[ULPIANUS libro octauo decimo ad edictum. ] §9.4.2.prSi seruus sciente domino occidit, in solidum dominum obligat, ipse enim uidetur dominus occidisse: si autem insciente, noxalis est, nec enim debuit ex maleficio serui in plus teneri, quam ut noxae eum dedat.
[ULPIAN, Book 18 on the Edict] If a slave commits a killing with his master's knowledge, he binds his master for the whole amount, for the master himself is deemed to have killed; but if without his knowledge, the action is noxal, for the master ought not to be held liable for the wrongdoing of his slave for more than the surrender of him for the harm.
§9.4.2.1Is qui non prohibuit, siue dominus manet siue desiit esse dominus, hac actione tenetur: sufficit enim, si eo tempore dominus, quo non prohibeat, fuit, in tantum, ut Celsus putet, si fuerit alienatus seruus in totum uel in partem uel manumissus, noxam caput non sequi: nam seruum nihil deliquisse, qui domino iubenti obtemperauit.
He who did not forbid it, whether he remains the master or has ceased to be the master, is held liable under this action; for it is sufficient if he was the master at that time when he did not forbid it, to such an extent that Celsus thinks that if the slave has been alienated in whole or in part or manumitted, the liability does not follow the person: for a slave who obeyed his master's command did no wrong.
et sane si iussit, potest hoc dici: si autem non prohibuit, quemadmodum factum serui excusabimus? Celsus tamen differentiam facit inter legem Aquiliam et legem duodecim tabularum: nam in lege antiqua, si seruus sciente domino furtum fecit uel aliam noxam commisit, serui nomine actio est noxalis nec dominus suo nomine tenetur, at in lege Aquilia, inquit, dominus suo nomine tenetur, non serui.
And indeed if he commanded, this can be said; but if he did not forbid, how shall we excuse the act of the slave? Yet Celsus makes a distinction between the Aquilian law and the Law of the Twelve Tables; for in the ancient law, if a slave committed a theft or other wrong with his master's knowledge, the action is noxal in the name of the slave, nor is the master liable in his own name, but under the Aquilian law, he says, the master is liable in his own name, not in the name of the slave.
utriusque legis reddit rationem, duodecim tabularum, quasi uoluerit seruos dominis in hac re non obtemperare, Aquiliae, quasi ignouerit seruo, qui domino paruit, periturus si non fecisset.
He gives the reason for each law: for the Twelve Tables, as if it wanted slaves not to obey their masters in this matter; for the Aquilian law, as if it pardoned the slave who obeyed his master, since he would have perished if he had not done so.
sed si placeat, quod Iulianus libro octagensimo sexto scribit 'si seruus furtum faxit noxiamue nocuit' etiam ad posteriores leges pertinere, poterit dici etiam serui nomine cum domino agi posse noxali iudicio, ut quod detur Aquilia aduersus dominum, non seruum excuset, sed dominum oneret.
But if we accept what Julian writes in his eighty-sixth book, "if a slave should commit theft or do damage," as applying also to later laws, it can be said that an action can also be brought against the master by a noxal judgment in the name of the slave, so that the fact that the Aquilian action is given against the master does not excuse the slave, but burdens the master.
nos autem secundum Iulianum probauimus, quae sententia habet rationem et a Marcello apud Iulianum probatur.
We, however, have approved the view of Julian, which opinion is reasonable and is approved by Marcellus in Julian.