Scanned text contains errors.
without the knowledge and consent of his master or father, there might be an action against the master or father in respect of such dealings, so far as it could be proved that he had derived advantage from them. This was called the Actio de in rem Verso (Dig. 15. tit. 3), and it was in fact the game actio as that De Peculio. That was said " in rem patris dominive ver&itm," which turned out for his advantage. For instance if a slave borrowed ten sestertia and paid them to the master's creditors, the master was bound to pay the loan, and the lender had an actio against him De in rem verso. If the slave paid any part of the borrowed sum to his master's creditors, the master was liable to the lender for the amount so applied, and if the slave had wasted the other part, the master was bound to make that good to the amount of the slave's peculium ; but still with this provision, that the amount of the slave's peculium could only be ascertained by first deducting from it what he owed to the master. The case was the same with the peculium of a son and a slave. Thus, as Gains observes (iv. 73), the Actio De peculio and De in rem verso was one actio, but contained two condemnationes.
It is a consequence of the relation of Slave and Master, that the Master acquired no rights against the slave in consequence of his Delicts. Other persons might obtain rights against a slave in eon-sequence of his delicts, but their right could not be prosecuted by a'etion until the slave was manumitted. (GaitiSj iv. 77.) They had however a right of action against the slave's master for damages, and if the master would not pay the damages, he must give up the slave. [NoxA.] The slave was protected against injury from other persons. If the sla've was killed, the master might either prosecute the killer for a capital offence, or sue for damages under the Lex Aquillia. (Gains, iii. 213.) [aquillia lex; injuria.] The master had also a praetoria actio in duplum against those who corrupted his slave (s&rvus^ serva) and led him into bad practices (Dig. 11. tit. 3. s. 1. where the words of the Edict are given): the in duplum was to twice the amount of the estimated damage. He had also an action against a person who committed stuprum with his female slave. (Dig. 47. tit. 10. s. 25.)
A runaway slave (fugitivus) could not lawfully be received or harboured ; to conceal him was Furtum. The master was entitled to pursue him wherever he pleased ; and it was the duty of all authorities to give him aid in recovering the slave. It was the object of various laws to check the running awaj7" of slaves in every way, a'nd accordingly a runaway slave could not legally be an object of sale. A class of persons called Fugitivarii made it their business to recover runaway slaves. The rights of the master over the slave were in no way affected by his running away. (Dig. 1L tit. 4. De fugitivis: there was a Lex Fabia on this subject, and apparently two Senatuseonsulta at least ; see also Varro, de Re Rust. iii. 14 ; Florus5 iii. 19, and the note in Duker's edition.)
A person was a slave either Jure Gentium or Jure Civili. A person was born a slave Jure Gentium whose mother was a slave when she gave him birth (Gains, i. 82) ; for it was a legal principle that the condition of those who were not begotten in Justae Nuptiae was to be reckoned from the moment of the birth. A slave born in the
master's house was Yerna. But it was also a principle of Roman Law that the status of a person who was begotten in Justae Nuptiae was reckoned from the time of conception. At a later period the rule of law was established, that though a woman at the time of the birth might be a slave, still her child was free, if the mother had been free at tmy time reckoning backwards from the time of the birth to the time of the conception. (Paulus, S. R. ii. tit. 24; Dig. 1. tit. 5. s. 5.) There were various cases of children the offspring of a free parent and a slave as to which positive law provided whether the children should be free or slaves. (Gaius, i.
83, &C.) [S'ENAfUSCONSULTUM CLAUDTANUM.J
A person became a slave by capture in war, also Jure Gentium. [praeda.] Captives in war were sold as belonging to the Aerarium or distributed among the soldiers by lot. (Walter, GescMclite &c. p. 50. note 35, 1st ed.) In reference to the practice of selling prisoners with a crown on their heads, we find the expression " sub corona venire, vendere." (Gell. vii. 4 ; Liv. v. 22 ; Caesar, E.G. iii. 16.)
A free person might become a slave in various ways in consequence of positive law, Jure Civili. This was the case with Ineensi [caput], and those who evaded military service. (Cic. pro Cdecina, 34.) In certain cases, a man became a slave, if he allowed himself to be sold as a slave in order to defraud the purchaser ; and a free woman who cohabited with a slave might be reduced to the same condition. [senatusconsultum clau-dianitm.] Under the empire the rule was established that persons condemned to death, to the mines, and to fight with wild beasts, lost their freedom, and their property was confiscated, whence, concludes Gaius, it appears that they lose the Testament! factio. (Dig. 28. tit. 1. s. 8.) But this was not the earlier law. A person so condemned, though he lost his freedom, had no master, and consequently the hereditates and legacies which were left to him, were simply void ; for such a person was " poenae servus, non Caesaris." (Dig. 34. tit. 8. s. 3.) A man never lost his freedom by usucapion. (Gaius, ii. 48.) According to the old la'w a manifestos fur was liable to a capitalis poena and was addicted (addtcebalur} to the person whose property he had stolen ; but it was doubted whether the effect of the addictio was to make him a servus or to put him in the condition of an adju-dicatus. (Gaius, iii. 189.)
By a Constitiitio or Senatusconsultum of Claudius (Sueton. Claud. 25) a freedman who misconducted himself towards his patron, was reduced to his former state of slavery* But this was not the rule of law in the time of Nero. (Tacit. Ann. xiii. 27 ; see the note's of Ernesti and Lipsius on this passage: and Patronus, libejrtus. )
The State of Slavery was terminated by manu-missio. It was also terminated by various positive enactments^ either by way of reward to the slave or punishment to the master. The SisNATtscoN-sultum silanianum is an example of the former ; and various subsequent Constitutions gave freedom to slaves who discovered the perpetrators of certain crimes. (Cod. Theod. tit. 21. s. 2.) Liberty might also be acquired by the Praescriptio Temporis. After the establishment of Christianity, it might be acquired subject to certain limitations by be- : coming a monk or a spiritual person (Nov. 5. c. 2. and 123. c. 17. 35) ; but if the person left his