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.[3]
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 to-day. 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 Hlothhære and Eadric (A.D. 680)
- ↑ Cf. Wilda, Strafrecht, 660, n. 1 ; Mcrkel, Lex Salica, Gloss. Lege, p. 103. Lex Saxon. XI. § 3 : “Si servus perpetrato facinore fugerit, ita ut a domino ulterius iuveniri non possit, nihil solvat.” Cf. id. II. § 5. Capp. Rip. c. 5: “Nemini liceat servum suun, propter damnum ab illo cuilibet iulatum, dimittere ; sed juxta qualitatem damni dominus pro illo respondeat vel eum in compositione aut ad pœnam petitori offeret. Si autem servus perpetrato scelere fugerit, ita ut a domino pæuitus inveniri non possit, sacramento se dominuus ejus excusare studeat, quod uec suæ voluntatis nec conscientia fuisset, quod servus ejus tale faciuus commisit.”
- ↑ L. Saxon. XI. §1.
- ↑ Lex Angl. et Wer. XVI. : “Omne damnum quod servus fecerit dominus emendet.”
