the common law-第2节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


the　owners　of　ships　in　all　the　more　common　cases　of　maritime　loss　can　surrender　the　vessel　and　her　freight　then　pending　to　the　losers；　and　it　is　provided　that；　thereupon；　further　proceedings　against　the　owners　shall　cease。　The　legislators　to　whom　we　owe　this　act　argued　that；　if　a　merchant　embark　a　portion　of　his　property　upon　a　hazardous　venture；　it　is　reasonable　that　his　stake　should　be　confined　to　what　＇7＇　he　puts　at　risk；a　principle　similar　to　that　on　which　corporations　have　been　so　largely　created　in　America　during　the　last　fifty　years。

It　has　been　a　rule　of　criminal　pleading　in　England　down　into　the　present　century；　that　an　indictment　for　homicide　must　set　forth　the　value　of　the　instrument　causing　the　death；　in　order　that　the　king　or　his　grantee　might　claim　forfeiture　of　the　deodand；　〃as　an　accursed　thing；〃　in　the　language　of　Blackstone。

I　might　go　on　multiplying　examples；　but　these　are　enough　to　show　the　remoteness　of　the　points　to　be　brought　together。　As　a　first　step　towards　a　generalization；　it　will　be　necessary　to　consider　what　is　to　be　found　in　ancient　and　independent　systems　of　law。

There　is　a　well…known　passage　in　Exodus；　/1/　which　we　shall　have　to　remember　later：　〃If　an　ox　gore　a　man　or　a　woman；　that　they　die：　then　the　ox　shall　be　surely　stoned；　and　his　flesh　shah　not　be　eaten；　but　the　owner　of　the　ox　shall　be　quit。〃　When　we　turn　from　the　Jews　to　the　Greeks；　we　find　the　principle　of　the　passage　just　quoted　erected　into　a　system。　Plutarch；　in　his　Solon；　tells　us　that　a　dog　that　had　bitten　a　man　was　to　be　delivered　up　bound　to　a　log　four　cubits　long。　Plato　made　elaborate　provisions　in　his　Laws　for　many　such　cases。　If　a　slave　killed　a　man；　he　was　to　be　given　up　to　the　relatives　of　the　deceased。　/2/　If　he　wounded　a　man；　he　was　to　be　given　up　to　the　injured　party　to　use　him　as　he　pleased。　/3/　So　if　he　did　damage　to　which　the　injured　party　did　not　contribute　as　a　joint　cause。　In　either　case；　if　the　owner　＇8＇　failed　to　surrender　the　slave；　he　was　bound　to　make　good　the　loss。　/1/　If　a　beast　killed　a　man；　it　was　to　be　slain　and　cast　beyond　the　borders。　If　an　inanimate　thing　caused　death；　it　was　to　be　cast　beyond　the　borders　in　like　manner；　and　expiation　was　to　be　made。　/2/　Nor　was　all　this　an　ideal　creation　of　merely　imagined　law；　for　it　was　said　in　one　of　the　speeches　of　Aeschines；　that　〃we　banish　beyond　our　borders　stocks　and　stones　and　steel；　voiceless　and　mindless　things；　if　they　chance　to　kill　a　man；　and　if　a　man　commits　suicide；　bury　the　hand　that　struck　the　blow　afar　from　its　body。〃　This　is　mentioned　quite　as　an　every…day　matter；　evidently　without　thinking　it　at　all　extraordinary；　only　to　point　an　antithesis　to　the　honors　heaped　upon　Demosthenes。　/3/　As　late　as　the　second　century　after　Christ　the　traveller　Pausanias　observed　with　some　surprise　that　they　still　sat　in　judgment　on　inanimate　things　in　the　Prytaneum。　/4/　Plutarch　attributes　the　institution　to　Draco。　/5/

In　the　Roman　law　we　find　the　similar　principles　of　the　noxoe　deditio　gradually　leading　to　further　results。　The　Twelve　Tables　（451　B。C。）　provided　that；　if　an　animal　had　done　damage；　either　the　animal　was　to　be　surrendered　or　the　damage　paid　for。　/6/　We　learn　from　Gains　that　the　same　rule　was　applied　to　the　torts　of　children　or　slaves；　/7/　and　there　is　some　trace　of　it　with　regard　to　inanimate　things。

The　Roman　lawyers；　not　looking　beyond　their　own　＇9＇　system　or　their　own　time；　drew　on　their　wits　for　an　explanation　which　would　show　that　the　law　as　they　found　it　was　reasonable。　Gaius　said　that　it　was　unjust　that　the　fault　of　children　or　slaves　should　be　a　source　of　loss　to　their　parents　or　owners　beyond　their　own　bodies；　and　Ulpian　reasoned　that　a　fortiori　this　was　true　of　things　devoid　of　life；　and　therefore　incapable　of　fault。　/1/　This　way　of　approaching　the　question　seems　to　deal　with　the　right　of　surrender　as　if　it　were　a　limitation　of　a　liability　incurred　by　a　parent　or　owner；　which　would　naturally　and　in　the　first　instance　be　unlimited。　But　if　that　is　what　was　meant；　it　puts　the　cart　before　the　horse。　The　right　of　surrender　was　not　introduced　as　a　limitation　of　liability；　but；　in　Rome　and　Greece　alike；　payment　was　introduced　as　the　alternative　of　a　failure　to　surrender。

