[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo ad edictum. ] §43.20.1.13Idem Labeo scribit, etiamsi praetor hoc interdicto de aquis frigidis sentiat, tamen de calidis aquis interdicta non esse deneganda: namque harum quoque aquarum usum esse necessarium: nonnumquam enim refrigeratae usum irrigandis agris praestant.
[ULPIANUS from the seventieth book on the Edict.] The same Labeo writes that, even if the praetor has cold waters in mind in this interdict, yet interdicts concerning hot waters are not to be denied; for the use of these waters also is necessary; since sometimes, when cooled, they are useful for irrigating fields.
his accedit, quod in quibusdam locis et cum calidae sunt, irrigandis tamen agris necessariae sunt, ut Hierapoli: constat enim apud Hierapolitanos in Asia agrum aqua calida rigari.
To this is added that in certain places, even when they are hot, they are nevertheless necessary for irrigating fields, as at Hierapolis; for it is well known among the Hierapolitans in Asia that the land is irrigated with hot water.
et quamuis ea sit aqua, quae ad rigandos non sit necessaria, tamen nemo ambiget his interdictis locum fore.
And although it may be water that is not necessary for irrigation, yet no one will doubt that there will be room for these interdicts.
§43.20.1.14Siue autem intra urbem sit aqua siue extra urbem, hoc interdicto locus erit.
Moreover, whether the water is inside the city or outside the city, there will be room for this interdict.
§43.20.1.15Illud tamen hic intellegendum est eodem modo praetorem duci aquam iussisse, quo ducta est hoc anno.
However, it must be understood here that the praetor ordered water to be drawn in the same manner as it was drawn in this year.
proinde neque amplioris modi, neque alia permississe potest uideri.
Therefore, he cannot be seen to have permitted either a greater measure or a different thing.
quare si alia aqua sit, quam quis uelit ducere, quam hoc anno duxit, uel eadem, per aliam tamen regionem uelit ducere, impune ei uis fiet.
For this reason, if there is other water which someone wishes to draw than what he drew in this year, or if he wishes to draw the same water but through another region, force may be used against him with impunity.
§43.20.1.16Illud Labeo dicit omnes partes illius fundi, in quem loci aqua ducitur, eiusdem numero esse.
Labeo says that all parts of that estate into which the water of the place is drawn are of the same number.
ergo et si forte actor confinem agrum emerit et ex agro, in quem hoc anno aquam duxerit, postea fundi empti nomine uelit aquam ducere, ita demum eum recte hoc interdicto (ut de itinere actuque) uti putant, ut semel in suum ingressus inde egredi qua uelit possit, nisi ei nocitum sit, ex quo aquam ducit.
Therefore, even if by chance the plaintiff should buy an adjoining field, and afterwards, in the name of the purchased estate, should wish to draw water from the field into which he drew water in this year, they think that he rightly uses this interdict (as in the case of a right of way and driving cattle) only if, having once entered into his own property, he can go out from there wherever he wishes, unless damage is done to him from whom he draws the water.
§43.20.1.17Item quaeritur, si quis aquae, quam hoc anno ducebat, aliam aquam admiscuerit, an impune prohibeatur.
Likewise it is questioned: if someone has mixed other water with the water which he was drawing in this year, whether he may be prevented with impunity.
et extat Ofilii sententia existimantis recte eum prohiberi, sed eo loci, in quo primum aquam aliam in riuum admittit: et Ofilius in tota aqua recte eum prohiberi ait.
And there exists the opinion of Ofilius, who thinks that he is rightly prevented, but at that place where he first admits the other water into the channel; and Ofilius says that he is rightly prevented as to the whole of the water.
ego Ofilio adsentio non posse diuidi, quia non potest ita in parte uis fieri, ut non in tota aqua fiat.
I agree with Ofilius that it cannot be divided, because force cannot be used in part in such a way that it is not used as to the whole water.
§43.20.1.18Trebatius, cum amplior numerus pecoris ad aquam appelletur, quam debet appelli, posse uniuersum pecus impune prohiberi, quia iunctum pecus ei pecori, cui adpulsus debeatur, totum corrumpat pecoris adpulsum.
