the common law- 第3部分

Whatever　may　be　the　true　explanation　of　surrender　in　connection　with　contracts；　for　the　present　purpose　we　need　not　go　further　than　the　common　case　of　noxoe　deditio　for　wrongs。　Neither　is　the　seeming　adhesion　of　liability　to　the　very　body　which　did　the　harm　of　the　first　importance。　＇15＇　The　Roman　law　dealt　mainly　with　living　creatures；　with　animals　and　slaves。　If　a　man　was　run　over；　it　did　not　surrender　the　wagon　which　crushed　him；　but　the　ox　which　drew　the　wagon。　/1/　At　this　stage　the　notion　is　easy　to　understand。　The　desire　for　vengeance　may　be　felt　as　strongly　against　a　slave　as　against　a　freeman；　and　it　is　not　without　example　nowadays　that　a　like　passion　should　be　felt　against　an　animal。　The　surrender　of　the　slave　or　beast　empowered　the　injured　party　to　do　his　will　upon　them。　Payment　by　the　owner　was　merely　a　privilege　in　case　he　wanted　to　buy　the　vengeance　off。

It　will　readily　be　imagined　that　such　a　system　as　has　been　described　could　not　last　when　civilization　had　advanced　to　any　considerable　height。　What　had　been　the　privilege　of　buying　off　vengeance　by　agreement；　of　paying　the　damage　instead　of　surrendering　the　body　of　the　offender；　no　doubt　became　a　general　custom。　The　Aquilian　law；　passed　about　a　couple　of　centuries　later　than　the　date　of　the　Twelve　Tables；　enlarged　the　sphere　of　compensation　for　bodily　injuries。　Interpretation　enlarged　the　Aquilian　law。　Masters　became　personally　liable　for　certain　wrongs　committed　by　their　slaves　with　their　knowledge；　where　previously　they　were　only　bound　to　surrender　the　slave。　/2/　If　a　pack…mule　threw　off　his　burden　upon　a　passer…by　because　he　had　been　improperly　overloaded；　or　a　dog　which　might　have　been　restrained　escaped　from　his　master　and　bit　any　one；　the　old　noxal　action；　as　it　was　called；　gave　way　to　an　action　under　the　new　law　to　enforce　a　general　personal　liability。　/3/　Still　later；　ship…owners　and　innkeepers　were　made　liable　＇16＇　as　if　they　were　wrong…doers　for　wrongs　committed　by　those　in　their　employ　on　board　ship　or　in　the　tavern；　although　of　course　committed　without　their　knowledge。　The　true　reason　for　this　exceptional　responsibility　was　the　exceptional　confidence　which　was　necessarily　reposed　in　carriers　and　innkeepers。　/1/　But　some　of　the　jurists；　who　regarded　the　surrender　of　children　and　slaves　as　a　privilege　intended　to　limit　liability；　explained　this　new　liability　on　the　ground　that　the　innkeeper　or　ship…owner　was　to　a　certain　degree　guilty　of　negligence　in　having　employed　the　services　of　bad　men？　This　was　the　first　instance　of　a　master　being　made　unconditionally　liable　for　the　wrongs　of　his　servant。　The　reason　given　for　it　was　of　general　application；　and　the　principle　expanded　to　the　scope　of　the　reason。

The　law　as　to　ship…owners　and　innkeepers　introduced　another　and　more　startling　innovation。　It　made　them　responsible　when　those　whom　they　employed　were　free；　as　well　as　when　they　were　slaves。　/3/　For　the　first　time　one　man　was　made　answerable　for　the　wrongs　of　another　who　was　also　answerable　himself；　and　who　had　a　standing　before　the　law。　This　was　a　great　change　from　the　bare

permission　to　ransom　one's　slave　as　a　privilege。　But　here　we　have　the　history　of　the　whole　modern　doctrine　of　master　and　servant；　and　principal　and　agent。　All　servants　are　now　as　free　and　as　liable　to　a　suit　as　their　masters。　Yet　the　principle　introduced　on　special　grounds　in　a　special　case；　when　servants　were　slaves；　is　now　the　general　law　of　this　country　and　England；　and　under　it　men　daily　have　to　pay　large　sums　for　other　people's　acts；　in　which　they　had　no　part　and　＇17＇　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　＇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