the common law-第4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　wood。〃　/4/

It　is　not　inapposite　to　compare　what　Mr。　Tylor　has　mentioned　concerning　the　rude　Kukis　of　Southern　Asia。　〃If　a　tiger　killed　a　Kuki；　his　family　were　in　disgrace　till　they　had　retaliated　by　killing　and　eating　this　tiger；　or　another；　but　further；　if　a　man　was　killed　by　a　fall　from　a　tree；　his　relatives　would　take　their　revenge　by　cutting　the　tree　down；　and　scattering　it　in　chips。〃　/5/

To　return　to　the　English；　the　later　laws；　from　about　a　hundred　years　after　Alfred　down　to　the　collection　known　as　the　laws　of　Henry　I；　compiled　long　after　the　Conquest；　＇20＇　increase　the　lord's　liability　for　his　household；　and　make　him　surety　for　his　men's　good　conduct。　If　they　incur　a　fine　to　the　king　and　run　away；　the　lord　has　to　pay　it　unless　he　can　clear　himself　of　complicity。　But　I　cannot　say　that　I　find　until　a　later　period　the　unlimited　liability　of　master　for　servant　which　was　worked　out　on　the　Continent；　both　by　the　German　tribes　and　at　Rome。　Whether　the　principle　when　established　was　an　indigenous　growth；　or　whether　the　last　step　was　taken　under　the　influence　of　the　Roman　law；　of　which　Bracton　made　great　use；　I　cannot　say。　It　is　enough　that　the　soil　was　ready　for　it；　and　that　it　took　root　at　an　early　day。　/1/　This　is　all　that　need　be　said　here　with　regard　to　the　liability　of　a　master　for　the　misdeeds　of　his　servants。

It　is　next　to　be　shown　what　became　of　the　principle　as　applied　to　animals。　Nowadays　a　man　is　bound　at　his　peril　to　keep　his　cattle　from　trespassing；　and　he　is　liable　for　damage　done　by　his　dog　or　by　any　fierce　animal；　if　he　has　notice　of　a　tendency　in　the　brute　to　do　the　harm　complained　of。　The　question　is　whether　any　connection　can　be　established　between　these　very　sensible　and　intelligible　rules　of　modern　law　and　the　surrender　directed　by　King　Alfred。

Let　us　turn　to　one　of　the　old　books　of　the　Scotch　law；　where　the　old　principle　still　appears　in　full　force　and　is　stated　with　its　reasons　as　then　understood；　/2/

〃Gif　ane　wylde　or　head…strang　horse；　carries　ane　man　＇21＇　against　his　will　over　an　craig；　or　heuch；　or　to　the　water；　and　the　man　happin　to　drowne；　the　horse　sall　perteine　to　the　king　as　escheit。

〃Bot　it　is　otherwise　of　ane　tame　and　dantoned　horse；　gif　any　man　fulishlie　rides；　and　be　sharp　spurres　compelles　his　horse　to　take　the　water；　and　the　man　drownes；　the　horse　sould　not　be　escheit；　for　that　comes　be　the　mans　fault　or　trespasse；　and　not　of　the　horse；　and　the　man　has　receaved　his　punishment；　in　sa　farre　as　he　is　perished　and　dead；　and　the　horse　quha　did　na　fault；　sould　not　be　escheit。

〃The　like　reason　is　of　all　other　beastes；　quhilk　slayes　anie　man；　＇it　is　added　in　a　later　work；　〃of　the　quhilk　slaughter　they　haue　gilt；〃＇　for　all　these　beasts　sould　be　escheit。〃　/1/

