[ULPIANUS libro quinquagensimo sexto ad edictum. ] §47.9.1.prPraetor ait: 'In eum, qui ex incendio ruina naufragio rate naue expugnata quid rapuisse recepisse dolo malo damniue quid in his rebus dedisse dicetur: in quadruplum in anno, quo primum de ea re experiundi potestas fuerit, post annum in simplum iudicium dabo.
[ULPIAN, on the Edict, book fifty-six.] The praetor says: 'Against him who shall be alleged to have plundered anything, or to have received it with malicious intent, or to have caused any damage to these things, on the occasion of a fire, collapse, shipwreck, or the capture of a raft or ship: I will grant an action for fourfold the value within a year from the time when there first was an opportunity of bringing an action on the matter, and after a year, for single the value.
item in seruum et in familiam iudicium dabo'. §47.9.1.1Huius edicti utilitas euidens et iustissima seueritas est, si quidem publice interest nihil rapi ex huiusmodi casibus.
Likewise, I will grant an action against a slave and against a household.' The utility of this edict is obvious and its severity is most just, since indeed it is in the public interest that nothing be plundered on the occasion of such disasters.
et quamquam sint de his facinoribus etiam criminum executiones, attamen recte praetor fecit, qui forenses quoque actiones criminibus istis praeposuit.
And although there are also criminal prosecutions for these misdeeds, nevertheless the praetor acted rightly in also placing civil actions alongside those crimes.
§47.9.1.2'Ex incendio' quemadmodum accipimus, utrum ex ipso igne an uero ex eo loco, ubi incendium fit? et melius sic accipietur propter incendium, hoc est propter tumultum incendii uel trepidationem incendii, rapit: quemadmodum solemus dicere in bello amissum, quod propter causam belli amittitur.
How do we understand 'on the occasion of a fire' (ex incendio)—whether from the fire itself, or indeed from that place where the fire occurs? It will be better understood thus: one plunders 'because of the fire', that is, because of the tumult of the fire or the panic of the fire; just as we are accustomed to say that what is lost because of the cause of war is lost 'in war'.
proinde si ex adiacentibus praediis, ubi incendium fiebat, raptum quid sit, dicendum sit edicto locum esse, quia uerum est ex incendio rapi.
Accordingly, if something should be plundered from adjacent properties where a fire was occurring, it should be said that the edict applies, because it is true that it is plundered 'on the occasion of a fire'.
§47.9.1.3Item ruinae appellatio refertur ad id tempus, quo ruina fit, non tantum si ex his quae ruerunt tulerit quis, sed etiam si ex adiacentibus.
Likewise, the term 'collapse' (ruina) refers to that time when the collapse occurs, not only if someone has taken something from the things that collapsed, but also if from adjacent areas.
§47.9.1.4Si suspicio fuit incendii uel ruinae, incendium uel ruina non fuit, uideamus, an hoc edictum locum habeat.
If there was a fear of fire or collapse, but no fire or collapse occurred, let us see whether this edict applies.
et magis est, ne habeat, quia neque ex incendio neque ex ruina quid raptum est.
It is more supportable that it does not apply, because nothing was plundered either from a fire or from a collapse.
§47.9.1.5Item ait praetor: 'si quid ex naufragio'.
Likewise, the praetor says: 'if anything from a shipwreck'.
hic illud quaeritur, utrum, si quis eo tempore tulerit, quo naufragium fit, an uero et si alio tempore, hoc est post naufragiumque: nam res ex naufragio etiam hae dicuntur, quae in litore post naufragium iacent.
Here it is asked whether this applies if someone has taken something at that time when the shipwreck occurs, or indeed also if at another time, that is, after the shipwreck; for even those things which lie on the shore after a shipwreck are said to be 'from a shipwreck'.
et magis est, ut de eo tempore
And it is more supportable that regarding that time...