"Türkiye Türklerindir +40" Bloguna Hoş geldiniz!!!

Ey Türk Milleti!
Birinci vazifen seni İslamcılık ve Türkçülükle benliğinden koparan, Araplaştıran din, devlet, ticarette sana yer vermeyen, seni küçük dereceli askeri görevlere vererek ölüme süren, sana hocalık, başbuğluk eden hainlere giydirdiğin tacı geri almaktır. Bunu yapabilmen için seni uyandıracak her türlü bilgi ve belge mevcuttur. Ya özgürlüğünü kazan ya da öl. Kölelikle atalarının kemiklerini sızlatma. Arap Rumların ırkçı kinci ensest sapık dinlerinden çık. Kurtuluşun başlangıcı burasıdır. Aklen kurtulmadıkça saltanatın da olsa kölesindir unutma. Sen özgür birey olmadıkça kardeşliğin önemi yoktur. Devletin her yüksek kademesine göz dik yerini al. Tırsma. Çabala, savaş ve kazan! Birlikte yaşadığın kavimlerle kardeşlik o zaman daha güzel olacaktır. Alaeddin Yavuz

Tarih boyunca atalarımız günümüzdeki kadar, her türlü bilgiye ulaşabilecek böyle bir çağ yaşamadılar.
Bizler tümünden şanslıyız. Buna dayanarak, blog içerikleri binlerce yıldır doğru bilinenleri sorgulamaktadır.
İster bu bloğda, ister okulda, camide veya başka yerde hiçbir yazılanı, öğretileni “sorgulamadan, araştırmadan” doğru kabul etmeyiniz!
Vatan-Millet davası,hiçbir kurum veya kuruluşa havale edilemez, milletçe sahiplenilmedikçe hiç bir dava milli değildir.
Davasına sahip çıkmayan halk da millet değil sürüdür. Adilyargıç/Keykubat.

Blog yazılarının telif hakları-copyright © “adilyargic; adilyargicc; keykubat.blogspot.com ve keykubat.blogcu.com” rumuzlarıyla yazan Alaeddin Yavuz’a aittir.
Hala okumak istiyorsanız buyurunuz.

Saygılar, sevgiler!

Hakkımda

Fotoğrafım
İstanbul, Kartal, Turkey
KENDİLERİ İÇİN PLAN YAPMAYAN MİLLETLER, BAŞKALARININ KENDİLERİ İÇİN YAPTIKLARI PLANLARA RAZI OLURLAR.Keykubat- ATATÜRK'TEN SONRA ÜLKEMİZDEN TÜRK ve MÜSLÜMAN HALKLAR İÇİN PLAN YAPAN ve EZİLEN HALKLARA ÖNDER OLACAK SİYASET İZLEYEN BİR LİDER ÇIKMAMIŞ, ARDILLARI,ONUN İZLEDİĞİ ANTİ EMPERYALİST SİYASETİ TERK ETMİŞ,DEVLETİ AB-D KUCAĞINA ATMIŞ VE ONLARA BAĞLILIĞI ATATÜRKÇÜLÜK SAYMIŞ,HALKIMIZIN DİNİ VE IRKİ DEĞERLERİNİ AŞAĞILAYARAK TAHRİK ETMİŞ, KADEMELİ OLARAK HALKIMIZI HIRİSTİYANLAŞTIRMAK İÇİN DIŞ GÜÇLERCE GİZLİ-AÇIK DESTEKLENEN SAPIK DİNCİ YAPILANMALARI GÜÇLENDİREREK,İKTİDARA TAŞIMIŞ,IRK,MEZHEP BAĞLAMINDA KARŞILIKLI DÜŞMANLIKLAR YARATMIŞ, ÜLKENİN KAYNAK VE SERMAYESİNİ YABANCILARA PEŞKEŞ ÇEKMİŞ,YUKARIDA SAYILAN AB-D PROJELERİNE GÖRE ASKERİ DARBELERLE KENDİ MİLLETİNİ SİNDİREREK BÖLÜNMENİN YAŞANDIĞI BÖYLE GÜNLERDE BİLE TEPKİSİZ KALMASINI SAĞLAYAN KORKU ORTAMINI HAZIRLAMIŞ,BENZER MUHTELİF İHANETLER İÇİNDE BİR ŞEKİLDE YER ALMIŞLARDIR.İÇİNDE BULUNDUĞUMUZ GÜNÜN DURUMU BUDUR-Keykubat İNSAN,PRANGA VURULMAKLA,KIRBAÇLANARAK ÇALIŞTIRILMAKLA ESİR OLUR.ESİRLİĞİ YAŞAM BİÇİMİ OLARAK BENİMSERSE KÖLE OLUR. VATANINIZA,DEĞERLERİNİZE,ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜNÜZE SAHİP,HER TÜRLÜ EMPERYALİZME KARŞI ÇIKIN!!! Keykubat

Toplam Sayfa Görüntüleme Sayısı

Translate

Bu Blogda Ara

10 Eylül 2017 Pazar

ANTİK ROMA HUKUKU, 12 TABLET YASASI

ANTİK ROMA HUKUKU 12 TABLET YASALARI.

