[Africanus libro quinto quaestionum. ] §33.8.16.prStichus habet in peculio Pamphilum: hunc dominus noxali iudicio defendit et damnatus litis aestimationem soluit: deinde Stichum testamento manumisit eique peculium legauit: quaesitum est, an quod Pamphili nomine praestitum sit, ex peculio uel ipsius Pamphili uel Stichi deducendum sit.
[Africanus, Questions, Book 5.] Stichus had Pamphilus in his peculium; the master defended the latter in a noxal action, and, having been condemned, paid the assessment of the suit. Afterwards, he manumitted Stichus by testament and bequeathed his peculium to him. The question arose whether what was paid on account of Pamphilus should be deducted from the peculium of Pamphilus himself or of Stichus.
respondit Pamphili quidem de peculio utique deducendum, quantacumque ea summa esset, id est etiam si eum noxae dedere expedisset: quidquid enim pro capite serui praestitum sit, in eo debitorem eum domini constitui.
He answered that it must certainly be deducted from the peculium of Pamphilus, no matter how great that sum might be, that is, even if it would have been more advantageous to surrender him as noxal; for indeed, whatever is paid for the head of a slave, in that respect he is made a debtor to his master.
quod si Pamphili peculium non sufficiat, tunc ex peculio Stichi non ultra pretium Pamphili deduci debere.
But if the peculium of Pamphilus is not sufficient, then there ought not to be deducted from the peculium of Stichus more than the value of Pamphilus.
§33.8.16.1Quaesitum est, si ex alia qua causa Pamphilus pecuniam domino debuisset nec ea ex peculio eius seruari posset, an usque ad pretium eius ex peculio Stichi possit deducere.
The question arose whether, if Pamphilus had owed money to his master for any other reason and it could not be recovered from his peculium, the master could deduct up to his value from the peculium of Stichus.
negauit: neque enim simile id superiori esse.
He answered in the negative; for indeed this is not similar to the previous case.
ibi enim propterea pretium uicarii deducendum, quod eo nomine ipse Stichus ob defensionem uicarii sui domino debitor constituatur, at in proposito quia Stichus nihil debeat, ex eius peculio nihil esse deducendum, sed ex Pamphili dumtaxat, qui certe ipse in suo peculio esse intellegi non potest.
For there, the value of the under-slave is to be deducted for this reason, that on that account Stichus himself is made a debtor to the master because of the defense of his own under-slave; whereas, in the case proposed, since Stichus owes nothing, nothing is to be deducted from his peculium, but only from that of Pamphilus, who certainly cannot be understood to be himself in his own peculium.