Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. XLVII9,
De incendio ruina naufragio rate nave expugnata
Liber quadragesimus septimus
IX.

De incendio ruina naufragio rate nave expugnata

(Concerning Fire, Destruction, and Shipwreck, Where a Boat or a Ship is Taken by Force.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro quin­qua­gen­si­mo sex­to ad edic­tum. Prae­tor ait: ‘In eum, qui ex in­cen­dio rui­na nau­fra­gio ra­te na­ve ex­pug­na­ta quid ra­puis­se re­ce­pis­se do­lo ma­lo dam­ni­ve quid in his re­bus de­dis­se di­ce­tur: in qua­dru­plum in an­no, quo pri­mum de ea re ex­per­i­un­di po­tes­tas fue­rit, post an­num in sim­plum iu­di­cium da­bo. item in ser­vum et in fa­mi­liam iu­di­cium da­bo’. 1Hu­ius edic­ti uti­li­tas evi­dens et ius­tis­si­ma se­ve­ri­tas est, si qui­dem pu­bli­ce in­ter­est ni­hil ra­pi ex hu­ius­mo­di ca­si­bus. et quam­quam sint de his fa­ci­no­ri­bus et­iam cri­mi­num exe­cu­tio­nes, at­ta­men rec­te prae­tor fe­cit, qui fo­ren­ses quo­que ac­tio­nes cri­mi­ni­bus is­tis prae­po­suit. 2‘Ex in­cen­dio’ quem­ad­mo­dum ac­ci­pi­mus, utrum ex ip­so ig­ne an ve­ro ex eo lo­co, ubi in­cen­dium fit? et me­lius sic ac­ci­pie­tur prop­ter in­cen­dium, hoc est prop­ter tu­mul­tum in­cen­dii vel tre­pi­da­tio­nem in­cen­dii, ra­pit: quem­ad­mo­dum so­le­mus di­ce­re in bel­lo amis­sum, quod prop­ter cau­sam bel­li amit­ti­tur. pro­in­de si ex ad­ia­cen­ti­bus prae­diis, ubi in­cen­dium fie­bat, rap­tum quid sit, di­cen­dum sit edic­to lo­cum es­se, quia ve­rum est ex in­cen­dio ra­pi. 3Item rui­nae ap­pel­la­tio re­fer­tur ad id tem­pus, quo rui­na fit, non tan­tum si ex his quae rue­runt tu­le­rit quis, sed et­iam si ex ad­ia­cen­ti­bus. 4Si su­spi­cio fuit in­cen­dii vel rui­nae, in­cen­dium vel rui­na non fuit, vi­dea­mus, an hoc edic­tum lo­cum ha­beat. et ma­gis est, ne ha­beat, quia ne­que ex in­cen­dio ne­que ex rui­na quid rap­tum est. 5Item ait prae­tor: ‘si quid ex nau­fra­gio’. hic il­lud quae­ri­tur, utrum, si quis eo tem­po­re tu­le­rit, quo nau­fra­gium fit, an ve­ro et si alio tem­po­re, hoc est post nau­fra­gium­que: nam res ex nau­fra­gio et­iam hae di­cun­tur, quae in li­to­re post nau­fra­gium ia­cent. et ma­gis est, ut de eo tem­po­re.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVI. The Prætor says: “When it is alleged that anyone at a fire, in the destruction of a building, in a shipwreck, or in an attack on a boat or a ship, has taken anything by violence, or fraudulently appropriated property, or caused any loss, I will grant an action for quadruple damages within a year after the time when an action can be brought, and, when the year has elapsed, I will grant an action for double damages. I will also grant the action against a slave, and an entire body of slaves.” 1The benefit of this Edict is evident, and its severity is perfectly justifiable, since it is to the interest of the public that nothing should be stolen under such circumstances. And, although these crimes can be prosecuted criminally, still, the Prætor very properly provides that civil actions may be brought, where offences of this kind have been perpetrated. 2How should we understand the words “at a fire?” Do they mean in the fire itself, or only in the place where the fire occurred? The better opinion is to understand them to mean on account of the fire, that is to say, that the property was stolen because of the confusion produced by the fire, or the fear resulting from it; just as we are accustomed to say “lost in war,” with reference to anything which is lost by reason of war. Hence, if anything should be stolen from the fields near where the fire took place, it must be said that there will be ground for the application of the Edict, because it is true that it was stolen on account of the fire. 3Likewise, the term “destruction” refers to the time when the demolition of the house took place, and not merely where anyone removed property from the fallen building, but also if he removed any from the adjacent houses. 4If there was a suspicion of a fire, or of the demolition of a house, and neither the fire nor the demolition occurred, let us see whether there will be ground for the application of this Edict. The better opinion is that there will be no ground for it, because nothing was taken either on account of the fire, or the demolition of the house. 5The Prætor also says, “If anything is taken in a shipwreck,” and, in this instance, the question arises whether this means if anyone takes property at the time of the shipwreck, or if he takes it at some other time, that is to say, after the shipwreck has occurred; for anything cast upon the shore after a shipwreck is said to belong to the vessel. The better opinion is that this refers to the time of the shipwreck,

