[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo primo ad Sabinum. ] §47.2.27.prQui tabulas uel cautiones amouet, furti tenetur non tantum pretii ipsarum tabularum, uerum eius quod interfuit: quod ad aestimationem refertur eius summae, quae in his tabulis continetur, scilicet si tanti interfuit, ut puta si chirographa aureorum decem tabulae fuerint, dicimus hoc duplicari.
[ULPIANUS in the forty-first book on Sabinus.] He who carries off tablets or cautiones, is liable for theft, not only for the value of the tablets themselves, but for his interest: which is referred to the assessment of the sum contained in these tablets, provided, of course, that his interest was of so much, as for example, if the tablets were a chirograph for ten aurei, we say that this is doubled.
quod si iam erant inanes, quia solutum proponebatur, numquid ipsarum tantum tabularum pretii uideatur esse aestimatio facienda? quid enim interfuit huius? sed potest dici, quia nonnumquam debitores tabulas sibi restitui petant, quia nonnumquam calumniantur debitores quasi indebito soluto, ab his interesse creditoris tabulas habere, ne forte controuersiam super ea re patiatur.
But if they were already void, because payment was assumed to have been made, should not the assessment be made only for the value of the tablets themselves? For what interest did he have in this? But it can be said that, since debtors sometimes demand that the tablets be restored to them, and since debtors sometimes bring false accusations as if having paid what was not due, it is to the creditor's interest to have the tablets, so that he may not perhaps suffer a dispute over that matter.
et generaliter dicendum est id quod interest duplari.
And generally it must be said that the interest is doubled.
§47.2.27.1Inde potest quaeri, si quis, cum alias probationes mensaeque scripturam haberet, chirographi furtum passus sit, an aestimari duplo chirographi quantitas debeat.
Hence it can be asked whether, if anyone has suffered the theft of a chirograph when he had other proofs and bank accounts, the amount of the chirograph ought to be assessed at double.
et numquid non, quasi nihil intersit? quantum enim interest, cum possit debitum aliunde probare? quemadmodum si in binis tabulis instrumentum scriptum sit: nam nihil uidetur deperdere, si futurum est, ut alio chirographo saluo securior sit creditor.
And should it not be, as if there were no interest? For how much interest is there, when he can prove the debt from elsewhere? Just as if the document had been written in duplicate tablets: for he seems to lose nothing, if it is to be that the creditor is safer with the other chirograph being intact.
§47.2.27.2Apocha quoque si fuerit subrepta, aeque dicendum est furti actionem in id quod interest locum habere: sed nihil mihi uidetur interesse, si sint et aliae probationes solutae pecuniae.
If a receipt also has been stolen, it must equally be said that the action for theft has place for the interest: but it seems to me that there is no interest, if there are also other proofs of the money having been paid.
§47.2.27.3Sed si quis non amouit huiusmodi instrumenta, sed interleuit, non tantum furti actio locum habet, uerum etiam legis Aquiliae: nam rupisse uidetur qui corrupit.
But if someone did not carry off documents of this kind, but smudged them over, not only does the action for theft have place, but also that under the Lex Aquilia: for he who corrupts is deemed to have broken.