[ULPIANUS libro quinquagensimo septimo ad edictum. ] §47.10.17.prSed si unius permissu id fecero, si quidem solius eius esse putaui, nulli competit iniuriarum actio.
[ULPIAN, on the Edict, book 57] But if I have done it with the permission of one person, if indeed I thought that the slave belonged to him alone, no action for injury is available to anyone.
plane si scii plurium, ei quidem, qui permisit, non competit iniuriarum actio, ceteris competit.
Clearly, if I knew that he belonged to several, the action for injury is not available to the one who gave permission, but it is available to the others.
§47.10.17.1Si iussu tutoris aut procuratoris uel curatoris quaestio habita sit, consequens erit dicere cessare iniuriarum actionem.
If an interrogation has been conducted by order of a tutor, procurator, or curator, it will be a logical consequence to say that the action for injury does not apply.
§47.10.17.2Seruus meus opera uel querella tua flagellis caesus est a magistratu nostro.
My slave has been scourged by our magistrate through your effort or complaint.
Mela putat dandam mihi iniuriarum aduersus te, in quantum ob eam rem aequum iudici uidebitur, et si seruus decesserit, dominum eius agere posse Labeo ait, quia de damno, quod per iniuriam factum est, agatur.
Mela thinks that an action for injury should be given to me against you, to the extent that it seems equitable to the judge for that matter, and Labeo says that even if the slave dies, his master can bring the action, because the action is brought concerning the damage done through injury.
et ita Trebatio placuit.
And this was approved by Trebatius.
§47.10.17.3Quaedam iniuriae a liberis hominibus factae leues (non nullius momenti) uidentur, enimuero a seruis graues sunt: crescit enim contumelia ex persona eius qui contumeliam fecit.
Certain injuries committed by free men seem light (though not of no importance), whereas those by slaves are serious; for the insult increases from the status of the person who committed the insult.
§47.10.17.4Cum seruus iniuriam facit, maleficium eum admittere palam est: merito igitur sicuti ex ceteris delictis, ita et ex hoc iniuriarum noxalis actio datur.
When a slave commits an injury, it is clear that he commits a wrongdoing; therefore, deservedly, just as from other delicts, so also from this one, a noxal action for injury is given.
sed in arbitrio domini est, an uelit eum uerberandum exhibere, ut ita satisfiat ei qui iniuriam passus est: neque erit necesse domino utique eum uerberandum praestare, sed dabitur ei facultas praestare ei seruum uerberandum aut, si de eo uerberibus satis non fiat, noxae dedendum uel litis aestimationem sufferendam.
But it is within the discretion of the master whether he wishes to present him to be scourged, so that satisfaction may thus be made to the one who suffered the injury; nor will it be necessary for the master to provide him to be scourged in any event, but he will be given the option to provide the slave to be scourged, or, if satisfaction is not made by the scourging, to surrender him as noxa or to undergo the assessment of the litigation.
§47.10.17.5Ait praetor 'arbitratu iudicis': utique quasi uiri boni, ut ille modum uerberum imponat.
The praetor says "by the assessment of the judge," surely as that of a good man, so that he may impose the limit of the scourging.
§47.10.17.6Si ante iudicem dominus uerberandum seruum exhibuerit, ut satis uerberibus ei fieret, et erit factum arbitratu alicuius, postea actor agere iniuriarum perseuerat, non est audiendus: qui enim accepit satisfactionem, iniuriam suam remisit.
If the master has presented the slave before the judge to be scourged, so that satisfaction might be made to him by the scourging, and this has been done by the assessment of someone, and afterwards the plaintiff persists in bringing the action for injury, he is not to be heard; for he who has accepted satisfaction has remitted his injury.
nam et si nuda uoluntate iniuriam remisit, indubitate dicendum est extingui iniuriarum actionem non minus, quam si tempore abolita fuerit iniuria.
For even if he has remitted the injury by mere consent, it must undoubtedly be said that the action for injury is extinguished no less than if the injury had been abolished by lapse of time.
§47.10.17.7Si iussu domini seruus iniuriam fecerit, utique dominus conueniri poterit etiam suo nomine.
If a slave has committed an injury by order of his master, the master can certainly be sued even in his own name.
sed si proponatur seruus manumissus, placet Labeoni dandam in eum actionem, quia et noxa caput sequitur nec in omnia seruus domino parere debet: ceterum et si occiderit iussu domini, Cornelia eum eximemus.
But if it is proposed that the slave has been manumitted, Labeo is of the opinion that the action should be given against him, because the liability follows the person and a slave does not have to obey his master in everything; moreover, even if he has killed by order of his master, we will exclude him from exemption under the Lex Cornelia.
§47.10.17.8Plane si defendendi domini gratia aliquid fecerit, rationem ei constare apparet, inque eam rem adversus agentem exceptio obicienda erit.
Clearly, if he has done something for the sake of defending his master, it is apparent that he has a good reason, and an exception regarding this matter must be raised against the plaintiff.
§47.10.17.9Si seruus, in quo usus fructus meus est, iniuriam mihi fecerit, adversus dominum noxali iudicio experiri potero: neque debeo deterioris condicionis ob hoc esse, quod usum fructum in eo habeo, quam si non haberem.
If a slave, in whom I have the usufruct, has committed an injury against me, I can sue the master by a noxal action; nor should I be in a worse position because of this, that I have the usufruct in him, than if I did not have it.
aliter atque si seruus communis esset: tunc enim non daremus socio actionem, eapropter quia et ipse iniuriarum actione tenetur.
It is otherwise than if the slave were common; for then we would not give the action to the co-owner, because he himself is also liable to the action for injury.
§47.10.17.10Ait praetor: 'Si ei, qui in alterius potestate erit, iniuria facta esse dicetur et neque is, cuius in potestate est, praesens erit neque procurator quisquam existat, qui eo nomine agat: causa cognita ipsi, qui iniuriam accepisse dicetur, iudicium dabo'. §47.10.17.11Filio familias iniuriam passo, si praesens sit pater, agere tamen non possit propter furorem uel quem alium casum dementiae, puto competere iniuriarum actionem: nam et hic pater eius absentis loco est.
The praetor says: "If it is alleged that an injury has been done to one who is in the power of another, and neither the person in whose power he is is present, nor is there any procurator to sue on that behalf: after investigation of the case, I will give the action to the person himself who is alleged to have suffered the injury." If a son in power has suffered an injury, and the father is present but cannot sue because of madness or any other case of insanity, I think that the action for injury is available; for here too his father is in the place of an absent person.