De incendio ruina naufragio rate nave expugnata
(Concerning fire, destruction, and shipwreck, where a boat or a ship is taken by force.)
1 Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo sexto ad edictum. Praetor ait: ‘In eum, qui ex incendio ruina naufragio rate nave expugnata quid rapuisse recepisse dolo malo damnive quid in his rebus dedisse dicetur: in quadruplum in anno, quo primum de ea re experiundi potestas fuerit, post annum in simplum iudicium dabo. item in servum et in familiam iudicium dabo’. 1Huius edicti utilitas evidens et iustissima severitas est, si quidem publice interest nihil rapi ex huiusmodi casibus. et quamquam sint de his facinoribus etiam criminum executiones, attamen recte praetor fecit, qui forenses quoque actiones criminibus istis praeposuit. 2‘Ex incendio’ quemadmodum accipimus, utrum ex ipso igne an vero ex eo loco, ubi incendium fit? et melius sic accipietur propter incendium, hoc est propter tumultum incendii vel trepidationem incendii, rapit: quemadmodum solemus dicere in bello amissum, quod propter causam belli amittitur. proinde si ex adiacentibus praediis, ubi incendium fiebat, raptum quid sit, dicendum sit edicto locum esse, quia verum est ex incendio rapi. 3Item ruinae appellatio refertur ad id tempus, quo ruina fit, non tantum si ex his quae ruerunt tulerit quis, sed etiam si ex adiacentibus. 4Si suspicio fuit incendii vel ruinae, incendium vel ruina non fuit, videamus, an hoc edictum locum habeat. et magis est, ne habeat, quia neque ex incendio neque ex ruina quid raptum est. 5Item ait praetor: ‘si quid ex naufragio’. hic illud quaeritur, utrum, si quis eo tempore tulerit, quo naufragium fit, an vero et si alio tempore, hoc est post naufragiumque: nam res ex naufragio etiam hae dicuntur, quae in litore post naufragium iacent. et magis est, ut de eo tempore.
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVI. The Prætor says: “When it is alleged that anyone at a fire, in the destruction of a building, in a shipwreck, or in an attack on a boat or a ship, has taken anything by violence, or fraudulently appropriated property, or caused any loss, I will grant an action for quadruple damages within a year after the time when an action can be brought, and, when the year has elapsed, I will grant an action for double damages. I will also grant the action against a slave, and an entire body of slaves.” 1The benefit of this Edict is evident, and its severity is perfectly justifiable, since it is to the interest of the public that nothing should be stolen under such circumstances. And, although these crimes can be prosecuted criminally, still, the Prætor very properly provides that civil actions may be brought, where offences of this kind have been perpetrated. 2How should we understand the words “at a fire?” Do they mean in the fire itself, or only in the place where the fire occurred? The better opinion is to understand them to mean on account of the fire, that is to say, that the property was stolen because of the confusion produced by the fire, or the fear resulting from it; just as we are accustomed to say “lost in war,” with reference to anything which is lost by reason of war. Hence, if anything should be stolen from the fields near where the fire took place, it must be said that there will be ground for the application of the Edict, because it is true that it was stolen on account of the fire. 3Likewise, the term “destruction” refers to the time when the demolition of the house took place, and not merely where anyone removed property from the fallen building, but also if he removed any from the adjacent houses. 4If there was a suspicion of a fire, or of the demolition of a house, and neither the fire nor the demolition occurred, let us see whether there will be ground for the application of this Edict. The better opinion is that there will be no ground for it, because nothing was taken either on account of the fire, or the demolition of the house. 5The Prætor also says, “If anything is taken in a shipwreck,” and, in this instance, the question arises whether this means if anyone takes property at the time of the shipwreck, or if he takes it at some other time, that is to say, after the shipwreck has occurred; for anything cast upon the shore after a shipwreck is said to belong to the vessel. The better opinion is that this refers to the time of the shipwreck,
2 Gaius libro vicensimo primo ad edictum provinciale. Et loco,
2 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXI. As well as to the place.
