for which they are in no sense to blame. And to this day the reason offered by the Roman jurists for an exceptional rule is made to justify this universal and unlimited responsibility.[1]
So much for one of the parents of our common law. Now let us turn for a moment to the Teutonic side. The Salic Law embodies usages which in all probability are of too early a date to have been influenced either by Rome or the Old Testament. The thirty-sixth chapter of the ancient text provides that, if a man is killed by a domestic animal, the owner of the animal shall pay half 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
- ↑ See Austin, Jurisp. (3d ed.) 513; Doctor and Student, Dial. 2, ch. 42.
- ↑ Cf. L. Burgund. XVIII.; L. Rip. XLVI. (al. 48).
- ↑ See the word Lege, Merkel, Lex Salica, p.103. Cf. Wilda, Strafrecht der Germanen, 660, n. 1. See further Lex Salica, XL. ; Pactus pro tenore pacis Child. et Chloth., c. 5 ; Decretio Chlotharii, c. 5 ; Edictus Hilperichi, cc. 5, 7 ; and the observations of Sohm in his treatise on the Procedure of the Salic Law, §§ 20, 22, 27, French Tr. (Thevenin), pp. 83 n. 93, 94, 101-103, 130.
- ↑ Wilda, Strafrecht, 590.