〃The　Forme　and　Maner　of　Baron　Courts〃　continues　as　follows：　

〃It　is　to　witt；　that　this　question　is　asked　in　the　law；　Gif　ane　lord　hes　ane　milne；　and　any　man　fall　in　the　damne；　and　be　borne　down　with　the　water　quhill　he　comes　to　the　quheill；　and　there　be　slaine　to　death　with　the　quheill；　quhither　aught　the　milne　to　be　eseheir　or　not？　The　law　sayes　thereto　nay；　and　be　this　reason；　For　it　is　ane　dead　thing；　and　ane　dead　thing　may　do　na　fellony；　nor　be　made　escheit　throw　their　gilt。　Swa　the　milne　in　this　case　is　not　culpable；　and　in　the　law　it　is　lawfull　to　the　lord　of　the　land　to　haue　ane　mylne　on　his　awin　water　quhere　best　likes　him。〃　/2/

The　reader　will　see　in　this　passage；　as　has　been　remarked　already　of　the　Roman　law；　that　a　distinction　is　taken　between　things　which　are　capable　of　guilt　and　those　which　＇22＇　are　not；between　living　and　dead　things；　but　he　will　also　see　that　no　difficulty　was　felt　in　treating　animals　as　guilty。

Take　next　an　early　passage　of　the　English　law；　a　report　of　what　was　laid　down　by　one　of　the　English　judges。　In　1333　it　was　stated　for　law；　that；　〃if　my　dog　kills　your　sheep；　and　I；　freshly　after　the　fact；　tender　you　the　dog；　you　are　without　recovery　against　me。〃　/l　/　More　than　three　centuries　later；　in　1676；　it　was　said　by　Twisden；　J。　that；　〃if　one　hath　kept　a　tame　fox；　which　gets　loose　and　grows　wild；　he　that　hath　kept　him　before　shall　not　answer　for　the　damage　the　fox　doth　after　he　hath　lost　him；　and　he　hath　resumed　his　wild　nature。〃　/2/　It　is　at　least　doubtful　whether　that　sentence　ever　would　have　been　written　but　for　the　lingering　influence　of　the　notion　that　the　ground　of　the　owner's　liability　was　his　ownership　of　the　offending：　thing　and　his　failure　to　surrender　it。　When　the　fox　escaped；　by　another　principle　of　law　the　ownership　was　at　an　end。　In　fact；　that　very　consideration　was　seriously　pressed　in　England　as　late　as　1846；　with　regard　to　a　monkey　which　escaped　and　bit　the　plaintiff；　/3/　So　it　seems　to　be　a　reasonable　conjecture；　that　it　was　this　way　of　thinking　which　1ed　Lord　Holt；　near　the　beginning　of　the　last　century；　to　intimate　that　one　ground　on　which　a　man　is　bound　at　his　peril　to　restrain　cattle　from　trespassing　is　that　he　has　valuable　property　in　such　animals；　whereas　he　has　not　dogs；　for　which　his　responsibility　is　less。　/4/　To　this　day；　in　fact；　cautious　judges　state　the　law　as　to　cattle　to　be；　that；　〃if　I　am　the　owner　of　an　animal　in　which　by　law　the　＇23＇　right　of　property　can　exist；　I　am　bound　to　take　care　that　it　does　not　stray　into　the　land　of　my　neighbor。〃　/1/

I　do　not　mean　that　our　modern　law　on　this　subject　is　only　a　survival；　and　that　the　only　change　from　primitive　notions　was　to　substitute　the　owner　for　the　offending　animal。　For　although　it　is　probable　that　the　early　law　was　one　of　the　causes　which　led　to　the　modern　doctrine；　there　has　been　too　much　good　sense　in　every　stage　of　our　law　to　adopt　any　such　sweeping　consequences　as　would　follow　from　the　wholesale　transfer　of　liability　supposed。　An　owner　is　not　bound　at　his　peril　to　keep　his　cattle　from　harming　his　neighbor's　person。　/2/　And　in　some　of　the　earliest　instances　of　personal　liability；　even　for　trespass　on　a　neighbor's　land；　the　ground　seems　to　have　been　the　owner's　negligence。　/3/