3 Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo sexto ad edictum. quo naufragium fit vel factum est, si quis rapuerit, incidisse in hoc edictum videatur. qui autem rem in litore iacentem, postea quam naufragium factum est, abstulit, in ea condicione est, ut magis fur sit quam hoc edicto teneatur, quemadmodum is, qui quod de vehiculo excidit tulit. nec rapere videtur, qui in litore iacentem tollit. 1Deinde ait praetor ‘rate navi expugnata’. expugnare videtur, qui in ipso quasi proelio et pugna adversus navem et ratem aliquid rapit, sive expugnet sive praedonibus expugnantibus rapiat. 2Labeo scribit aequum fuisse, ut, sive de domo sive in villa expugnatis aliquid rapiatur, huic edicto locus sit: nec enim minus in mari quam in villa per latrunculos inquietamur vel infestari possumus. 3Non tantum autem qui rapuit, verum is quoque, qui recepit ex causis supra scriptis, tenetur, quia receptores non minus delinquunt quam adgressores. sed enim additum est ‘dolo malo’, quia non omnis qui recipit statim etiam delinquit, sed qui dolo malo recipit. quid enim, si ignarus recipit? aut quid, si ad hoc recepit, ut custodiret salvaque faceret ei qui amisserat? utique non debet teneri. 4Non solum autem qui rapuit, sed et qui abstulit vel amovit vel damnum dedit vel recepit, hac actione tenetur. 5Aliud esse autem rapi, aliud amoveri palam est, si quidem amoveri aliquid etiam sine vi possit: rapi autem sine vi non potest. 6Qui eiecta nave quid rapuit, hoc edicto tenetur. ‘eiecta’ hoc est quod Graeci aiunt ἐξεβράσθη. 7Quod ait praetor de damno dato, ita demum locum habet, si dolo damnum datum sit: nam si dolus malus absit, cessat edictum. quemadmodum ergo procedit, quod Labeo scribit, si defendendi mei causa vicini aedificium orto incendio dissipaverim, et meo nomine et familiae iudicium in me dandum? cum enim defendendarum mearum aedium causa fecerim, utique dolo careo. puto igitur non esse verum, quod Labeo scribit. an tamen lege Aquilia agi cum hoc possit? et non puto agendum: nec enim iniuria hoc fecit, qui se tueri voluit, cum alias non posset. et ita Celsus scribit. 8Senatus consultum Claudianis temporibus factum est, ut, si quis ex naufragio clavos vel unum ex his abstulerit, omnium rerum nomine teneatur. item alio senatus consulto cavetur eos, quorum fraude aut consilio naufragi suppressi per vim fuissent, ne navi vel ibi periclitantibus opitulentur, legis Corneliae, quae de sicariis lata est, poenis adficiendos: eos autem, qui quid ex miserrima naufragorum fortuna rapuissent lucrative fuissent dolo malo, in quantum edicto praetoris actio daretur, tantum et fisco dare debere.
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVI. Where anyone seizes property by violence in the place where the shipwreck occurs or has occurred, he is held to come within the terms of this Edict. He, however, who carries away articles cast upon the shore after the shipwreck has happened is in such a position that he should rather be considered a thief than liable under this Edict; just as he who appropriates an article which has fallen from a vehicle, and one who removes property cast upon the shore are not considered to have taken it by force. 1Next, the Prætor says, “In an attack on a boat or a ship.” He is considered to take property by force who, during a battle or a combat directed against a ship or a boat, either seizes it by violence, or does so while robbers are capturing the vessel. 2Labeo says it is only just that, if anything is taken by violence during an attack either upon a house in town or upon one in the country, there will be ground for proceeding under this Edict, for we can be annoyed and attacked by robbers no less upon the sea than upon the land. 3Not only he who has seized the property by force, but also he who received it, is liable in the above-mentioned instances, because receivers of stolen goods are not less guilty than the aggressors themselves. The word, “fraudulently,” has been added, however, for the reason that everyone who receives property under such circumstances does not immediately become guilty, but only he who receives it with fraudulent intent. But what if he received it without knowing the facts? Or what if he received it for the purpose of taking care of it, and keeping it safely for the person who lost it? He certainly should not be held responsible. 4Not only he who took the property by force, but also he who removed it, or set it aside with the intention of removing it, or injured it, or concealed it, is liable in this action. 5It is, however, clear that it is one thing to take property by violence, and another to secretly appropriate it, since anything can be secretly appropriated without violence, but property cannot forcibly be taken without the employment of violence. 6Anyone who takes property by violence from a ship which has run aground is liable under this Edict. To run aground is what the Greeks term ecebrasvy. 7What the Prætor says with reference to causing damage only applies where the damage has been committed maliciously, for if malice is absent, the Edict will not be available. Hence, how must what Labeo stated be understood, namely: if, for the purpose of protecting myself from a fire, which has broken out, I demolish a building belonging to my neighbor, should an action be granted against me, and my slaves? For, as I did this for the purpose of protecting my own house, I certainly am free from malice. Therefore I think that what Labeo said is not true. But can an action be brought under the Aquilian Law? I do not think it can, for anyone who desires to protect himself does not act unjustly when he cannot do otherwise. Celsus, also, was of the same opinion. 8In the time of Claudius, the following Decree of the Senate was enacted: “If anyone, in a shipwreck, should remove the rudders of a vessel, or one of them, he will be liable for taking the whole ship.” It was likewise provided by another Decree of the Senate that those by whose fraud or advice shipwrecked persons were overcome by force, in order to prevent assistance being given to the ship, or to anyone on board who was in danger, would be liable to the penalties of the Cornelian Law relating to assassins. And, moreover, that those who took by violence, or fraudulently obtained anything from the wretched fortunes of the shipwrecked person, should be compelled to pay as much into the Treasury as could be recovered by the Edict of the Prætor.
