the common law-第4章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


the　composition　（which　he　would　have　had　to　pay　to　buy　off　the　blood　feud　had　he　killed　the　man　himself）；　and　for　the　other　half　give　up　the　beast　to　the　complainant。　/2/　So；　by　chapter　thirty…five；　if　a　slave　killed　a　freeman；　he　was　to　be　surrendered　for　one　half　of　the　composition　to　the　relatives　of　the　slain　man；　and　the　master　was　to　pay　the　other　half。　But　according　to　the　gloss；　if　the　slave　or　his　master　had　been　maltreated　by　the　slain　man　or　his　relatives；　the　master　had　only　to　surrender　the　slave。　/3/　It　is　interesting　to　notice　that　those　Northern　sources　which　Wilda　takes　to　represent　a　more　primitive　stage　of　German　law　confine　liability　for　animals　to　surrender　alone。　/4/　There　is　also　a　trace　of　the　master's　having　been　able　to　free　himself　in　some　cases；　at　a　later　date；　by　showing　that　the　slave　was　no　longer　in　＇18＇　his　possession。　/1/　There　are　later　provisions　making　a　master　liable　for　the　wrongs　committed　by　his　slave　by　his　command。　/2/　In　the　laws　adapted　by　the　Thuringians　from　the　earlier　sources；　it　is　provided　in　terms　that　the　master　is　to　pay　for　all　damage　done　by　his　slaves。　/4/

In　short；　so　far　as　I　am　able　to　trace　the　order　of　development　in　the　customs　of　the　German　tribes；　it　seems　to　have　been　entirely　similar　to　that　which　we　have　already　followed　in　the　growth　of　Roman　law。　The　earlier　liability　for　slaves　and　animals　was　mainly　confined　to　surrender；　the　later　became　personal；　as　at　Rome。

The　reader　may　begin　to　ask　for　the　proof　that　all　this　has　any　bearing　on　our　law　of　today。　So　far　as　concerns　the　influence　of　the　Roman　law　upon　our　own；　especially　the　Roman　law　of　master　and　servant；　the　evidence　of　it　is　to　be　found　in　every　book　which　has　been　written　for　the　last　five　hundred　years。　It　has　been　stated　already　that　we　still　repeat　the　reasoning　of　the　Roman　lawyers；　empty　as　it　is；　to　the　present　day。　It　will　be　seen　directly　whether　the　German　folk…laws　can　also　be　followed　into　England。

In　the　Kentish　laws　of　Hlothhaere　and　Eadrie　（A。D。　680）　＇19＇　it　is　said；　〃If　any　one's　slave　slay　a　freeman；　whoever　it　be；　let　the　owner　pay　with　a　hundred　shillings；　give　up　the　slayer；〃　&c。　/1/　There　are　several　other　similar　provisions。　In　the　nearly　contemporaneous　laws　of　Ine；　the　surrender　and　payment　are　simple　alternatives。　〃If　a　Wessex　slave　slay　an　Englishman；　then　shall　he　who　owns　him　deliver　him　up　to　the　lord　and　the　kindred；　or　give　sixty　shillings　for　his　life。〃　/2/　Alfred's　laws　（A。D。　871…901）　have　a　like　provision　as　to　cattle。　〃If　a　neat　wound　a　man；　let　the　neat　be　delivered　up　or　compounded　for。〃　/3/　And　Alfred；　although　two　hundred　years　later　than　the　first　English　lawgivers　who　have　been　quoted；　seems　to　have　gone　back　to　more　primitive　notions　than　we　find　before　his　time。　For　the　same　principle　is　extended　to　the　case　of　a　tree　by　which　a　man　is　killed。　〃If；　at　their　common　work；　one　man　slay　another　unwilfully；　let　the　tree　be　given　to　the　kindred；　and　let　them　have　it　off　the　land　within　thirty　nights。　Or　let　him　take　possession　of　it　who　owns　the　wood。〃　/4/

It　is　not　inapposite　to　compare　what　Mr。　Tylor　has　mentioned　concerning　the　rude　Kukis　of　Southern　Asia。　〃If　a　tiger　killed　a　Kuki；　his　family　were　in　disgrace　till　they　had　retaliated　by　killing　and　eating　this　tiger；　or　another；　but　further；　if　a　man　was　killed　by　a　fall　from　a　tree；　his　relatives　would　take　their　revenge　by　cutting　the　tree　down；　and　scattering　it　in　chips。〃　/5/

To　return　to　the　English；　the　later　laws；　from　about　a　hundred　years　after　Alfred　down　to　the　collection　known　as　the　laws　of　Henry　I；　compiled　long　after　the　Conquest；　＇20＇　increase　the　lord's　liability　for　his　household；　and　make　him　surety　for　his　men's　good　conduct。　If　they　incur　a　fine　to　the　king　and　run　away；　the　lord　has　to　pay　it　unless　he　can　clear　himself　of　complicity。　But　I　cannot　say　that　I　find　until　a　later　period　the　unlimited　liability　of　master　for　servant　which　was　worked　out　on　the　Continent；　both　by　the　German　tribes　and　at　Rome。　Whether　the　principle　when　established　was　an　indigenous　growth；　or　whether　the　last　step　was　taken　under　the　influence　of　the　Roman　law；　of　which　Bracton　made　great　use；　I　cannot　say。　It　is　enough　that　the　soil　was　ready　for　it；　and　that　it　took　root　at　an　early　day。　/1/　This　is　all　that　need　be　said　here　with　regard　to　the　liability　of　a　master　for　the　misdeeds　of　his　servants。

