[ULPIANUS libro quinquagensimo septimo ad edictum. ] §47.10.7.prPraetor edixit: 'qui agit iniuriarum, certum dicat, quid iniuriae factum sit': quia qui famosam actionem intendit, non debet uagari cum discrimine alienae existimationis, sed designare et certum specialiter dicere, quam se iniuriam passum contendit.
[ULPIAN, On the Edict, book fifty-seven.] The praetor declared in his edict: 'Let him who brings an action for iniuriae state specifically what iniuria was committed.' For he who brings an action involving infamy ought not to wander vaguely at the risk of another's reputation, but should designate and state specifically which iniuria he contends he has suffered.
§47.10.7.1Si dicatur homo iniuria occisus, numquid non debeat permittere praetor priuato iudicio legi Corneliae praeiudicari? idemque et si ita quis agere uelit 'quod tu uenenum dedisti hominis occidendi causa'? rectius igitur fecerit, si huiusmodi actionem non dederit.
If it is alleged that a person was wrongfully killed, surely the praetor ought not to allow a prejudgment to be made against the Cornelian law by a private trial? And the same applies if someone wishes to sue thus: 'On the ground that you administered poison for the purpose of killing a person'? Therefore, he will act more correctly if he does not grant an action of this kind.
adquin solemus dicere, ex quibus causis publica sunt iudicia, ex his causis non esse nos prohibendos, quo minus et priuato agamus.
And yet, we are accustomed to say that we ought not to be prohibited from suing also in a private action on those grounds which give rise to public trials.
est hoc uerum, sed ubi non principaliter de ea re agitur, quae habet publicam exsecutionem.
This is true, but only where the action is not principally concerned with that matter which is subject to public prosecution.
quid ergo de lege Aquilia dicimus? nam et ea actio principaliter hoc continet, hominem occisum non principaliter: nam ibi principaliter de damno agitur, quod domino datum est, at in actione iniuriarum de ipsa caede uel ueneno ut uindicetur, non ut damnum sarciatur.
What then do we say concerning the Aquilian law? For that action also principally contains this, and does not principally contain the killing of a person. For in that case, the dispute is principally about the damage caused to the owner, whereas in the action for iniuriae, it is about the killing or the poisoning itself so that it may be punished, not that the damage may be repaired.
quid ergo, si quis idcirco uelit iniuriarum agere, quod gladio caput eius percussum est? Labeo ait non esse prohibendum: neque enim utique hoc, inquit, intenditur, quod publicam habet animaduersionem.
What then if someone wishes to bring an action for iniuriae on the ground that his head was struck with a sword? Labeo says that he should not be prohibited; for he says that this action is not at all intended for that which has a public punishment.
quod uerum non est: cui enim dubium est etiam hunc dici posse Cornelia conueniri?
This is not true; for who can doubt that it can be said that this person also can be sued under the Cornelian law?
§47.10.7.2Praeterea illo spectat dici certum de iniuria, quam passus quis sit, ut ex qualitate iniuriae sciamus, an in patronum liberto reddendum sit iniuriarum iudicium.
Furthermore, the requirement to state specifically the iniuria that one has suffered has this purpose: so that we may know from the quality of the iniuria whether an action for iniuriae should be granted to a freedman against his patron.
etenim meminisse oportebit liberto aduersus patronum non quidem semper, uerum interdum iniuriarum dari iudicium, si atrox sit iniuria quam passus sit, puta, si seruilis.
For indeed, it must be remembered that an action for iniuriae is granted to a freedman against his patron not indeed always, but sometimes, if the iniuria he suffered is atrocious, for instance, if it is such as is done to a slave.
ceterum leuem cohercitionem utique patrono aduersus libertum dabimus nec patietur eum praetor querentem, quasi iniuriam passus sit, nisi atrocitas eum mouerit: nec enim ferre praetor debet heri seruum, hodie liberum conquerentem, quod dominus ei conuicium dixerit uel quod leuiter pulsauerit uel emendauerit.
But we will certainly allow a patron moderate chastisement against his freedman, and the praetor will not tolerate him complaining as if he had suffered an iniuria, unless the atrocity of it moves him. For the praetor ought not to tolerate a man who was yesterday a slave and is today free, complaining because his master spoke abusively to him, or struck him lightly, or corrected him.
sed si flagris, si uerberibus, si uulnerauit non mediocriter: aequissimum erit praetorem ei subuenire.
But if he has attacked him with whips, or with blows, or wounded him not moderately, it will be most equitable for the praetor to come to his aid.
§47.10.7.3Sed et si quis ex liberis, qui non sunt in potestate, cum parente uelit experiri, non temere iniuriarum actio danda est, nisi atrocitas suaserit.
But also if any of the children who are not under paternal power wishes to sue a parent, an action for iniuriae must not be granted rashly, unless the atrocity of the act commends it.
certe his, qui sunt in potestate, prorsus nec competit, etiamsi atrox fuerit.
Certainly, for those who are under power, it is not available at all, even if the iniuria was atrocious.
§47.10.7.4Quod autem praetor ait 'quid iniuriae factum sit, certum dicat', quemadmodum accipiendum sit? certum eum dicere Labeo ait, qui dicat nomen iniuriae, neque sub alternatione, puta illud aut illud, sed illam iniuriam se passum.
Moreover, how is this to be understood, that the praetor says, 'let him state specifically what iniuria was committed'? Labeo says that he states specifically who names the type of iniuria, not under an alternative, for instance, 'this or that', but saying that he suffered 'that particular' iniuria.
§47.10.7.5Si mihi plures iniurias feceris, puta turba et coetu facto domum alicuius introeas et hoc facto efficiatur, et simul et conuicium patiar et uerberer: an possim separatim tecum experiri de singulis iniuriis, quaeritur.
If you commit several iniuriae against me—for instance, if you gather a crowd and assembly to enter someone's house, and by this act it happens that I am simultaneously insulted and beaten—the question is asked whether I can sue you separately for each individual iniuria.
et Marcellus secundum Neratii sententiam hoc probat cogendum iniurias, quas simul passus est, coniungere.
And Marcellus, following the opinion of Neratius, approves this: that he must be compelled to join the iniuriae which he suffered at the same time.
§47.10.7.6Posse hodie de omni iniuria, sed et de atroci ciuiliter agi imperator noster rescripsit.
Our emperor has stated in a rescript that today a civil action can be brought for every iniuria, and indeed even for an atrocious one.
§47.10.7.7Atrocem iniuriam quasi contumeliosiorem et maiorem accipimus.
We understand an atrocious iniuria to be one that is more insulting and of greater gravity.
§47.10.7.8Atrocem autem iniuriam aut persona aut tempore aut re ipsa fieri Labeo ait.
Moreover, Labeo says that an iniuria becomes atrocious either by the person, by the time, or by the thing itself.
persona atrocior iniuria fit, ut cum magistratui, cum parenti patrono fiat.
It becomes more atrocious by the person, as when it is committed against a magistrate, a parent, or a patron.
tempore, si ludis et in conspectu: nam praetoris in conspectu an in solitudine iniuria facta sit, multum interesse ait, quia atrocior est, quae in conspectu fiat.
By the time, if it is during the games and in public; for he says that it makes a great difference whether an iniuria is committed in the presence of the praetor or in a solitary place, because that which is done in public is more atrocious.
re atrocem iniuriam haberi Labeo ait, ut puta si uulnus illatum uel os alicui percussum.
Labeo says that an iniuria is considered atrocious by the thing itself, as for instance if a wound has been inflicted or someone's face has been struck.