Bu yasa, 207 yılı itibarıyla günümüzden 2467 yıl önce yazılmıştır.
Latince Lex XII Tabularum olarak yazılan “12 TABLET YASALARI” Roma’nın en eski hukuk kurallarıdır.

12 Tablet Yasalarının Roma Forum meydanında halka arzını
gösteren temsili resim.[/caption]


M.Ö.753’lerde dişi kurttan süt emerek büyüyen Romus ve Romulus kardeşlerin kurdukları Roma şehir devleti yaklaşık 300 yıl boyunca varlığını korumuş, kendi geleneklerine göre “İus Civile Quiritium/Roma Medeni Hukuku” ile adalet geleneklerini oluşturmuştur. Yargıç, Sextus Pomponius, bu dönem için “Şehrimizin başlangıçta tespit edilmiş yasalarla belirlenmiş hakları yoktu ve her şey despotça kralların despotça isteklerine göre yapılırdı” diyerek bu Roma Medeni Hukukunu da tanımlamıştır. Roma Hukukunun kökeninin Etrüsk dini gelenekleri ve ayinlerinden kaynaklandığına inanılmaktadır.

Roma soylu, ayrıcalıklı olanlar (Patricians/Patrisyenler) ile Roma soylu olmayan sıradan şehir halkının (Plebians/Plebiyenler/Avam) arasındaki ayrımcılık dikkat çekicidir. Roma köleci bir kültüre sahip olduğundan aynı zamanda da ayrımcı ve ırkçıdır. “Roma hukukunun tüm ayrıcalıklarından sadece Romalı vatandaşlar yararlanır” ilkesine sahiptir.
Uzun yıllar süren iki ayrı grup çatışmaları sonunda yasa yapmak üzere MÖ.455’de 10 adam (decemviri) seçilmiş, bunlara “yasa yapma hakkı (imperium)” verilmiş, iki tarafı bağlayan yasaları (legibus scribundis) “10” başlıkta düzenleyerek M.Ö.451-450’lerde bronz tabletler üzerine yazarak Forum meydanında bir anıta asmışlardır. Bu yasalara, aristokratlardan seçilen rahipler (pontifices) yasası da dahildir.
Bir yıl sonra M.Ö-450’de bu yasal şekillendirmeye iki tablet daha eklenerek “12” tablet haline getirilmiştir.yaptıktan sonra iki halk arasında tarafsız karar vermekle görevli iki Sulh Ceza Hakimi (İki Konsül) atanmıştır.

Bazı tarihçilere göre kendilerinden ileri gördükleri Grek halkının hukuk tecrübelerinden yararlanarak daha da çağdaş hukuk arayışına girmiş, M.Ö. 455’lerde 10 kişilik bir yargıç heyeti Yunanistan’a gönderileren Solon yasalarını inceleyip döndükten sonra “10” tabletlik yasayı MÖ.451’de yapmıştır.

Tarihçiler, günümüzden 2500 yıl, Büyük İskender’den (Zülkarneyn) 100 yıl önce Romalıların asla Yunanistan Atina’ya gelemeyeceklerini, günümz Sırbistan’ına kadar gelmiş olabileceklerini iddia ettiğinden böyle de bir tartışma var olsa da, Grek menşeeli olsun, olmasın ortada, “12 Tablet Yasaları” bir şekilde namını bizlere bırakmıştır.
Bence, M.Ö.455-448 yılları Greklerin altın çağını yaşayan İran/Pers imparatorluğu (M.Ö.539-339) idaresinde bulundukları çağdır ve bağımsız şehri devleti hukuku yerine, koloni Pers yasalarına tabii olduğundan Romalıların yetişmiş 10 hukukçusunu, her eyerin yağmacı haydutların, eşkiyaların saldırılarıyla kaybetme riskine girmemiş oldukları akla daha uygundur.

Bronz tabletler temsili[/caption]


12 Tablet Yasa metinlerini barındıran bronz tabletler M.Ö.387’de günümüz Belçika ve Fransa’sı üzerinden gelen Kelt halkı olan Galyalıların Roma’yı yağmalayıp talan ettiklerinde parçalanarak yok edilmişlerdir. Roma şehri dışındaki yerlerde bulunan kalıntılarından derlenenler ile malum yasaların içerikleri günümüze kısmen gelebilmiştir.