2Gaius li­bro vi­cen­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Et lo­co,

2Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXI. As well as to the place.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro quin­qua­gen­si­mo sex­to ad edic­tum. quo nau­fra­gium fit vel fac­tum est, si quis ra­pue­rit, in­ci­dis­se in hoc edic­tum vi­dea­tur. qui au­tem rem in li­to­re ia­cen­tem, post­ea quam nau­fra­gium fac­tum est, abs­tu­lit, in ea con­di­cio­ne est, ut ma­gis fur sit quam hoc edic­to te­n­ea­tur, quem­ad­mo­dum is, qui quod de ve­hi­cu­lo ex­ci­dit tu­lit. nec ra­pe­re vi­de­tur, qui in li­to­re ia­cen­tem tol­lit. 1De­in­de ait prae­tor ‘ra­te na­vi ex­pug­na­ta’. ex­pug­na­re vi­de­tur, qui in ip­so qua­si proe­lio et pug­na ad­ver­sus na­vem et ra­tem ali­quid ra­pit, si­ve ex­pug­net si­ve prae­do­ni­bus ex­pug­nan­ti­bus ra­piat. 2La­beo scri­bit ae­quum fuis­se, ut, si­ve de do­mo si­ve in vil­la ex­pug­na­tis ali­quid ra­pia­tur, huic edic­to lo­cus sit: nec enim mi­nus in ma­ri quam in vil­la per la­trun­cu­los in­quie­ta­mur vel in­fes­ta­ri pos­su­mus. 3Non tan­tum au­tem qui ra­puit, ve­rum is quo­que, qui re­ce­pit ex cau­sis su­pra scrip­tis, te­ne­tur, quia re­cep­to­res non mi­nus de­lin­quunt quam ad­gres­so­res. sed enim ad­di­tum est ‘do­lo ma­lo’, quia non om­nis qui re­ci­pit sta­tim et­iam de­lin­quit, sed qui do­lo ma­lo re­ci­pit. quid enim, si igna­rus re­ci­pit? aut quid, si ad hoc re­ce­pit, ut cus­to­di­ret sal­va­que fa­ce­ret ei qui amis­se­rat? uti­que non de­bet te­ne­ri. 4Non so­lum au­tem qui ra­puit, sed et qui abs­tu­lit vel amo­vit vel dam­num de­dit vel re­ce­pit, hac ac­tio­ne te­ne­tur. 5Aliud es­se au­tem ra­pi, aliud amo­ve­ri pa­lam est, si qui­dem amo­ve­ri ali­quid et­iam si­ne vi pos­sit: ra­pi au­tem si­ne vi non pot­est. 6Qui eiec­ta na­ve quid ra­puit, hoc edic­to te­ne­tur. ‘eiec­ta’ hoc est quod Grae­ci aiunt ἐξεβράσθη. 7Quod ait prae­tor de dam­no da­to, ita de­mum lo­cum ha­bet, si do­lo dam­num da­tum sit: nam si do­lus ma­lus ab­sit, ces­sat edic­tum. quem­ad­mo­dum er­go pro­ce­dit, quod La­beo scri­bit, si de­fen­den­di mei cau­sa vi­ci­ni ae­di­fi­cium or­to in­cen­dio dis­si­pa­ve­rim, et meo no­mi­ne et fa­mi­liae iu­di­cium in me dan­dum? cum enim de­fen­den­da­rum mea­rum ae­dium cau­sa fe­ce­rim, uti­que do­lo ca­reo. pu­to igi­tur non es­se ve­rum, quod La­beo scri­bit. an ta­men le­ge Aqui­lia agi cum hoc pos­sit? et non pu­to agen­dum: nec enim in­iu­ria hoc fe­cit, qui se tue­ri vo­luit, cum alias non pos­set. et ita Cel­sus scri­bit. 8Se­na­tus con­sul­tum Clau­dia­nis tem­po­ri­bus fac­tum est, ut, si quis ex nau­fra­gio cla­vos vel unum ex his abs­tu­le­rit, om­nium re­rum no­mi­ne te­n­ea­tur. item alio se­na­tus con­sul­to ca­ve­tur eos, quo­rum frau­de aut con­si­lio nau­fra­gi sup­pres­si per vim fuis­sent, ne na­vi vel ibi pe­ri­cli­tan­ti­bus opi­tu­len­tur, le­gis Cor­ne­liae, quae de si­ca­riis la­ta est, poe­nis ad­fi­cien­dos: eos au­tem, qui quid ex mi­ser­ri­ma nau­fra­go­rum for­tu­na ra­puis­sent lu­cra­ti­ve fuis­sent do­lo ma­lo, in quan­tum edic­to prae­to­ris ac­tio da­re­tur, tan­tum et fis­co da­re de­be­re.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVI. Where anyone seizes property by violence in the place where the shipwreck occurs or has occurred, he is held to come within the terms of this Edict. He, however, who carries away articles cast upon the shore after the shipwreck has happened is in such a position that he should rather be considered a thief than liable under this Edict; just as he who appropriates an article which has fallen from a vehicle, and one who removes property cast upon the shore are not considered to have taken it by force. 