4 Paulus libro quinquagensimo quarto ad edictum. Pedius posse etiam dici ex naufragio rapere, qui, dum naufragium fiat, in illa trepidatione rapiat. 1Divus Antoninus de his, qui praedam ex naufragio diripuissent, ita rescripsit: ‘Quod de naufragiis navis et ratis scripsisti mihi, eo pertinet, ut explores, qua poena adficiendos eos putem, qui diripuisse aliqua ex illo probantur. et facile, ut opinor, constitui potest: nam plurimum interest, peritura collegerint an quae servari possint flagitiose invaserint. ideoque si gravior praeda vi adpetita videbitur, liberos quidem fustibus caesos in triennium relegabis aut, si sordidiores erunt, in opus publicum eiusdem temporis dabis: servos flagellis caesos in metallum damnabis. si non magnae pecuniae res fuerint, liberos fustibus, servos flagellis caesos dimittere poteris’. et omnino ut in ceteris, ita huiusmodi causis ex personarum condicione et rerum qualitate diligenter sunt aestimandae, ne quid aut durius aut remissius constituatur, quam causa postulabit. 2Hae actiones heredibus dantur. in heredes eatenus dandae sunt, quatenus ad eos pervenit.
4 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LIV. Pedius says that he who seizes property by violence while the terror which prevails during a shipwreck exists can be said to have taken it in the shipwreck. 1The Divine Antoninus stated as follows, in a Rescript having reference to those who are guilty of pillage during a shipwreck: “What you wrote me concerning the shipwreck of a vessel or a boat was done for the purpose of ascertaining what penalty I think should be inflicted upon those who have stolen something from the vessel. I think that this can be easily determined, for there is a great difference where persons take property which is about to be lost, and where they criminally seize that which can be saved. Therefore, if considerable booty appears to have been obtained by force, you will, after conviction, banish freemen for three years, after having them whipped; or, if they are of inferior rank, you will sentence them to labor on the public works for the same time; and you will sentence slaves to the mines after having scourged them. When the property is not of great value, you can discharge the freemen, after having whipped them with rods; and the slaves, after having scourged them. And, by all means, in other cases, as well as in those of this description, the condition of the persons and the nature of the property should be carefully considered, in order that no more severity or indulgence may be exercised than the circumstances demand.” 2These actions are granted to heirs, as well as against them, according to the amount of property which comes into their hands.
5 Gaius libro vicensimo primo ad edictum provinciale. Si quis ex naufragio vel ex incendio ruinave servatam rem et alio loco positam subtraxerit aut rapuerit, furti scilicet aut alias vi bonorum raptorum iudicio tenetur, maxime si non intellegebat ex naufragio vel incendio ruinave eam esse. iacentem quoque rem ex naufragio, quae fluctibus expulsa sit, si quis abstulerit, plerique idem putant. quod ita verum est, si aliquod tempus post naufragium intercesserit: alioquin si in ipso naufragii tempore id acciderit, nihil interest, utrum ex ipso mari quisque rapiat an ex naufragiis an ex litore. de eo quoque, quod ex rate nave expugnata raptum sit, eandem interpretationem adhibere debemus.
5 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXI. If anyone should remove by stealth, or take by violence anything which has been rescued from a shipwreck, a fire, or the destruction of a house, and placed elsewhere, he will be liable either to an action for theft, or to one for property taken by violence; especially if he did not know that it came from a shipwreck, a fire or the destruction of a building. Where anyone carries away property which has been lost in a shipwreck, and is lying on the shore where it was cast by the waves; many authorities hold the same opinion, and it is correct, if some time intervened since the shipwreck took place. Otherwise, if this occurred at the very time of the shipwreck, it makes no difference whether the goods were taken from the sea itself or from the wreck, or from the shore. We should make the same distinction where they were taken from a boat or a vessel in distress.
6 Callistratus libro primo edicti monitorii. Expugnatur navis, cum spoliatur aut mergitur aut dissolvitur aut pertunditur aut funes eius praeciduntur aut vela conscinduntur aut ancorae involantur de mare.
6 Callistratus, On the Monitory Edict, Book I. A ship is in distress when it is plundered, or submerged, or broken open, or has a hole made in it, or its cables are cut, or its sails torn, or its anchors are carried away by the sea.