12 Tablet yasasının bende uyandırdığı ilk soru şu oldu; “-Tanrı katından, insanlara bildirilen ilahi emirleri bildirmekle görevlendirilen en başlarda göksel varlıklar vardı, zamanlar dinlerde bu yerini yarı tanrı melezlere ve en son zamanlarda da insanlardan seçilmiş habercilere yani peygamberlere daima vahiy yoluyla, rüyada veya uyanıkken görülen görümler, işitilen sesler şeklinde olurken,tanrı neden Musa’ya hem de şeytan Sin’in dağında bir kayadan oyma taş tabletlere yazma gereğini duymuştur?
Bu taş tablete yazma geleneğinin kaynağı Etrüsk dini olduğuna göre, Romalılar yasalarını da önce ON TABLET’e yazmışlar, Hristiyanlık ve temel kitabı Ahdi Atik Tevrat da onların kitabı olunca Musa’ya verilen ON EMİR’in taştan tablete yazılarak verilmesi bir Roma düzenlemesi midir?
Bu soruyu herkesin kendisine sormasını istiyorum. Cevabını da kendilerine versinler.


GEL VE İŞİT/COME AND HEAR" diye başlayan
Talmud Sanhedrin sapıklık ayetleri sayfa resmi


İkinci sorum da şu olmuştur; “-Tevrat Levililer kitabında eşcinsellik ve ikinci, üçüncü derece akraba evlilikleri yasaklanırken, Davut, Süleyman, Eyüp peygamberlerin yaşamlarında eşcinsellik ve ensest evlilikler yaşanması elan Ortodoks Yahudilerde ensest sütten kesilmiş kız ve oğullarıyla homoseksüel, heteroseksüel cinselliklerin yaşanması, bunların Talmud kitabında “GÖR VE İŞİD, BİR YAHUDİ DİN ADAMI, ÜÇ YAŞININ ALTINDA BİR KIZ İLE BİR SAATLİĞİNE NİKAH KIYABİLİR; ÜÇ YAŞINDA BİR ERKEK BEBEKTEN BIYIĞI, SAKALI TERLEMEMİŞ BİR GENCE KADAR YAPILAN KULAMPARALIK, KULAMPARALIK DEĞİLDİR” diyen Talmud ayetlerine bakınca, Levililer kitabının eşcinsellik ve ensest evlilik yasaklarının Roma emirleri olup olmadığını takdirlerinize bırakıyorum.
Bence, günümüzden 2500 yıl önce yapılmış bu yasaların en göze çarpan özelliği, köleci toplum olmalarına, köleliği yasalara uymayan özgür Romalılara dahi bir yaptırım aracı olarak görmeleri, ceza olarak süreli kölelik vermelerine rağmen daha o tarihlerde köle azat etmeyi teşvik etmesidir.
Jüstinyen yasalarında ise , kölelikten azat edilenlere tanınan “dereceli özgürlük kavramı” tamamen ortadan kaldırılıp tek tip özgür vatandaş tipi çizilmesiyle sonuçlanmaktadır. Jüstinyen'in ölümünden 56 yıl sonra tebliğine başlanılan Kur’an’da da köle azat edilmesinin övülmesi, bir Roma vilayeti olan Hicaz bölgesi, 627’de İran’ın bozgunu ile tümü Roma vilayeti olmuş Arap yarımadasında zaten Roma hukuku sayesinde yürürlükte olması, 18 yaşına henüz girmiş ergen bireyin, başkalarına ödemesi gereken borçları yoksa, kısıtlı olmadıkça tüm kölelerini azat etme hakkının verilmiş olması, hatta yürürken, hamama giderken köle azat etme yetkileri bize ilginç gelebilir.
İslam ile dahi kölecilikten vazgeçmeyen Arapların, Roma hukukunun halen gerisinde oldukları ortadadır. Özellikle siyasal İslam’ın kaynağı olan haricicilerin, Hanbelilerin, ve günümüz Selefileri El Kaide, Işid, Taliban gibilerin 21.yy.da köleciliği tekrar yaşatmaları ve bunu Kur’an emirlerine dayamaları Kur’an Allah’ının adaletinin, peygamberi Muhammet’ten 1000 yıl önce 12 Tablet yasasını yapan Romalıların gerisinde olduğuna hükmetmemize neden olmaktadır.
Çünkü başta Suudi Arabistan ve şeri rejimle yönetilen komşu ülkeleri ile diğer İslam ülkelerinde ilkel, kölecilik ve Sabi dini esaslı Semavi dinlerinde pedofilik gelenekler sürmektedir. Oysa antik Roma’da evlilik yaşı kızlarda 12, erkelkerde 14’den aşağı olamamaktadır. 15-16 yaşlar hoş karşılanmaktadır. Jüstinyen yasalarında 17-18 yaşları köle azat edebilecek ergenlik yaşları olarak yer almaktadır. Bu kadar açık yasalara rağmen Muhammet’in Ayşe ile (6-9 yaş) evliliği ilahi emir değil, sapkın Sabi ve Yahudi geleneklerinden başka şey değildir ve ilkeldir.
Üçüncü olarak da dikkat çeken konu, Roma 12 Tablet hukukunda da Jüstinyen yasalarında da mevkisi, konumu ne olursa olsun, hiç kimsenin, vatandaşların özgürlüklerini sınırlayamacakları ilkesidir ve bunu suç karşılığında yargı mercilerine devretmeleri hayranlık uyandırıcıdır.
Nisa suresi 15-16’da geçen eşcinsellik yasalarının M.Ö.225’lerde başlayan Roma Lex Scatinia yasası ile ensest evlilik yasaklarını birlikte düzenleyen Jüstinyen yasalarının Kur’an Nisa 23. ayetine geçtiğine tanık oluyoruz.
Özellikle, Selefi İ,slami tarikatlar olan Hanbeli, Maliki, Şafi mezheplerine bağlı olanların hepsinin Arap olmaları ve ikinci derece akraba çocuklarıyla evlenmeyi sürdürmeleri, bu ayetin Allah’ın değil de Roma’nın yasağı olduğunu bilmelerinden mi kaynaklıdır, sorusunun cevabını din adamlarına bırakıyorum. Çünkü, Hanefi, Sünnilerde bu yoktur ve yedi göbek baba tarafından akrabalık takip edilir, çok fakirse, kimse kız vermezse ana tarafından yakın akraba hoş görülebilir.

