the common law-第3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！


t　to　know　that　they　are　released　from　obligation　by　surrendering　us？　The　formula　of　surrender　seems　to　bring　the　case　within　the　noxoe　deditio。　/1/　Cicero　narrates　a　similar　surrender　of　Mancinus　by　the　pater…patratus　to　the　Numantines；　who；　however；　like　the　Samnites　in　the　former　case；　refused　to　receive　him。　/2/

It　might　be　asked　what　analogy　could　have　been　found　between　a　breach　of　contract　and　those　wrongs　which　excite　the　desire　for　vengeance。　But　it　must　be　remembered　that　the　distinction　between　tort　and　breaches　of　contract；　and　especially　between　the　remedies　for　the　two；　is　not　found　ready　made。　It　is　conceivable　that　a　procedure　adapted　to　redress　for　violence　was　extended　to　other　cases　as　they　arose。　Slaves　were　surrendered　for　theft　as　well　as　＇14＇　for　assault；　/1/　and　it　is　said　that　a　debtor　who　did　not　pay　his　debts；　or　a　seller　who　failed　to　deliver　an　article　for　which　he　had　been　paid；　was　dealt　with　on　the　same　footing　as　a　thief。　/2/　This　line　of　thought；　together　with　the　quasi　material　conception　of　legal　obligations　as　binding　the　offending　body；　which　has　been　noticed；　would　perhaps　explain　the　well…known　law　of　the　Twelve　Tables　as　to　insolvent　debtors。　According　to　that　law；　if　a　man　was　indebted　to　several　creditors　and　insolvent；　after　certain　formalities　they　might　cut　up　his　body　and　divide　it　among　them。　If　there　was　a　single　creditor；　he　might　put　his　debtor　to　death　or　sell　him　as　a　slave。　/3/

If　no　other　right　were　given　but　to　reduce　a　debtor　to　slavery；　the　law　might　be　taken　to　look　only　to　compensation；　and　to　be　modelled　on　the　natural　working　of　self…redress。　/4/　The　principle　of　our　own　law；　that　taking　a　man's　body　on　execution　satisfies　the　debt；　although　he　is　not　detained　an　hour；　seems　to　be　explained　in　that　way。　But　the　right　to　put　to　death　looks　like　vengeance；　and　the　division　of　the　body　shows　that　the　debt　was　conceived　very　literally　to　inhere　in　or　bind　the　body　with　a　vinculum　juris。

Whatever　may　be　the　true　explanation　of　surrender　in　connection　with　contracts；　for　the　present　purpose　we　need　not　go　further　than　the　common　case　of　noxoe　deditio　for　wrongs。　Neither　is　the　seeming　adhesion　of　liability　to　the　very　body　which　did　the　harm　of　the　first　importance。　＇15＇　The　Roman　law　dealt　mainly　with　living　creatures；　with　animals　and　slaves。　If　a　man　was　run　over；　it　did　not　surrender　the　wagon　which　crushed　him；　but　the　ox　which　drew　the　wagon。　/1/　At　this　stage　the　notion　is　easy　to　understand。　The　desire　for　vengeance　may　be　felt　as　strongly　against　a　slave　as　against　a　freeman；　and　it　is　not　without　example　nowadays　that　a　like　passion　should　be　felt　against　an　animal。　The　surrender　of　the　slave　or　beast　empowered　the　injured　party　to　do　his　will　upon　them。　Payment　by　the　owner　was　merely　a　privilege　in　case　he　wanted　to　buy　the　vengeance　off。

It　will　readily　be　imagined　that　such　a　system　as　has　been　described　could　not　last　when　civilization　had　advanced　to　any　considerable　height。　What　had　been　the　privilege　of　buying　off　vengeance　by　agreement；　of　paying　the　damage　instead　of　surrendering　the　body　of　the　offender；　no　doubt　became　a　general　custom。　The　Aquilian　law；　passed　about　a　couple　of　centuries　later　than　the　date　of　the　Twelve　Tables；　enlarged　the　sphere　of　compensation　for　bodily　injuries。　Interpretation　enlarged　the　Aquilian　law。　Masters　became　personally　liable　for　certain　wrongs　committed　by　their　slaves　with　their　knowledge；　where　previously　they　were　only　bound　to　surrender　the　slave。　/2/　If　a　pack…mule　threw　off　his　burden　upon　a　passer…by　because　he　had　been　improperly　overloaded；　or　a　dog　which　might　have　been　restrained　escaped　from　his　master　and　bit　any　one；　the　old　noxal　action；　as　it　was　called；　gave　way　to　an　action　under　the　new　law　to　enforce　a　general　personal　liability。　/3/　Still　later；　ship…owners　and　innkeepers　were　made　liable　＇16＇　as　if　they　were　wrong…doers　for　wrongs　committed　by　those　in　their　employ　on　board　ship　or　in　the　tavern；　although　of　course　committed　without　their　knowledge。　The　true　reason　for　this　exceptional　responsibility　was　the　exceptional　confidence　which　was　necessarily　reposed　in　carriers　and　innkeepers。　/1/　But　some　of　the　jurists；　who　regarded　the　surrender　of　children　and　slaves　as　a　privilege　intended　to　limit　liability；　explained　this　new　liability　on　the　ground　that　the　innkeeper　or　ship…owner　was　to　a　certain　degree　guilty　of　negligence　in　having　employed　the　services　of　bad　men？　This　was　the　first　instance　of　a　master　being　made　unconditionally　liable　for　the　wrongs　of　his　servant。　The　reason　given　for　it　was　of　general　application；　and　the　principle　expanded　to　the　scope　of　the　reason。