7 Idem libro secundo quaestionum. Ne quid ex naufragiis diripiatur vel quis extraneus interveniat colligendis eis, multifariam prospectum est. nam et divus Hadrianus edicto praecepit, ut hi, qui iuxta litora maris possident, scirent, si quando navis vel inficta vel fracta intra fines agri cuiusque fuerit, ne naufragia diripiant, in ipsos iudicia praesides his, qui res suas direptas queruntur, reddituros, ut quidquid probaverint ademptum sibi naufragio, id a possessoribus recipiant. de his autem, quos diripuisse probatum sit, praesidem ut de latronibus gravem sententiam dicere. ut facilior sit probatio huiusmodi admissi, permisit his et quidquid passos se huiusmodi queruntur, adire praefectos et ad eum testari reosque petere, ut pro modo culpae vel vincti vel sub fideiussoribus ad praesidem remittantur. a domino quoque possessionis, in qua id admissum dicatur, satis accipi, ne cognitioni desit, praecipitur. sed nec intervenire naufragiis colligendis aut militem aut privatum aut libertum servumve principis placere sibi ait senatus.
7 The Same, Questions, Book II. Many precautions have been taken to hinder property from being stolen during a shipwreck, or to prevent strangers from coming in and taking possession of it. For the Divine Hadrian provided by an Edict that those who owned land on the shore of the sea should, when a ship either badly damaged or broken up within the boundaries of any of them, see that nothing was stolen from the wreck; and that the Governors of provinces should grant actions against them in favor of those who were searching for the property of which they had been deprived, to enable them to recover anything which they could prove had been taken from them during the shipwreck, by those who had possession of the same. With reference to such as are proved to have taken the property, the Governor should impose a severe sentence upon them, as upon robbers. And in order to render proof of the commission of crimes of this kind more easy, he permitted those who complained of having suffered any loss to go before the Prefect and give their evidence, and search for the guilty parties, in order that they might be sent before the Governor either in chains, or under bond, in proportion to the gravity of their offences. He also directed that security be taken from the owner of the property alleged to have been stolen not to desist from the prosecution. The Senate also decreed that neither a soldier, nor any private individual, nor a freedman, nor a slave of the Emperor, should interfere in the collection of articles dispersed by shipwreck.
8 Neratius libro secundo responsorum. Ratis vi fluminis in agrum meum delatae non aliter potestatem tibi faciendam, quam si de praeterito quoque damno mihi cavisses.
8 Neratius, Opinions, Book II. If your boat has been carried by the force of the stream upon my land, you cannot remove it, unless you give me security for any damage which may have been caused by it.
9 Gaius libro quarto ad legem duodecim tabularum. Qui aedes acervumve frumenti iuxta domum positum conbusserit, vinctus verberatus igni necari iubetur, si modo sciens prudensque id commiserit. si vero casu, id est neglegentia, aut noxiam sarcire iubetur aut, si minus idoneus sit, levius castigatur. appellatione autem aedium omnes species aedificii continentur.
9 Gaius, On the Law of the Twelve Tables, Book IV. Anyone who sets fire to a house, or a pile of grain near a house, shall be chained, scourged, and put to death by fire, provided he committed the act knowingly and deliberately. If, however, it occurred by accident, that is to say, through negligence, he shall be ordered to make good the damage; or, if he is insolvent, he shall receive a light chastisement. Every kind of building is included in the term house.
10 Ulpianus libro primo opinionum. Ne piscatores nocte lumine ostenso fallant navigantes, quasi in portum aliquem delaturi, eoque modo in periculum naves et qui in eis sunt deducant sibique execrandam praedam parent, praesidis provinciae religiosa constantia efficiat.
10 Ulpianus, Opinions, Book I. The vigilance of the Governors of provinces must be diligently exercised to prevent fishermen from showing lights at night in order to deceive sailors, thereby indicating that they are approaching some port, and in this way bringing ships and those on board of them into danger, and preparing for themselves a detestable booty.
11 Marcianus libro quarto decimo institutionum. Si fortuito incendium factum sit, venia indiget, nisi tam lata culpa fuit, ut luxuria aut dolo sit proxima.
11 Marcianus, Institutes, Book XIV. Where a fire takes place by accident it is excusable, unless there was such gross negligence as to resemble illegality or fraud.
12 Ulpianus libro octavo de officio proconsulis. Licere unicuique naufragium suum impune colligere constat: idque imperator Antoninus cum divo patre suo rescripsit. 1Qui data opera in civitate incendium fecerint, si humiliore loco sint, bestiis obici solent: si in aliquo gradu id fecerint, capite puniuntur aut certe in insulam deportantur.
12 Ulpianus, On the Duty of Proconsul, Book VIII. It is established that anyone can collect his shipwrecked property, and this was stated by the Emperor Antoninus and his Divine Father in a Rescript. 1Persons of low rank who designedly cause a fire in a town shall be thrown to wild beasts, and those of superior station shall suffer death, or else be banished to some island.