It　is　the　nature　of　those　animals　which　the　common　law　recognizes　as　the　subject　of　ownership　to　stray；　and　when　straying　to　do　damage　by　trampling　down　and　eating　crops。　At　the　same　time　it　is　usual　and　easy　to　restrain　them。　On　the　other　hand；　a　dog；　which　is　not　the　subject　of　property；　does　no　harm　by　simply　crossing　the　land　of　others　than　its　owner。　Hence　to　this　extent　the　new　law　might　have　followed　the　old。　The　right　of　property　in　the　＇24＇　offending　animal；　which　was　the　ancient　ground　of　responsibility；　might　have　been　adopted　safely　enough　as　the　test　of　a　liability　based　on　the　fault　of　the　owner。　But　the　responsibility　for　damage　of　a　kind　not　to　be　expected　from　such　animals　is　determined　on　grounds　of　policy　comparatively　little　disturbed　by　tradition。　The　development　of　personal　liability　for　fierce　wild　animals　at　Rome　has　been　explained。　Our　law　seems　to　have　followed　the　Roman。

We　will　now　follow　the　history　of　that　branch　of　the　primitive　notion　which　was　least　likely　to　survive；the　liability　of　inanimate　things。

It　will　be　remembered　that　King　Alfred　ordained　the　surrender　of　a　tree；　but　that　the　later　Scotch　law　refused　it　because　a　dead　thing　could　not　have　guilt。　It　will　be　remembered；　also；　that　the　animals　which　the　Scotch　law　forfeited　were　escheat　to　the　king。　The　same　thing　has　remained　true　in　England　until　well　into　this　century；　with　regard　even　to　inanimate　objects。　As　long　ago　as　Bracton；　/1/　in　case　a　man　was　slain；　the　coroner　was　to　value　the　object　causing　the　death；　and　that　was　to　be　forfeited　sa　deodand　〃pro　rege。〃　It　was　to　be　given　to　God；　that　is　to　say　to　the　Church；　for　the　king；　to　be　expended　for　the　good　of　his　soul。　A　man's　death　had　ceased　to　be　the　private　affair　of　his　friends　as　in　the　time　of　the　barbarian　folk…laws。　The　king；　who　furnished　the　court；　now　sued　for　the　penalty。　He　supplanted　the　family　in　the　claim　on　the　guilty　thing；　and　the　Church　supplanted　him。

In　Edward　the　First's　time　some　of　the　cases　remind　of　the　barbarian　laws　at　their　rudest　stage。　If　a　man　fell　from　a　tree；　the　tree　was　deodand。　/2/　If　he　drowned　in　a　＇25＇　well；　the　well　was　to　be　filled　up。　/1/　It　did　not　matter　that　the　forfeited　instrument　belonged　to　an　innocent　person。〃　Where　a　man　killeth　another　with　the　sword　of　John　at　Stile；　the　sword　shall　be　forfeit　as　deodand；　and　yet　no　default　is　in　the　owner。〃　/2/　That　is　from　a　book　written　in　the　reign　of　Henry　VIII。；　about　1530。　And　it　has　been　repeated　from　Queen　Elizabeth's　time　/3/　to　within　one　hundred　years；　/4/　that　if　my　horse　strikes　a　man；　and　afterwards　I　sell　my　horse；　and　after　that　the　man　dies；　the　horse　shall　be　forfeited。　Hence　it　is；　that；　in　all　indictments　for　homicide；　until　very　lately　it　has　been　necessary　to　state　the　instrument　causing　the　death　and　its　value；　as　that　the　stroke　was　given　by　a　certain　penknife；　value　sixpence；　so　as　to　secure　the　forfeiture。　It　is　said　that　a　steam…engine　has　been　forfeited　in　this　way。

I　now　come　to　what　I　regard　as　the　most　remarkable　transformation　of　this　principle；　and　one　which　is　a　most　important　factor　in　our　law　as　it　is　today。　I　must　for　the　moment　leave　the　common　law　and　take　up　the　doctrines　of　the　Admiralty。　In　the　early　books　which　have　just　been　referred　to；　an