The　law　as　to　ship…owners　and　innkeepers　introduced　another　and　more　startling　innovation。　It　made　them　responsible　when　those　whom　they　employed　were　free；　as　well　as　when　they　were　slaves。　/3/　For　the　first　time　one　man　was　made　answerable　for　the　wrongs　of　another　who　was　also　answerable　himself；　and　who　had　a　standing　before　the　law。　This　was　a　great　change　from　the　bare

permission　to　ransom　one's　slave　as　a　privilege。　But　here　we　have　the　history　of　the　whole　modern　doctrine　of　master　and　servant；　and　principal　and　agent。　All　servants　are　now　as　free　and　as　liable　to　a　suit　as　their　masters。　Yet　the　principle　introduced　on　special　grounds　in　a　special　case；　when　servants　were　slaves；　is　now　the　general　law　of　this　country　and　England；　and　under　it　men　daily　have　to　pay　large　sums　for　other　people's　acts；　in　which　they　had　no　part　and　＇17＇　for　which　they　are　in　no　sense　to　blame。　And　to　this　day　the　reason　offered　by　the　Roman　jurists　for　an　exceptional　rule　is　made　to　justify　this　universal　and　unlimited　responsibility。　/1/

So　much　for　one　of　the　parents　of　our　common　law。　Now　let　us　turn　for　a　moment　to　the　Teutonic　side。　The　Salic　Law　embodies　usages　which　in　all　probability　are　of　too　early　a　date　to　have　been　influenced　either　by　Rome　or　the　Old　Testament。　The　thirty…sixth　chapter　of　the　ancient　text　provides　that；　if　a　man　is　killed　by　a　domestic　animal；　the　owner　of　the　animal　shall　pay　half　the　composition　（which　he　would　have　had　to　pay　to　buy　off　the　blood　feud　had　he　killed　the　man　himself）；　and　for　the　other　half　give　up　the　beast　to　the　complainant。　/2/　So；　by　chapter　thirty…five；　if　a　slave　killed　a　freeman；　he　was　to　be　surrendered　for　one　half　of　the　composition　to　the　relatives　of　the　slain　man；　and　the　master　was　to　pay　the　other　half。　But　according　to　the　gloss；　if　the　slave　or　his　master　had　been　maltreated　by　the　slain　man　or　his　relatives；　the　master　had　only　to　surrender　the　slave。　/3/　It　is　interesting　to　notice　that　those　Northern　sources　which　Wilda　takes　to　represent　a　more　primitive　stage　of　German　law　confine　liability　for　animals　to　surrender　alone。　/4/　There　is　also　a　trace　of　the　master's　having　been　able　to　free　himself　in　some　cases；　at　a　later　date；　by　showing　that　the　slave　was　no　longer　in　＇18＇　his　possession。　/1/　There　are　later　provisions　making　a　master　liable　for　the　wrongs　committed　by　his　slave　by　his　command。　/2/　In　the　laws　adapted　by　the　Thuringians　from　the　earlier　sources；　it　is　provided　in　terms　that　the　master　is　to　pay　for　all　damage　done　by　his　slaves。　/4/

In　short；　so　far　as　I　am　able　to　trace　the　order　of　development　in　the　customs　of　the　German　tribes；　it　seems　to　have　been　entirely　similar　to　that　which　we　have　already　followed　in　the　growth　of　Roman　law。　The　earlier　liability　for　slaves　and　animals　was　mainly　confined　to　surrender；　the　later　became　personal；　as　at　Rome。

The　reader　may　begin　to　ask　for　the　proof　that　all　this　has　any　bearing　on　our　law　of　today。　So　far　as　concerns　the　influence　of　the　Roman　law　upon　our　own；　especially　the　Roman　law　of　master　and　servant；　the　evidence　of　it　is　to　be　found　in　every　book　which　has　been　written　for　the　last　five　hundred　years。　It　has　been　stated　already　that　we　still　repeat　the　reasoning　of　the　Roman　lawyers；　empty　as　it　is；　to　the　present　day。　It　will　be　seen　directly　whether　the　German　folk…laws　can　also　be　followed　into　England。

In　the　Kentish　laws　of　Hlothhaere　and　Eadrie　（A。D。　680）　＇19＇　it　is　said；　〃If　any　one's　slave　slay　a　freeman；　whoever　it　be；　let　the　owner　pay　with　a　hundred　shillings；　give　up　the　slayer；〃　&c。　/1/　There　are　several　other　similar　provisions。　In　the　nearly　contemporaneous　laws　of　Ine；　the　surrender　and　payment　are　simple　alternatives。　〃If　a　Wessex　slave　slay　an　Englishman；　then　shall　he　who　owns　him　deliver　him　up　to　the　lord　and　the　kindred；　or　give　sixty　shillings　for　his　life。〃　/2/　Alfred's　laws　（A。D。　871…901）　have　a　like　provision　as　to　cattle。　〃If　a　neat　wound　a　man；　let　the　neat　be　delivered　up　or　compounded　for。〃　/3/　And　Alfred；　although　two　hundred　years　later　than　the　first　English　lawgivers　who　have　been　quoted；　seems　to　have　gone　back　to　more　primitive　notions　than　we　find　before　his　time。　For　the　same　principle　is　extended　to　the　case　of　a　tree　by　which　a　man　is　killed。　〃If；　at　their　common　work；　one　man　slay　another　unwilfully；　let　the　tree　be　given　to　the　kindred；　and　let　them　have　it　off　the　land　within　thirty　nights。　Or　let　him　take　possession　of　it　who　owns　the　wood。〃　/4/

It　is　not　inapposite　to　compare　what　Mr。　Tylor　has　mentioned　concerning　the　rude　K