It　is　next　to　be　shown　what　became　of　the　principle　as　applied　to　animals。　Nowadays　a　man　is　bound　at　his　peril　to　keep　his　cattle　from　trespassing；　and　he　is　liable　for　damage　done　by　his　dog　or　by　any　fierce　animal；　if　he　has　notice　of　a　tendency　in　the　brute　to　do　the　harm　complained　of。　The　question　is　whether　any　connection　can　be　established　between　these　very　sensible　and　intelligible　rules　of　modern　law　and　the　surrender　directed　by　King　Alfred。

Let　us　turn　to　one　of　the　old　books　of　the　Scotch　law；　where　the　old　principle　still　appears　in　full　force　and　is　stated　with　its　reasons　as　then　understood；　/2/

〃Gif　ane　wylde　or　head…strang　horse；　carries　ane　man　＇21＇　against　his　will　over　an　craig；　or　heuch；　or　to　the　water；　and　the　man　happin　to　drowne；　the　horse　sall　perteine　to　the　king　as　escheit。

〃Bot　it　is　otherwise　of　ane　tame　and　dantoned　horse；　gif　any　man　fulishlie　rides；　and　be　sharp　spurres　compelles　his　horse　to　take　the　water；　and　the　man　drownes；　the　horse　sould　not　be　escheit；　for　that　comes　be　the　mans　fault　or　trespasse；　and　not　of　the　horse；　and　the　man　has　receaved　his　punishment；　in　sa　farre　as　he　is　perished　and　dead；　and　the　horse　quha　did　na　fault；　sould　not　be　escheit。

〃The　like　reason　is　of　all　other　beastes；　quhilk　slayes　anie　man；　＇it　is　added　in　a　later　work；　〃of　the　quhilk　slaughter　they　haue　gilt；〃＇　for　all　these　beasts　sould　be　escheit。〃　/1/

〃The　Forme　and　Maner　of　Baron　Courts〃　continues　as　follows：　

〃It　is　to　witt；　that　this　question　is　asked　in　the　law；　Gif　ane　lord　hes　ane　milne；　and　any　man　fall　in　the　damne；　and　be　borne　down　with　the　water　quhill　he　comes　to　the　quheill；　and　there　be　slaine　to　death　with　the　quheill；　quhither　aught　the　milne　to　be　eseheir　or　not？　The　law　sayes　thereto　nay；　and　be　this　reason；　For　it　is　ane　dead　thing；　and　ane　dead　thing　may　do　na　fellony；　nor　be　made　escheit　throw　their　gilt。　Swa　the　milne　in　this　case　is　not　culpable；　and　in　the　law　it　is　lawfull　to　the　lord　of　the　land　to　haue　ane　mylne　on　his　awin　water　quhere　best　likes　him。〃　/2/

The　reader　will　see　in　this　passage；　as　has　been　remarked　already　of　the　Roman　law；　that　a　distinction　is　taken　between　things　which　are　capable　of　guilt　and　those　which　＇22＇　are　not；between　living　and　dead　things；　but　he　will　also　see　that　no　difficulty　was　felt　in　treating　animals　as　guilty。

Take　next　an　early　passage　of　the　English　law；　a　report　of　what　was　laid　down　by　one　of　the　English　judges。　In　1333　it　was　stated　for　law；　that；　〃if　my　dog　kills　your　sheep；　and　I；　freshly　after　the　fact；　tender　you　the　dog；　you　are　without　recovery　against　me。〃　/l　/　More　than　three　centuries　later；　in　1676；　it　was　said　by　Twisden；　J。　that；　〃if　one　hath　kept　a　tame　fox；　which　gets　loose　and　grows　wild；　he　that　hath　kept　him　before　shall　not　answer　for　the　damage　the　fox　doth　after　he　hath　lost　him；　and　he　hath　resumed　his　wild　nature。〃　/2/　It　is　at　least　doubtful　whether　that　sentence　ever　would　have　been　written　but　for　the　lingering　influence　of　the　notion　that　the　ground　of　the　owner's　liability　was　his　ownership　of　the　offending：　thing　and　his　failure　to　surrender　it。　When　the　fox　escaped；　by　another　principle　of　law　the　ownership　was　at　an　end。　In　fact；　that　very　consideration　was　seriously　pressed　in　England　as　late　as　1846；　with　regard　to　a　monkey　which　escaped　and　bit　the　plaintiff；　/3/　So　it　seems　to　be　a　reasonable　conjecture；　that　it　was　this　way　of　thinking　which　1ed　Lord　Holt；　near　the　beginning　of　the　last　century；　to　intimate　that　one　ground　on　which　a　man　is　bound　at　his　peril　to　restrain　cattle　from　trespassing　is　that　he　has　valuable　property　in　such　animals；　whereas　he　has　not　dogs；　for　which　his　responsibility　is　less。　/4/　To　this　day；　in　fact；　cautious　judges　state　the　law　as　to　cattle　to　be；　that；　〃if　I　am　the　owner　of　an　animal　in　which　by　law　the　＇23＇　right　of