« PreviousContinue »
Proceedings arising out of Calumnia.
sum ab alio quo admissum non esse. sed adversus iniuriarum quidem actionem decimae partis datur ; adversus vero duas istas quintae. (178.) Severior autem coercitio est per contrarium iudicium : nam calumniae iudicio x. partis nemo damnatur, nisi qui intelligit non recte se agere, sed vexandi adversarii gratia actionem instituit, potiusque ex iudicis errore vel iniquitate victoriam sperat quam ex causa veritatis ; calumnia enim in adfectu est, sicut furti crimen. contrario vero iudicio omni modo damnatur actor, si causam non tenuerit, licet aliqua opinione inductus crediderit se recte agere. (179.) Utique autem ex quibus causis contrario iudicio agere potest, etiam calumniae iudicium locum habet : sed alterutro tantum iudicio agere permittitur. qua ratione si iusiurandum de calumnia exactum fuerit, quemadmodum calumniae iudicium non datur, ita et contrarium non dari debet. (180.) Restipulationis quoque poena ex certis causis fieri solet: et quemadmodum contrario
a grant of possession, his entry has been opposed by some one or other. When the action of calumnia is in reply to an actio injuriarum it is granted for the tenth part (of the claim in that action), when it follows the two last-named it is for the fifth part. 178. The penalty involved in a cross-action is the more severe one, for in the judicium calumniae a man is never mulcted in the tenth unless he be aware that he is bringing his action improperly, and be taking proceedings for the mere purpose of annoying his opponent, expecting to succeed rather through the mistake or unfairness of the judex than through the merits of his cause : for calumnia like furtum lies in intention?. In a cross-action, on the other hand, the plaintiff, if he be unsuccessful in his suit, is always mulcted, even though he were induced by some idea or other to believe that he was bringing his action properly. 179. Undoubtedly in all cases where we can proceed by crossaction, the judicium calumniae can also be employed : but we are allowed to use only one of the two. According to this principle, if the oath against vexatiousness have been required, the cross-action cannot be allowed, inasmuch as the judicium calumniae is not allowed). 180. The restipulatory penalty is also one only applicable to certain special cases : and just
1 111. 197, 208.
; IV. 13. Cic. pro Rosc. Com. C. 13.
iudicio omnimodo condemnatur actor, si causam non tenuerit, · nec requiritur an scierit non recte se agere, ita etiam restipula
tionis poena omnimodo damnatur actor. (181.) Sane si ab actore ea restipulationis poena petatur, ei neque calumniae iudicium opponitur, neque iurisiurandi religio iniungitur : nam contrarium iudicium in his causis locum non habere palam est.
182. Quibusdam iudiciis damnati ignominiosi fiunt, velut furti, vi bonorum raptorum, iniuriarum ; item pro socio, fiduciae, tutelae, mandati, depositi. sed furti aut vi bonorum raptorum aut iniuriarum non solum damnati notantur ignominia, sed etiam pacti : idque ita in edicto Praetoris scriptum est. et recte : plurimum enim interest utrum ex delicto aliquis, an ex contractu debitor sit. et Praetor illa parte edicti id ipsum notat. nam con,
as in the cross-action the plaintiff' is in all cases condemned to pay when he has failed in the original suit, and the question whether he did or did not know that he was suing improperly is never raised, so in the case of the restipulatory penalty is he condemned to pay in every instance. 181. Clearly, if, a
restipulatory penalty be claimed from the plaintiff, no action of · calumnia can be brought against him, nor can the obligation
of an oath be laid upon him : for it is plain enough that there can in such cases be no cross-action.
182. In some actions those against whom a judgment is given are branded with infamy, for instance the actions for theft, robbery with violence, injuries, also those in respect of partnership, fiduciary engagement, guardianship, mandate, deposit. But not only those condemned for theft, robbery, or injury are branded with ignominy, but even those who have bought the plaintiff off, and thus it is laid down, and very properly too, in the edict of the Praetor : for there is a considerable difference between the position of a debtor upon a delict and one upon a contract*, a point which the Praetor takes note of
1 The plaintiff in the original ac, must select one of these remedies, and tion, i. e. the defendant in the cross- that he cannot employ first one and action.
then another. The doctrine agrees 2 The meaning of this paragraph with that in $ 179. is very simple. We are told in $ 174 3 See D. 3. 2. 6. 3. that the calumnia of the plaintiff can 4 The latter portion of the section be met in four different ways, we are is filled in according to Heffter's connow informed that the defendant jectural reading.
tractus separavit a delictis. ceterum si quis alieno nomine convenitur, velut procuratorio, ab ignominia liber erit. idem est si quis . fideiussorio nomine iudicio convenitur. etenim et hic pro alio damnatur.
