[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo septimo ad edictum. ] §47.2.52.prSi quis uxori res mariti subtrahenti opem consiliumue accommodauerit, furti tenebitur.
[ULPIAN with his thirty-seventh book on the edict.] If anyone should give assistance or counsel to a wife who is purloining her husband's property, he will be held liable for theft.
§47.2.52.1Sed et si furtum cum ea fecit, tenebitur furti, cum ipsa non teneatur.
But even if he has committed theft together with her, he will be held liable for theft, although she herself is not held liable.
§47.2.52.2Ipsa quoque si opem furi tulit, furti non tenebitur, sed rerum amotarum.
She herself also, if she has given assistance to a thief, will not be held liable for theft, but rather for property removed.
§47.2.52.3Serui uero sui nomine furti eam teneri nequaquam ambigendum est.
However, there is no doubt at all that she is held liable for theft on account of her own slave.
§47.2.52.4Idem dicendum est et in filio familias milite: nam ipse patri furti non tenebitur, serui autem sui nomine castrensis tenebitur, si patri seruus furtum fecerit.
The same must be said also of a filius familias who is a soldier: for he himself will not be held liable to his father for theft, but he will be held liable on account of his military slave, if the slave should commit a theft against the father.
§47.2.52.5Sed si filius meus, qui habet castrense peculium, furtum mihi fecerit, an possim actione utili aduersus eum agere, uidendum est, cum habeat, unde satisfaciat. et potest defendi agendum.
But if my son, who has a military peculium, should commit a theft against me, we must consider whether I can bring an analogous action against him, since he has the means to satisfy the claim; and it can be maintained that the action lies.
§47.2.52.6An autem pater filio teneatur, si rem eius castrensis peculii subtraxerit, uideamus: et putem teneri: non tantum igitur furtum faciet filio, sed etiam furti tenebitur.
But let us see whether a father is held liable to his son, if he has purloined a thing from his military peculium: and I think he is held liable; therefore, he will not only commit a theft against his son, but will also be held liable for theft.
§47.2.52.7Eum creditorem, qui post solutam pecuniam pignus non reddat, teneri furti Mela ait, si celandi animo retineat: quod uerum esse arbitror.
Mela says that a creditor who does not return a pledge after the money has been paid is held liable for theft, if he retains it with the intention of concealing it; and I think this is true.
§47.2.52.8Si sulphurariae sunt in agro et inde aliquis terram egessisset abstulissetque, dominus furti aget: deinde colonus conducti actione consequetur, ut id ipsum sibi praestaretur.
If there are sulphur mines on a tract of land, and someone has dug up and carried away earth from there, the owner will sue for theft; then the tenant will obtain by the action on lease that this very thing be made good to him.
§47.2.52.9Si seruus tuus uel filius polienda uestimenta susceperit, an furti actionem habeas, quaeritur.
If your slave or son has received clothes to be cleaned, the question is raised whether you have an action for theft.
et si quidem peculium serui soluendo sit, potes habere furti actionem, si non fuerit soluendo, dicendum est non competere furti actionem.
And indeed, if the slave's peculium is solvent, you can have the action for theft; but if it is not solvent, it must be said that the action for theft does not lie.
§47.2.52.10Sed et si rem furtiuam imprudens quis emerit et ei subrepta sit, habebit furti actionem.
But also, if someone has in ignorance bought a stolen thing and it has been stolen from him, he will have an action for theft.
§47.2.52.11Apud Labeonem relatum est, si siliginario quis dixerit, ut quisquis nomine eius siliginem petisset, ei daret, et quidam ex transeuntibus cum audisset, petiit eius nomine et accepit: furti actionem aduersus eum, qui suppetet, siliginario competere, non mihi: non enim mihi negotium, sed sibi siliginarius gessit.
It is reported in Labeo that if someone had told a baker to give white flour to whoever should ask for it in his name, and a certain passer-by on hearing this asked for it in his name and received it, the action for theft against the person who took it belongs to the baker, not to me; for the baker did not conduct business for me, but for himself.
§47.2.52.12Si fugitiuum meum quis quasi suum a duumuiro uel ab aliis qui potestatem habent de carcere uel custodia dimitteret, an is furti teneatur? et placet, si fideiussores dedit, in eos domino actionem dandam, ut hi actiones suas mihi mandent: quod si non acceperint fideiussorem, sed tamquam suum accipienti ei tradiderint, dominum furti actionem aduersus plagiarium habiturum.
If someone should release my runaway slave as if he were his own from prison or custody from a duumvir or others who have authority, is he liable for theft? And it is accepted that, if he gave guarantors, an action must be granted to the owner against them, so that they may cede their actions to me; but if they did not accept a guarantor, but delivered him to the person receiving him as his own, the owner will have an action for theft against the kidnapper.
§47.2.52.13Si quis de manu alicuius nummos aureos uel argenteos uel aliam rem excusserit, ita furti tenetur, si ideo fecit, ut alius tolleret, isque sustulerit.
If anyone should knock gold or silver coins or any other thing out of another's hand, he is held liable for theft only if he did so with the purpose that someone else might carry it off, and that other person did carry it off.
§47.2.52.14Si quis massam meam argenteam subripuerit et pocula fecerit, possum uel poculorum uel massae furti agere uel condictione.
If anyone has stolen my silver bullion and made cups, I can bring an action for theft or a condictio either for the cups or for the bullion.
idem est et in uuis et in musto et in uinaceis: nam et uuarum et musti et uinaceorum nomine furti agere potest, sed et condici.
The same is true of grapes, must, and grape skins; for one can bring an action for theft on account of the grapes, must, and grape skins, and also a condictio.
§47.2.52.15Seruus, qui se liberum adfirmauit, ut sibi pecunia crederetur, furtum non facit: namque hic nihil amplius quam idoneum se debitorem adfirmat.
A slave who has asserted that he is free in order that money might be lent to him does not commit a theft; for in this case he asserts nothing more than that he is a solvent debtor.
idem est et in eo, qui se patrem familias finxit, cum esset filius familias, ut sibi promptius pecunia crederetur.
The same is true of one who pretended to be a pater familias when he was a filius familias, so that money might more readily be lent to him.