[CELSUS libro duodecimo digestorum. ] §47.2.68.prInfitiando depositum nemo facit furtum (nec enim furtum est ipsa infitiatio, licet prope furtum est): sed si possessionem eius apiscatur interuertendi causa, facit furtum.
[CELSUS in the twelfth book of the Digests.] No one commits theft by denying a deposit (for the denial itself is not theft, although it is close to theft); but if he acquires possession of it for the purpose of embezzling it, he commits theft.
nec refert, in digito habeat anulum an dactyliotheca quem, cum deposito teneret, habere pro suo destinauerit.
And it does not matter whether he has on his finger or in a ring-case the ring which, while he held it as a deposit, he determined to have as his own.
§47.2.68.1Si tibi subreptum est, quod nisi die certa dedisses, poenam promisisti, ideoque sufferre eam necesse fuit, furti actione hoc quoque coaestimabitur.
If something was stolen from you which, unless you had delivered it on a certain day, you had promised a penalty, and therefore it was necessary for you to suffer it, this also will be assessed in the action for theft.
§47.2.68.2Infans apud furem adoleuit: tam adulescentis furtum fecit ille quam infantis, et unum tamen furtum est: ideoque dupli tenetur, quanti umquam apud eum plurimi fuit.
An infant has grown up to be a youth in the possession of a thief: he committed theft of the youth as much as of the infant, and yet there is only one theft; and therefore he is liable for double the highest value that the object ever had while in his possession.
nam quod semel dumtaxat furti agi cum eo potest, quid refert propositae quaestioni? quippe, si subreptus furi foret ac rursus a fure altero eum recuperasset, etiam si duo furta fecisset, non amplius quam semel cum eo furti agi posset.
For what does the fact that he can be sued for theft only once have to do with the question proposed? Indeed, if he had been stolen from the thief and he had recovered him again from the other thief, even if he had committed two thefts, he could not be sued for theft more than once.
nec dubitauerim, quin adulescentis potius quam infantis aestimationem fieri oporteret.
And I would not doubt that the valuation ought to be made of him as a youth rather than as an infant.
et quid tam ridiculum est quam meliorem furis condicionem esse propter continuationem furti existimare?
And what is so ridiculous as to think that the position of the thief is better because of the continuation of the theft?
§47.2.68.3Cum seruus inemptus factus sit, non posse emptorem furti agere cum uenditore ob id, quod is seruus post emptionem, antequam redderetur, subripuisset.
When the sale of a slave has been rescinded, the buyer cannot bring an action for theft against the seller on the ground that the slave had committed a theft after the purchase and before he was returned.
§47.2.68.4Quod furi ipsi furtum fecerit furtiuus seruus, eo nomine actionem cum domino furem habiturum placet, ne facinora talium seruorum non solum ipsis impunitatem, sed dominis quoque eorum quaestui erunt: plerumque enim eius generis seruorum furtis peculia eorundem augentur.
Where a stolen slave has committed theft against the thief himself, it is held that the thief will have an action against the owner on that account, lest the misdeeds of such slaves should bring not only impunity to themselves, but also profit to their owners; for generally the peculia of such slaves are increased by their thefts.
§47.2.68.5Si colonus post lustrum conductionis anno amplius fructus inuito domino perceperit, uidendum, ne messis et uindemiae furti cum eo agi possit.
If a tenant, after a five-year lease, has gathered the fruits for more than a year against the will of the owner, it must be considered whether an action for theft can be brought against him for the harvest and the vintage.
et mihi dubium non uidetur, quin fur et si consumpserit rem subreptam, repeti ea ab eo possit.
And it does not seem doubtful to me that, even if the thief has consumed the stolen thing, it can be recovered from him.