Label: S!EMANKO - none • Format: CD Album • Country: Poland • Genre: Hip Hop • Style: Trap
Furtum was a delict of Roman law comparable to the modern offence of theft as it is usually translated despite being a civil and not criminal wrong. In the classical law and later, it denoted the contrectatio "handling" of most types of property with a particular sort of intention — fraud and in Searching Wind - Tommy Dorsey With Victor Young And His Singing Strings And Victor Young And His Orc later law, a view to gain.
It is unclear whether a view to gain was always required or added later, and, if the latter, when. This meant that the owner did not consent, although Justinian broadened this in at least one case. The law of furtum protected a variety of property interests, but not land, things without an owner, or types of state or religious things.
An owner could commit theft by taking his things back in certain circumstances, as could a borrower or similar user through misuse. The Romans distinguished between "manifest" and "non-manifest" theft based on how close to the scene of the crime the thief was caught, although exactly where the line was, was debated by jurists. Under the Twelve Tablesdeath or flogging could be expected for a manifest thief, later changed to damages of four times the thing.
The penalty for non-manifest theft was two times. There were complementary actions against the occupier of the property where the stolen goods were found, if the defendant did not bring the thing to court or refused a search.
Vindicatio or condictio could also be undertaken by the owner of the thing, in addition to an action under furtum. Contrectatio meant "handling" and was established as the prohibited action associated with furtum before the end of the republic. This was widened and there are several examples from the classical Rome and later where it is even hard to find physical contact in any sense.
The case of wrongful payment is problematic, because a mistaken payment still transferred ownership; it seems contradictory that the receiver was granted ownership and still liable for theft. An accomplice could be sued if he had provided help ope consilio — a physical act relating to the method of execution, rather than mere encouragement. Only one person needed to have handled the thing for all wrongdoers to be liable.
Republican jurists were harder on accomplices than later jurists under the empire. The requisite intention sometimes described as Enigmv - Manifest (19) - Infamia furandi" was a fraud fraudulosa.
The prospective thief also had to believe that he did not have the owner's consent. The owner now consents to the thief's appropriation so he can be caught in the act, and therefore prevents the crime actually occurring.
Justinian, however, reverses this distinction for public policy reasons, and thus creates rather an anomaly. Intention to make a gain was probably necessary in Justinian's time. It is thought that this was the case during classical Rome, Enigmv - Manifest (19) - Infamia well: an example of Gaius is quoted in the Digestand implies so; Sabinus is quoted by Gellius as including such a condition. It is not entirely clear, however. In a notable example, a man, acting dishonestly, calls a mule-driver to court frivolously, which caused the mules to be lost.
Although this was classed as theft, there is no obvious intention to make a gain. This may have been because if the mules were lost, they had necessarily been stolen by someone.
That being the case, the perpetrator could be held as an accomplice. Infantes young children and furiosi "lunatics" were considered incapable of formulating the necessary intention and could therefore not commit furtum. The thing must be movableif it is to be stolen.
Whilst an immovable thing cannot be carried away, the pre-classical extension to other types of interference with property means that immovable were not by their nature excluded. This was also the view of Sabinus, but it was rejected by other classical jurists. Res sanctae and religiosia were covered by separate delicts; and one could not steal a res nullius. This was probably a hang-over from a time when dominium ownershipmanus and potestas were indistinct and not formally separate. The general rule was that anyone with an interest in the safety of the thing stolen may sue.
This was only true so long as the person obliged was solvent — that is, under a real risk of losing out by a theft. The plaintiff with a negative interest was precluded from an action if it was by his own fault dolusor other dishonest. Thus if the thing was stolen, the vendor had the action on the theft because he was liable to the purchaser.
There were several possible actions available to the claimant. In the typical theft, the damages were a multiple of the value of the thing stolen, available through Charlie Brown - The Coasters - Charlie Brown actio furti.
A successful action for theft brought with it infamia for the thief. Ulpian reports that criminal proceedings were more common, and Julian that a successful prosecution prevented a civil action under furtum. In the time of the Twelve Tablesa "manifest" thief and a "non-manifest" thief were treated differently.
Manifest theft denoted some sort of being caught in the act. Gaius is highly Enigmv - Manifest (19) - Infamia of the by-then obsolete ritual, imagining the platter was for removal of the goods.
In practice, it may have been for an offering to the household gods. Being almost naked would have prevented the searcher bringing with him a thing he would then pretend to find. The extreme penalty must have acted as a deterrent. The victim could kill the thief on the spot in two situations: at night, and where the thief was using a weapon and had been verbally warned. By the classical period, physical punishment had been abandoned Quattro Cavalli Trottano - Coro Tucci, Complesso Lagor - Quattro Cavalli Trottano / Addio Lugano Bel manifest theft and Gaius records merely four-times damages, introduced by the praetor.
This meant, somewhat strangely, that a praetorian action could be more serious than a civil action, which was unusual. He says that most jurists believed it extended to being caught in the place of the theft with the thing, and no further.
There may have been a maximum time limit on All Or Nothing At All - Various - Dutch Jazz Collection (Box Set) theft of this type, but it is unclear how long it was.
There were now four possible actions for theft, by the victim: the action furti itself and three complementary actions. The actio furti Enigmv - Manifest (19) - Infamia could be pursued against anyone who declined a search with witnesses, with four-times damages.
This was both penal, and an attempt to give the plaintiff enough actions to compensate him, because the thief, at least was not usually solvent. By Justinian's time, the scheme Enigmv - Manifest (19) - Infamia simpler: instead of complementing actions for manifest and non-manifest theft, handling stolen goodsor concealing them made one instead liable for non-manifest theft, whose two-times penalty was maintained. Searches were carried out by public Enigmv - Manifest (19) - Infamia , and the wide definition of theft covered a bad faith receiver of goods.
There were reipersecutory actions Enigmv - Manifest (19) - Infamia in addition to penal actions, those actions which followed from a finding of theft but were additional to it. Allowing a condictio was anomalous: it was an action more usually brought by a non-owner, possibly kept over from before condictio was restricted in this way. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Drinking On My Bed - The Rob Hoeke Rhythm & Blues Group - P-Kick Boogie, Street Of Dreams - Nia Peeples - Nia Peeples, Peanut Vendor - The Skatalites - Live At The Church House Inn, Providence, RI (VHS), A Perfect Day Elise - PJ Harvey - Is This Desire?