1Next, the Prætor says, “In an attack on a boat or a ship.” He is considered to take property by force who, during a battle or a combat directed against a ship or a boat, either seizes it by violence, or does so while robbers are capturing the vessel. 2Labeo says it is only just that, if anything is taken by violence during an attack either upon a house in town or upon one in the country, there will be ground for proceeding under this Edict, for we can be annoyed and attacked by robbers no less upon the sea than upon the land. 3Not only he who has seized the property by force, but also he who received it, is liable in the above-mentioned instances, because receivers of stolen goods are not less guilty than the aggressors themselves. The word, “fraudulently,” has been added, however, for the reason that everyone who receives property under such circumstances does not immediately become guilty, but only he who receives it with fraudulent intent. But what if he received it without knowing the facts? Or what if he received it for the purpose of taking care of it, and keeping it safely for the person who lost it? He certainly should not be held responsible. 4Not only he who took the property by force, but also he who removed it, or set it aside with the intention of removing it, or injured it, or concealed it, is liable in this action. 5It is, however, clear that it is one thing to take property by violence, and another to secretly appropriate it, since anything can be secretly appropriated without violence, but property cannot forcibly be taken without the employment of violence. 6Anyone who takes property by violence from a ship which has run aground is liable under this Edict. To run aground is what the Greeks term ecebrasvy. 7What the Prætor says with reference to causing damage only applies where the damage has been committed maliciously, for if malice is absent, the Edict will not be available. Hence, how must what Labeo stated be understood, namely: if, for the purpose of protecting myself from a fire, which has broken out, I demolish a building belonging to my neighbor, should an action be granted against me, and my slaves? For, as I did this for the purpose of protecting my own house, I certainly am free from malice. Therefore I think that what Labeo said is not true. But can an action be brought under the Aquilian Law? I do not think it can, for anyone who desires to protect himself does not act unjustly when he cannot do otherwise. Celsus, also, was of the same opinion. 8In the time of Claudius, the following Decree of the Senate was enacted: “If anyone, in a shipwreck, should remove the rudders of a vessel, or one of them, he will be liable for taking the whole ship.” It was likewise provided by another Decree of the Senate that those by whose fraud or advice shipwrecked persons were overcome by force, in order to prevent assistance being given to the ship, or to anyone on board who was in danger, would be liable to the penalties of the Cornelian Law relating to assassins. And, moreover, that those who took by violence, or fraudulently obtained anything from the wretched fortunes of the shipwrecked person, should be compelled to pay as much into the Treasury as could be recovered by the Edict of the Prætor.

