Latin
Lines 1.710-1.718
Roman Law and Society, Institutes of Justinian 1.710-718
Not analysed yet
17. A depository is not answerable for the safe-keeping of the thing deposited, but is only answerable for wilful wrong; therefore, if the thing is stolen from him, as he is not bound by the contract of deposit to restore it, and has no interest in its safety, he cannot bring an actio of theft, but it is the owner alone who can bring this actio.
18. It should be observed that the question has been asked whether, if a person under the age of puberty, takes away the property of another, he commits a theft. The answer is that it is the intention that makes the theft; such a person is only bound by the obligation springing from the delictum if he is near the age of puberty, and consequently understands that he commits a crime.
19. The actio of theft, whether brought to recover double or quadruple, has no other object than the recovery of the penalty. For the owner has also a means of recovering the thing itself, either by a vindicatio or a condictio. The former may be brought against the possessor, whether the thief or anyone else; the latter may be brought against the thief or the heir of the thief, although not in possession of the thing stolen.
I I. Goods Taken by Force.
A person who takes a thing belonging to another by force is liable to an actio of theft, for who can be said to take the property of another more against his will than he who takes it by force? And he is therefore rightly said to be an improbus fur. The praetor, however, has introduced a peculiar actio in this case, called vi bonorum raptorum; by which, if brought within a year after the robbery, quadruple the value of the thing taken may be recovered; but if brought after the expiration of a year, then the single value only may be brought even against a person who has only taken by force a single thing, and one of the most trifling value. But this quadruple of the value is not altogether a penalty, as in the actio furtum manifestum; for the thing itself is included, so that, strictly, the penalty is only three times the value. And it is the same, whether the robber was or was not taken in the actual commission of the crime. For it would be ridiculous that a person who uses force should be in a better condition than he who secretly commits a theft.