The　action　was　not　based；　as　it　would　be　nowadays；　on　the　fault　of　the　parent　or　owner。　If　it　had　been；　it　would　always　have　been　brought　against　the　person　who　had　control　of　the　slave　or　animal　at　the　time　it　did　the　harm　complained　of；　and　who；　if　any　one；　was　to　blame　for　not　preventing　the　injury。　So　far　from　this　being　the　course；　the　person　to　be　sued　was　the　owner　at　the　time　of　suing。　The　action　followed　the　guilty　thing　into　whosesoever　hands　it　came。　/2/　And　in　curious　contrast　with　the　principle　as　inverted　to　meet　still　more　modern　views　of　public　policy；　if　the　animal　was　of　a　wild　nature；　that　is；　in　the　very　case　of　the　most　ferocious　animals；　the　owner　ceased　to　be　liable　the　moment　it　escaped；　because　at　that　moment　he　ceased　to　be　owner。　/3/　There　＇10＇　seems　to　have　been　no　other　or　more　extensive　liability　by　the　old　law；　even　where　a　slave　was　guilty　with　his　master's　knowledge；　unless　perhaps　he　was　a　mere　tool　in　his　master's　hands。　/1/　Gains　and　Ulpian　showed　an　inclination　to　cut　the　noxoe　deditio　down　to　a　privilege　of　the　owner　in　case　of　misdeeds　committed　without　his　knowledge；　but　Ulpian　is　obliged　to　admit；　that　by　the　ancient　law；　according　to　Celsus；　the　action　was　noxal　where　a　slave　was　guilty　even　with　the　privity　of　his　master。　/2/

All　this　shows　very　clearly　that　the　liability　of　the　owner　was　merely　a　way　of　getting　at　the　slave　or　animal　which　was　the　immediate　cause　of　offence。　In　other　words；　vengeance　on　the　immediate　offender　was　the　object　of　the　Greek　and　early　Roman　process；　not　indemnity　from　the　master　or　owner。　The　liability　of　the　owner　was　simply　a　liability　of　the　offending　thing。　In　the　primitive　customs　of　Greece　it　was　enforced　by　a　judicial　process　expressly　directed　against　the　object；　animate　or　inanimate。　The　Roman　Twelve　Tables　made　the　owner；　instead　of　the　thing　itself；　the　defendant；　but　did　not　in　any　way　change　the　ground　of　liability；　or　affect　its　limit。　The　change　was　simply　a　device　to　allow　the　owner　to　protect　his　interest。　/3/

But　it　may　be　asked　how　inanimate　objects　came　to　be　＇11＇　pursued　in　this　way；　if　the　object　of　the　procedure　was　to　gratify　the　passion　of　revenge。　Learned　men　have　been　ready　to　find　a　reason　in　the　personification　of　inanimate　nature　common　to　savages　and　children；　and　there　is　much　to　confirm　this　view。　Without　such　a　personification；　anger　towards　lifeless　things　would　have　been　transitory；　at　most。　It　is　noticeable　that　the　commonest　example　in　the　most　primitive　customs　and　laws　is　that　of　a　tree　which　falls　upon　a　man；　or　from　which　he　falls　and　is　killed。　We　can　conceive　with　comparative　ease　how　a　tree　might　have　been　put　on　the　same　footing　with　animals。　It　certainly　was　treated　like　them；　and　was　delivered　to　the　relatives；　or　chopped　to　pieces　for　the　gratification　of　a　real　or　simulated　passion。　/1/

In　the　Athenian　process　there　is　also；　no　doubt；　to　be　traced　a　different　thought。　Expiation　is　one　of　the　ends　most　insisted　on　by　Plato；　and　appears　to　have　been　the　purpose　of　the　procedure　mentioned　by　Aeschines。　Some　passages　in　the　Roman　historians　which　will　be　mentioned　again　seem　to　point　in　the　same　direction。　/2/

Another　peculiarity　to　be　noticed　is；　that　the　liability　seems　to　have　been　regarded　as　attached　to　the　body　doing　the　damage；　in　an　almost　physical　sense。　An　untrained　intelligence　only　imperfectly　performs　the　analysis　by　which　jurists　carry　responsibility　back　to　the　beginning　of　a　chain　of　causation。　The　hatred　for　anything　giving　us　pain；　which　wreaks　itself　on　the　manifest　cause；　and　which　leads　even　civilized　man　to　kick　a　door　when　it　pinches　his　finger；　is　embodied　in　the　noxoe　deditio　and　＇12＇　other　kindred　doctrines　of　early　Roman　law。　There　is　a　defective　passage　in　Gaius；　which　seems　to　say　that　liability　may　sometimes　be　escaped　by　giving　up　even　the　dead　body　of　the　offender。　/1/　So　Livy　relates　that；　Brutulus　Papins　having　caused　a　breach　of　truce　with　the　Romans；　the　Samnites　determined　to　surrender　him；　and　that；　upon　his　avoiding　disgrace　and　punishment　by　suicide；　they　sent　his　lifeless　body。　It　is　noticeable　that　the　surrender　seems　to　be　regarded　as　the　natural　expiation　for　the　breach　of　treaty；　/2/　and　that　it　is　equally　a　matter　of　course　to　send　the　body　when　the　wrong…doer　has　perished。　/3/

The　most　curious　examples　of　this　sort　occur　in　the　region　of　what　we　should　now　call　contract。　Livy　again　furnishes　an　example；　if；　indeed；　the　last　is　not　one。　The　Roman　Consul　Postumius　concluded　the　disgraceful　peace　of　the　Caudine　Forks　（per　sponsionem；　as　Livy　says；　denying　the　common　story　that　it　was　per　feedus）；　and　he　was　sent　to　Rome　to　obtain　the　sanction　of　the　people。　When　there　however；　he　proposed　that　the　persons　who　had　made　the　＇13＇　contract；　including　himself；　should　be　given　up　in　satisfaction　of　it。　For；　he　said；　the　Roman　people　not　having　sanctioned　the　agreement；　who　is　so　ignorant　of　the　jus　fetialium　as　not　to　know　that　they　are　released　from　obligation　by　surrendering　us？　The　formula　of　surrender　seems