Trebatius holds that when a larger number of cattle is driven to water than ought to be driven, the entire herd can be prevented with impunity, because the herd joined to that herd to which the right of driving is owed invalidates the driving of the herd as a whole.
§43.20.1.19Marcellus autem ait, si quis ius habens pecoris ad aquam appellendi plura pecora adpulserit, non in omnibus pecoribus eum prohibendum: quod est uerum, quia pecora separari possunt.
Marcellus, on the other hand, says that if someone having the right to drive cattle to water drives more cattle, he is not to be prevented in respect of all the cattle; which is true, because cattle can be separated.
§43.20.1.20Aristo putat eum demum interdictum hoc habere, qui se putat suo iure uti, non eum, qui scit se nullum ius habere et utitur.
Aristo thinks that only he has this interdict who thinks he is using his own right, not he who knows that he has no right and yet uses it.
§43.20.1.21Idem ait eum, qui hoc anno aquam duxerit nec ui nec clam nec precario et eodem anno uitiose usus est, recte tamen hoc interdicto usurum: quod referri ad id tempus, quod sine uitio fuerit: esse enim uerum hoc anno non ui non clam non precario usum.
The same writer says that he who has drawn water in this year neither by force, nor secretly, nor by permission, and in the same year used it with defect, will nevertheless rightly use this interdict; which is to be referred to that time which was without defect; for it is true that he used it in this year neither by force, nor secretly, nor by permission.
§43.20.1.22Quaesitum est, si quis ante annum aquam duxit, deinde sequenti tempore, hoc est intra annum, aqua influxerit ipsa sibi me non ducente, an hoc interdicto locus sit.
It was questioned: if someone drew water before the year, and then in the following period, that is, within the year, water flowed in by itself without me drawing it, whether there is room for this interdict.
et refert Seuerus Ualerius competere ei hoc interdictum, quasi duxisse uideatur, licet penitus prospicientibus non uidetur iste duxisse.
And Severus Valerius reports that this interdict is available to him, as if he were seen to have drawn it, although to those who look into it deeply, he is not seen to have drawn it.
§43.20.1.23Item quaeritum est, si quis, dum putat tertio quoque die habere se ius aquae ducendae, duxerit una die, an recte et sine captione possessoris recte duxisse uideatur, ut hoc interdictum habeat: ait enim praetor: 'uti hoc anno aquam duxisti' id est alternis diebus.
Likewise it was questioned: if someone, while he thinks that he has the right of drawing water every third day, drew it on one day, whether he is seen to have drawn it rightly and without disadvantage to the possessor, so that he has this interdict; for the praetor says: 'as you have drawn water in this year', that is, on alternate days.
Illud autem nihil interest, utrum quinto die aqua debeatur an alternis diebus an cottidie ei, qui hoc interdicto uti uelit: nam cum sufficiat uel uno die hoc anno aquam duxisse, nihil refert, qualem aquae ductum habens duxerit: dum, si quis, cum quinto quoque die uteretur, quasi alternis diebus ducens interdixerit, nihil ei prodesse uidetur.
But it makes no difference whether water is owed every fifth day, or on alternate days, or daily to him who wishes to use this interdict; for since it is sufficient to have drawn water even on one day in this year, it does not matter what kind of watercourse he had when he drew it; provided that, if someone, when he used it every fifth day, should seek an interdict as if drawing on alternate days, it is seen to be of no benefit to him.
§43.20.1.24Praeterea illud sciendum est, si, cum aquam duxisses, aduersarius te prohibuerit, deinde tu interim ius aquae ducendae amiseris, in restitutionem hoc uenire, ut tibi praestetur per hoc interdictum quod amisisti: et hoc uerum puto.
Furthermore, it should be known that if, when you had drawn water, your adversary prevented you, and then you in the meantime lost the right of drawing water, it comes into the restoration that what you lost should be made good to you through this interdict; and I think this is true.