按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
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 sayes thereto nay； and be this reason； For it is ane dead thing； and ane dead thing may do na fellony； nor be made escheit throw their gilt。 Swa the milne in this case is not culpable； and in the law it is lawfull to the lord of the land to haue ane mylne on his awin water quhere best likes him。〃 /2/
The reader will see in this passage； as has been remarked already of the Roman law； that a distinction is taken between things which are capable of guilt and those which ＇22＇ are not；between living and dead things； but he will also see that no difficulty was felt in treating animals as guilty。
Take next an early passage of the English law； a report of what was laid down by one of the English judges。 In 1333 it was stated for law； that； 〃if my dog kills your sheep； and I； freshly after the fact； tender you the dog； you are without recovery against me。〃 /l / More than three centuries later； in 1676； it was said by Twisden； J。 that； 〃if one hath kept a tame fox； which gets loose and grows wild； he that hath kept him before shall not answer for the damage the fox doth after he hath lost him； and he hath resumed his wild nature。〃 /2/ It is at least doubtful whether that sentence ever would have been written but for the lingering influence of the notion that the ground of the owner's liability was his ownership of the offending： thing and his failure to surrender it。 When the fox escaped； by another principle of law the ownership was at an end。 In fact； that very consideration was seriously pressed in England as late as 1846； with regard to a monkey which escaped and bit the plaintiff； /3/ So it seems to be a reasonable conjecture； that it was this way of thinking which 1ed Lord Holt； near the beginning of the last century； to intimate that one ground on which a man is bound at his peril to restrain cattle from trespassing is that he has valuable property in such animals； whereas he has not dogs； for which his responsibility is less。 /4/ To this day； in fact； cautious judges state the law as to cattle to be； that； 〃if I am the owner of an animal in which by law the ＇23＇ right of property can exist； I am bound to take care that it does not stray into the land of my neighbor。〃 /1/
I do not mean that our modern law on this subject is only a survival； and that the only change from primitive notions was to substitute the owner for the offending animal。 For although it is probable that the early law was one of the causes which led to the modern doctrine； there has been too much good sense in every stage of our law to adopt any such sweeping consequences as would follow from the wholesale transfer of liability supposed。 An owner is not bound at his peril to keep his cattle from harming his neighbor's person。 /2/ And in some of the earliest instances of personal liability； even for trespass on a neighbor's land； the ground seems to have been the owner's negligence。 /3/
It is the nature of those animals which the common law recognizes as the subject of ownership to stray； and when straying to do damage by trampling down and eating crops。 At the same time it is usual and easy to restrain them。 On the other hand； a dog； which is not the subject of property； does no harm by simply crossing the land of others than its owner。 Hence to this extent the new law might have followed the old。 The right of property in the ＇24＇ offending animal； which was the ancient ground of responsibility； might have been adopted safely enough as the test of a liability based on the fault of the owner。 But the responsibility for damage of a kind not to be expected from such animals is determined on grounds of policy comparatively little disturbed by tradition。 The development of personal liability for fierce wild animals at Rome has been explained。 Our law seems to have followed the Roman。
We will now follow the history of that branch of the primitive notion which was least likely to survive；the liability of inanimate things。
It will be remembered that King Alfred ordained the surrender of a tree； but that the later Scotch law refused it because a dead thing could not have guilt。 It will be remembered； also； that the animals which the Scotch law forfeited were escheat to the king。 The same thing has remained true in England until well into this century； with regard even to inanimate objects。 As long ago as Bracton； /1/ in case a man was slain； the coroner was to value the object causing the death； and that was to be forfeited sa deodand 〃pro rege。〃 It was to be given to God； that is to say to the Church； for the king； to be expended for the good of his soul。 A man's death had ceased to be the private affair of his friends as in the time of the barbarian folk…laws。 The king； who furnished the court； now sued for the penalty。 He supplanted the family in the claim on the guilty thing； and the Church supplanted him。
In Edward the First's time some of the cases remind of the barbarian laws at their rudest stage。 If a man fell from a tree； the tree was deodand。 /2/ If he drowned in a ＇25＇ well； the well was to be filled up。 /1/ It did not matter that the forfeited instrument belonged to an innocent person。〃 Where a man killeth another with the sword of John at Stile； the sword shall be forfeit as deodand； and yet no default is in the owner。〃 /2/ That is from a book written in the reign of Henry VIII。； about 1530。 And it has been repeated from Queen Elizabeth's time /3/ to within one hundred years； /4/ that if my horse strikes a man； and afterwards I sell my horse； and after that the man dies； the horse shall be forfeited。 Hence it is； that； in all indictments for homicide； until very lately it has been necessary to state the instrument causing the death and its value； as that the stroke was given by a certain penknife； value sixpence； so as to secure the forfeiture。 It is said that a steam…engine has been forfeited in this way。
I now come to what I regard as the most remarkable transformation of this principle； and one which is a most important factor in our law as it is today。 I must for the moment leave the common law and take up the doctrines of the Admiralty。 In the early books which have just been referred to； an