183. In summa sciendum est eum qui aliquem in ius vocare vult et cum eo agere, et eum qui vocatus est naturali ratione ac lege iustam personam habere debere. quare etiam sine permissu Praetoris nec liberis cum parentibus constituetur actio, nec patrono et liberto, si non impetrabitur venia edicti, et in eum qui adversus ea egerit poena pecuniaria statuitur. (184.) Quando autem in ius vocatus fuerit adversarius, ni eo die finitum fuerit negotium,
in the portion of the edict just alluded to?. For he has drawn a line of demarcation between contracts and delicts. Where, however, a person is sued in another's name, for instance, as his procurator, he is exempt from ignominy. The same rule applies to the case of a person sued as a fidejussor, because he too is condemned to pay on behalf of another.
183. In conclusion, be it known that both he who wishes to summon another into court and sue him and he who is so summoned ought upon principles of equity as well as law to have a status invested with full legal attributes?. Hence, therefore, without permission of the Praetor no action can be brought by children against their parents ; nor between a patron and his libertus unless special exemption be granted them from the rule of the edict; and should any one act in contravention of these regulations a pecuniary penalty is imposed on him. 184. When a defendant has been summoned to court, unless the business be concluded on the day of sum
1 The subject of infamia or ignominia is treated of in D. 3. 2. See especially 3. 2. 1, 3. 2. 4. 5, 3. 2. 6, and 3. 2. 7.
2 Naturalis ratio here means equi. table as opposed to civil law, civil law being denoted by the word lex. See II. 65, 66, 67 and D. 4. 5. 8.
The phrase personam habere is identical with personam aliquam sustinere, agere, capere, etc., which occur
in Cicero, e. g. in Pro Sulla, 3, Pro Quinctio, 13. The rule laid down in this section is approved of in D. 2. 4. 12. See also D. 2. 4. 1—4 and 23—25.
The section from this point to its conclusion is translated from Heff. ter's conjectural reading.
3 The penalty was 5000 sesterces, IV. 46. Just. Inst. iv. 16. 3. See also D. 2. 4. 4.
vadimonium ei faciendum est, id est ut promittat se certo die sisti. (185.) Fiunt autem vadimonia quibusdam ex causis pura, id est sine satisdatione, quibusdam cum satisdatione, quibusdam iureiurando, quibusdam recuperatoribus suppositis, id est ut qui non steterit, is protinus a recuperatoribus in summam vadimonii condemnetur : eaque singula diligenter Praetoris edicto significantur. (186.) Et si quidem iudicati depensive agetur, tanti fiet vadimonium, quanti ea res erit; si vero ex ceteris causis, quanti actor iuraverit non calumniae causa postulare sibi vadimonium promitti, nec tamen pluris quam partis dimidiae, nec pluribus quam sestertium c milibus fit vadimonium. itaque si centum milium res erit, nec iudicati depensive agetur, non plus quam sestertium quinquaginta milium fit vadimonium. (187.) Quas autem personas sine permissu Praetoris impune in ius vocare non possumus, easdem nec vadimonio
mons, he must enter into a vadimonium, that is, he must promise that he will appear on a day fixed. 185. In some cases the vadimonia are simple, that is, without sureties, in some they are with sureties, in some they are with an oath, in some with recuperatores interposed, which means that if a man fail to make appearance he will at once be condemned by the recuperatores for the amount of his vadimonium : and each of these matters is carefully explained in the Praetor's edict. 186. If then the action be upon a judgment or for money laid down by a sponsor', the amount of vadimonium will be the value of the matter in dispute; but if it be on other grounds, the vadimonium will be such amount as the plaintiff shall fix after having sworn that he does not demand a promise of vadimonium to himself with any vexatious object; but its amount cannot be fixed higher than half the value of the subject of the suit, or than 100,000 sesterces. If then the subject be worth 100,000 sesterces, and the action be not one on judgment or for money laid down by a sponsor, the vadimonium cannot exceed 50,000 sesterces. 187. All persons whose appearance in court we cannot legally compel without the Praetor's permission”, we are also unable to com
1 III. 115.
2 1V. 183.
invitas obligare nobis possumus, praeterquam si Praetor aditus permittit.
pel to furnish vadimonium to us against their will, save in cases where the Praetor allows them to be brought before him.
i That is to say, in order to se cure their attendance at the trial by means of a vadimonium the plaintiff
must first obtain leave from the Praetor to summon them for the preliminary proceedings.