4Pau­lus li­bro quin­qua­gen­si­mo quar­to ad edic­tum. Pe­dius pos­se et­iam di­ci ex nau­fra­gio ra­pe­re, qui, dum nau­fra­gium fiat, in il­la tre­pi­da­tio­ne ra­piat. 1Di­vus An­to­ni­nus de his, qui prae­dam ex nau­fra­gio di­ri­puis­sent, ita re­scrip­sit: ‘Quod de nau­fra­giis na­vis et ra­tis scrip­sis­ti mi­hi, eo per­ti­net, ut ex­plo­res, qua poe­na ad­fi­cien­dos eos pu­tem, qui di­ri­puis­se ali­qua ex il­lo pro­ban­tur. et fa­ci­le, ut opi­nor, con­sti­tui pot­est: nam plu­ri­mum in­ter­est, peritu­ra col­le­ge­rint an quae ser­va­ri pos­sint fla­gi­tio­se in­va­se­rint. id­eo­que si gra­vior prae­da vi ad­pe­ti­ta vi­de­bi­tur, li­be­ros qui­dem fus­ti­bus cae­sos in tri­en­nium rele­ga­bis aut, si sor­di­dio­res erunt, in opus pu­bli­cum eius­dem tem­po­ris da­bis: ser­vos fla­gel­lis cae­sos in me­tal­lum dam­na­bis. si non mag­nae pe­cu­niae res fue­rint, li­be­ros fus­ti­bus, ser­vos fla­gel­lis cae­sos di­mit­te­re poteris’. et om­ni­no ut in ce­te­ris, ita hu­ius­mo­di cau­sis ex per­so­na­rum con­di­cio­ne et re­rum qua­li­ta­te di­li­gen­ter sunt aes­ti­man­dae, ne quid aut du­rius aut re­mis­sius con­sti­tua­tur, quam cau­sa pos­tu­la­bit. 2Hae ac­tio­nes he­redi­bus dan­tur. in he­redes ea­te­nus dan­dae sunt, qua­te­nus ad eos per­ve­nit.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book LIV. Pedius says that he who seizes property by violence while the terror which prevails during a shipwreck exists can be said to have taken it in the shipwreck. 1The Divine Antoninus stated as follows, in a Rescript having reference to those who are guilty of pillage during a shipwreck: “What you wrote me concerning the shipwreck of a vessel or a boat was done for the purpose of ascertaining what penalty I think should be inflicted upon those who have stolen something from the vessel. I think that this can be easily determined, for there is a great difference where persons take property which is about to be lost, and where they criminally seize that which can be saved. Therefore, if considerable booty appears to have been obtained by force, you will, after conviction, banish freemen for three years, after having them whipped; or, if they are of inferior rank, you will sentence them to labor on the public works for the same time; and you will sentence slaves to the mines after having scourged them. When the property is not of great value, you can discharge the freemen, after having whipped them with rods; and the slaves, after having scourged them. And, by all means, in other cases, as well as in those of this description, the condition of the persons and the nature of the property should be carefully considered, in order that no more severity or indulgence may be exercised than the circumstances demand.” 2These actions are granted to heirs, as well as against them, according to the amount of property which comes into their hands.

5Gaius li­bro vi­cen­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Si quis ex nau­fra­gio vel ex in­cen­dio rui­na­ve ser­va­tam rem et alio lo­co po­si­tam sub­tra­xe­rit aut ra­pue­rit, fur­ti sci­li­cet aut alias vi bo­no­rum rap­to­rum iu­di­cio te­ne­tur, ma­xi­me si non in­tel­le­ge­bat ex nau­fra­gio vel in­cen­dio rui­na­ve eam es­se. ia­cen­tem quo­que rem ex nau­fra­gio, quae fluc­ti­bus ex­pul­sa sit, si quis abs­tu­le­rit, ple­ri­que idem pu­tant. quod ita ve­rum est, si ali­quod tem­pus post nau­fra­gium in­ter­ces­se­rit: alio­quin si in ip­so nau­fra­gii tem­po­re id ac­ci­de­rit, ni­hil in­ter­est, utrum ex ip­so ma­ri quis­que ra­piat an ex nau­fra­giis an ex li­to­re. de eo quo­que, quod ex ra­te na­ve ex­pug­na­ta rap­tum sit, ean­dem in­ter­pre­ta­tio­nem ad­hi­be­re de­be­mus.

5Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXI. If anyone should remove by stealth, or take by violence anything which has been rescued from a shipwreck, a fire, or the destruction of a house, and placed elsewhere, he will be liable either to an action for theft, or to one for property taken by violence; especially if he did not know that it came from a shipwreck, a fire or the destruction of a building. Where anyone carries away property which has been lost in a shipwreck, and is lying on the shore where it was cast by the waves; many authorities hold the same opinion, and it is correct, if some time intervened since the shipwreck took place. Otherwise, if this occurred at the very time of the shipwreck, it makes no difference whether the goods were taken from the sea itself or from the wreck, or from the shore. We should make the same distinction where they were taken from a boat or a vessel in distress.

6Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro pri­mo edic­ti mo­ni­to­rii. Ex­pug­na­tur na­vis, cum spo­lia­tur aut mer­gi­tur aut dis­sol­vi­tur aut per­tun­di­tur aut fu­nes eius prae­ci­dun­tur aut ve­la con­scin­dun­tur aut an­co­rae in­vo­lan­tur de ma­re.

6Callistratus, On the Monitory Edict, Book I. A ship is in distress when it is plundered, or submerged, or broken open, or has a hole made in it, or its cables are cut, or its sails torn, or its anchors are carried away by the sea.

7Idem li­bro se­cun­do quaes­tio­num. Ne quid ex nau­fra­giis di­ri­pia­tur vel quis ex­tra­neus in­ter­ve­niat col­li­gen­dis eis, mul­ti­fa­riam pro­spec­tum est. nam et di­vus Ha­d­ria­nus edic­to prae­ce­pit, ut hi, qui iux­ta li­to­ra ma­ris pos­si­dent, sci­rent, si quan­do na­vis vel in­fic­ta vel frac­ta in­tra fi­nes agri cu­ius­que fue­rit, ne nau­fra­gia di­ri­piant, in ip­sos iu­di­cia prae­si­des his, qui res suas di­rep­tas que­run­tur, red­di­tu­ros, ut quid­quid pro­ba­ve­rint ad­emp­tum si­bi nau­fra­gio, id a pos­ses­so­ri­bus re­ci­piant. de his au­tem, quos di­ri­puis­se pro­ba­tum sit, prae­si­dem ut de la­tro­ni­bus gra­vem sen­ten­tiam di­ce­re. ut fa­ci­lior sit pro­ba­tio hu­ius­mo­di ad­mis­si, per­mi­sit his et quid­quid pas­sos se hu­ius­mo­di que­run­tur, ad­ire prae­fec­tos et ad eum tes­ta­ri reos­que pe­te­re, ut pro mo­do cul­pae vel vinc­ti vel sub fi­de­ius­so­ri­bus ad prae­si­dem re­mit­tan­tur. a do­mi­no quo­que pos­ses­sio­nis, in qua id ad­mis­sum di­ca­tur, sa­tis ac­ci­pi, ne co­gni­tio­ni de­sit, prae­ci­pi­tur. sed nec in­ter­ve­ni­re nau­fra­giis col­li­gen­dis aut mi­li­tem aut pri­va­tum aut li­ber­tum ser­vum­ve prin­ci­pis pla­ce­re si­bi ait se­na­tus.

7The Same, Questions, Book II. Many precautions have been taken to hinder property from being stolen during a shipwreck, or to prevent strangers from coming in and taking possession of it. For the Divine Hadrian provided by an Edict that those who owned land on the shore of the sea should, when a ship either badly damaged or broken up within the boundaries of any of them, see that nothing was stolen from the wreck; and that the Governors of provinces should grant actions against them in favor of those who were searching for the property of which they had been deprived, to enable them to recover anything which they could prove had been taken from them during the shipwreck, by those who had possession of the same. With reference to such as are proved to have taken the property, the Governor should impose a severe sentence upon them, as upon robbers. And in order to render proof of the commission of crimes of this kind more easy, he permitted those who complained of having suffered any loss to go before the Prefect and give their evidence, and search for the guilty parties, in order that they might be sent before the Governor either in chains, or under bond, in proportion to the gravity of their offences. He also directed that security be taken from the owner of the property alleged to have been stolen not to desist from the prosecution. The Senate also decreed that neither a soldier, nor any private individual, nor a freedman, nor a slave of the Emperor, should interfere in the collection of articles dispersed by shipwreck.

