Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §48.13.5.pr-48.13.5.4

The Lex Julia de Residuis, Found Treasure, and Municipal Theft

Passage 8316 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This section outlines the scope and penalties of the Lex Julia de residuis, explains why found treasure does not render a site a religious place, and clarifies that stealing municipal property constitutes embezzlement.

[IDEM libro quarto decimo. ] §48.13.5.prLege Iulia de residuis tenetur is, apud quem ex locatione, emptione, alimentaria ratione, ex pecunia quam accepit aliaue qua causa pecunia publica resedit.
[THE SAME, Book XIV] Under the Lex Julia on remaining moneys, anyone is held liable in whose hands public money has remained from a lease, a purchase, provisions accounts, or from money which he received, or from any other cause.
§48.13.5.1Sed et qui publicam pecuniam in usu aliquo acceptam retinuerit nec erogauerit, hac lege tenetur.
But also anyone who has retained public money received for some specific use and has not disbursed it, is held liable under this law.
§48.13.5.2Qua lege damnatus amplius tertia parte quam debet punitur.
Anyone condemned under this law is punished by a third part more than he owes.
§48.13.5.3Non fit locus religiosus, ubi thensaurus inuenitur: nam et si in monumento inuentus fuerit, non quasi religiosus tollitur.
The place where treasure is found does not become a religious place; for even if it is found in a tomb, it is taken away not as if it were a religious thing.
quod enim sepelire quis prohibetur, id religiosum facere non potest: at pecunia sepeliri non potest, ut et mandatis principalibus cauetur.
For what a person is prohibited from burying, he cannot make a religious thing; but money cannot be buried, as is also provided in the imperial mandates.
§48.13.5.4Sed et si de re ciuitatis aliquid subripiat, constitutionibus principum diuorum Traiani et Hadriani cauetur peculatus crimen committi: et hoc iure utimur.
But also if anyone steals anything from the property of a municipality, it is provided in the constitutions of the deified emperors Trajan and Hadrian that the crime of embezzlement is committed; and we apply this rule of law.

Notes

  1. §48.13.5.2amplius tertia parte quam debet — tertia parte is an ablative of degree of difference used with the comparative construction amplius ... quam, indicating that the penalty is one-third more than the original amount owed (debet).
  2. §48.13.5.3non quasi religiosus tollitur — The subject of the verb tollitur is thensaurus from the preceding clause. This explains that even if treasure is found in a tomb (monumentum), it does not become a protected religious thing (res religiosa) and thus can be removed.
  3. §48.13.5.3quod enim sepelire quis prohibetur, id religiosum facere non potest — The relative clause quod ... prohibetur has its antecedent in the subsequent demonstrative id, which serves as the direct object of the main verb phrase (religiosum facere). The indefinite pronoun quis is the subject of prohibetur.
  4. §48.13.5.4peculatus crimen committi — An accusative with infinitive (AcI) construction depending on the verb cauetur, functioning as a noun clause meaning 'that the crime of embezzlement is committed.'

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §48.13.5.pr-48.13.5.4. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:48.13.5.pr-48.13.5.4

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.