel conducto vel in quo gratis habitabat deiectum effusumve aliquid est, ita ut alicui noceretur, quasi ex maleficio obligatus intellegitur: ideo autem non proprie ex maleficio obligatus intellegitur, quia plerumque ob alterius culpam tenetur aut servi aut liberi. cui similis est is, qui ea parte, qua vulgo iter fieri solet, id positum aut suspensum habet, quod potest, si ceciderit, alicui nocere: quo casu poena decem aureorum constituta est. de eo vero quod deiectum effusumve est dupli quanti damnum datum sit constituta est actio. ob hominem vero liberum occisum quinquaginta aureorum poena constituitur: si vero vivet nocitumque ei esse dicetur, quantum ob eam rem aequum iudici

Tit. V. These quasi-delicts are of two kinds; (1) cases of vicarious responsibility, imposed by the law upon a man 'quod opera malorum hominum utitur,' or because it may be difficult to ascertain the real offender, and (2) wrongs which result directly from a man's own culpa, but which do not come under the definition of any of the four delicts proper. The actions by which they are redressed being bilaterally penal, except perhaps in one case, they partake of the character of genuine delicts; a category from which (as Mr. Poste remarks) they are excluded apparently only because they fall under no certain statute, or are recent additions to the code.

That the incompetence of a surgeon was a delict (Tit. 3. 7 supr.), while that of a judge was not, was due to the wording of the lex Aquilia, the action under which did not lie except in cases of damage to tangible objects iudex tunc litem suam facere intellegitur, cum dolo malo in fraudem legis sententiam dixerit. Dolo malo autem videtur hoc facere, si evidens arguatur eius vel gratia vel inimicitia vel etiam sordes, ut veram aestimationem litis praestare cogatur' Dig. 5. 1. 15. 1. Where his offence was only imprudentia it must have been more lightly visited, the judge here having a discretion '. . . . quantum aequum religioni iudicantis videbitur.'

§ 1. 'Praetor ait de his, qui deiecerint vel effuderint, unde in eum locum

videtur, actio datur: iudex enim computare debet mercedes medicis praestitas ceteraque impendia, quae in curatione facta sunt, praeterea operarum, quibus caruit aut cariturus est ob 2 id quod inutilis factus est. Si filius familias seorsum a patre habitaverit et quid ex cenaculo eius deiectum effusumve sit, sive quid positum suspensumve habuerit, cuius casus periculosus est: Iuliano placuit in patrem nullam esse actionem, sed cum ipso filio agendum. quod et in filio familias iudice

quo vulgo iter fiet, vel in quo consistetur, deiectum vel effusum quid erit, quantum ex ea re damnum datum factumve erit, in eum, qui ibi habitaverit, in duplum iudicium dabo' Dig. 9. 3. 1. pr. The action for the recovery of the penalty was popularis (cf. Bk. i. 26. 3 and note, supr.) if the offence resulted in the death of a free man—' dummodo sciamus, ex pluribus desiderantibus haec actionem ei potissimum dari debere, cuius interest, vel qui adfinitate cognationeve defunctum contingit' Dig. ib. 5. 5 ; like penal actions in general, it was not passively transmissible, and the time within which it could be brought was limited to a year. A free man who was only injured could sue at any length of time from the occurrence, and in such cases the action seems also to have been popularis for a year: 'sed si libero nocitum est, ipsi perpetua erit actio; sed si alius velit experiri annua erit haec actio, nec enim heredibus iure hereditario competit, quippe quod in corpore libero damni datur, iure hereditario transire ad successores non debet, quasi non sit damnum pecuniarium, nam ex bono et aequo oritur' Dig. loc. cit.

If the occupier of the house were cast in an actio de effusis vel deiectis, he could recover by actio in factum from the actual delinquent unless he were his slave or filiusfamilias, in which case he could usually pay the damages from the peculium Dig. ib. 5. 4.

For the actio positi aut suspensi cf. Dig. 9. 3. 5-6 'praetor ait, ne quis in suggrunda protectove supra eum locum, quo vulgo iter fiet inve quo consistetur, id positum habeat, cuius casus nocere cui possit ; qui adversus ea fecerit, in eum solidorum decem in factum iudicium dabo.' The action was popularis, Dig. ib. 13, and its object, besides the recovery of the penalty, was the removal of the danger, i. e. it lay before any damage was actually done.

§ 2. In this case no action whatever could be brought against the pater in the first instance, 'neque de peculio neque noxalem' Dig. 44. 7. 5. 5, 'de peculio non datur, quia non ex contractu venit' Dig. 9. 3. 1. 7. But if judgment were recovered against the filiusfamilias the pater was liable to the actio iudicati, and must pay to the extent of the peculium; at least this was the rule in delicts proper: 'quotiens nemo filiumfamilias ex causa delicti defendit, in eum iudicium datur; et si condemnatus fuerit, filius iudicatum facere debet, tenet enim condemnatio. Quin immo etiam illud dicendum est, patrem quoque post condemnationem