8Ne­ra­tius li­bro se­cun­do re­spon­so­rum. Ra­tis vi flu­mi­nis in agrum meum de­la­tae non ali­ter po­tes­ta­tem ti­bi fa­cien­dam, quam si de prae­terito quo­que dam­no mi­hi ca­vis­ses.

8Neratius, Opinions, Book II. If your boat has been carried by the force of the stream upon my land, you cannot remove it, unless you give me security for any damage which may have been caused by it.

9Gaius li­bro quar­to ad le­gem duo­de­cim ta­bu­la­rum. Qui ae­des acer­vum­ve fru­men­ti iux­ta do­mum po­si­tum con­bus­se­rit, vinc­tus ver­be­ra­tus ig­ni ne­ca­ri iu­be­tur, si mo­do sciens pru­dens­que id com­mi­se­rit. si ve­ro ca­su, id est neg­le­gen­tia, aut no­xiam sar­ci­re iu­be­tur aut, si mi­nus ido­neus sit, le­vius cas­ti­ga­tur. ap­pel­la­tio­ne au­tem ae­dium om­nes spe­cies ae­di­fi­cii con­ti­nen­tur.

9Gaius, On the Law of the Twelve Tables, Book IV. Anyone who sets fire to a house, or a pile of grain near a house, shall be chained, scourged, and put to death by fire, provided he committed the act knowingly and deliberately. If, however, it occurred by accident, that is to say, through negligence, he shall be ordered to make good the damage; or, if he is insolvent, he shall receive a light chastisement. Every kind of building is included in the term house.

10Ul­pia­nus li­bro pri­mo opi­nio­num. Ne pis­ca­to­res noc­te lu­mi­ne os­ten­so fal­lant na­vi­gan­tes, qua­si in por­tum ali­quem de­la­tu­ri, eo­que mo­do in pe­ri­cu­lum na­ves et qui in eis sunt de­du­cant si­bi­que exe­cran­dam prae­dam pa­rent, prae­si­dis pro­vin­ciae re­li­gio­sa con­stan­tia ef­fi­ciat.

10Ulpianus, Opinions, Book I. The vigilance of the Governors of provinces must be diligently exercised to prevent fishermen from showing lights at night in order to deceive sailors, thereby indicating that they are approaching some port, and in this way bringing ships and those on board of them into danger, and preparing for themselves a detestable booty.

11Mar­cia­nus li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo in­sti­tu­tio­num. Si for­tui­to in­cen­dium fac­tum sit, ve­nia ind­iget, ni­si tam la­ta cul­pa fuit, ut lu­xu­ria aut do­lo sit pro­xi­ma.

11Marcianus, Institutes, Book XIV. Where a fire takes place by accident it is excusable, unless there was such gross negligence as to resemble illegality or fraud.

12Ul­pia­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo de of­fi­cio pro­con­su­lis. Li­ce­re uni­cui­que nau­fra­gium suum im­pu­ne col­li­ge­re con­stat: id­que im­pe­ra­tor An­to­ni­nus cum di­vo pa­tre suo re­scrip­sit. 1Qui da­ta ope­ra in ci­vi­ta­te in­cen­dium fe­ce­rint, si hu­mi­lio­re lo­co sint, bes­tiis ob­ici so­lent: si in ali­quo gra­du id fe­ce­rint, ca­pi­te pu­niun­tur aut cer­te in in­su­lam de­por­tan­tur.

12Ulpianus, On the Duty of Proconsul, Book VIII. It is established that anyone can collect his shipwrecked property, and this was stated by the Emperor Antoninus and his Divine Father in a Rescript. 1Persons of low rank who designedly cause a fire in a town shall be thrown to wild beasts, and those of superior station shall suffer death, or else be banished to some island.