Roma hukukunda sekiz ceza türü vardır;
1-Para cezası (İslam'da var)
2-Bukağı-zincire, prangaya vurma (İslam'da var. Pranga geçen yüzlerce şarkı bulmak mümkün)
3-Kırbaçlama (İslam'da var)
4-Kısas-aynen karşılık vermek (İslam'da aynen var)
5-İtibarını düşürme-hayziyetsizleştirme-rezil etme (İslam'da var)
6-Sürgün (İslam'da var. Hazerfen Ahmet Çelebi bile Suriye'ye sürülmüştür)
7-Kölelik (İslam'da var)
8-Ölüm cezası.(İslam'da var)

Bazı tablet yasalarını aşağıda göreceksiniz;

12 ROMA HUKUKUN TEMELİ 12 TABLETİN İÇERİKLERİ

Tablet 1-Süreç; Mahkemeler ve yargılamalar
Tablet 2-Yargılamalar, süreklilik
Tablet 3- Borçlar
Tablet 4- Babanın (Peterfamilias/Ailebabası) aile üzerindeki hakları
Tablet 5- Yasal Koruyuculuk ve Miras Hukuku
Tablet 6- Edinme ve Sahiplik hakları
Tablet 7- Toprak Mülkiyeti hakları
Tablet 8- Haksız fiil ve başkasına maddi manevi zarar-yara verme.
Tablet 9- Amme Hukuku
Tablet 10- Dini Hukuk
Tablet 11- Ekler I.
Tablet 12- Ekler II.
12 Tablet Yasalarının Bölümleri[/caption]


Tablet 1:1; Mahkemeye Çağırma

1:1;Davacı, davalıyı mahkemede duruşmaya çağırırsa, davalı ereddüt etmeksizin hemen gitmelidir.
1:2; Çağrıyı aldıktan sonra hazır bulunmazsa veya duruşmadan önce gelmeyi ret ederse, davacı tarafın tanıklarını hazır bulundurmasına izin verilir. Sonra gönülsüz davalıyı zorla mahkemeye tutuklu olarak getirtmesine izin verilebilir.
1:3; Her kim, duruşmaya çağrıldığı davanın, suçlamasından kurtulmaya, kaçmaya teşebbüs ettiği zaman, davacıya onu tutuklayarak getirmesine izin verilir.
1:4; Bedensel bozukluğu veya ileri yaşı nedeniyle tarafın mahkemede hazır bulunması engellenebiliyorsa, onu çağırtan kişiye bir hayvan sağlamasına yani, taşımasına izin verilir.
1:5; Mahkemeye çağrılanın kefili veya savunucusu varsa, ona davadan çıkarılma izni verilir, ve temsilcisi mahkemede yerini alır.
1:6; Müdafii veya kefili zengin bir adamsa, kendisi de zengin olmalıdır; her kim böyle gelmek isterse fakir olan kişiye yardım etmeli ve onun yerini almalıdır.
1:7; Davacı-davalı taraflar karşılıklı rızaları ile dava açmışlarsa hakim (Praetor) davanın duyurulmasına izin verir, eğer rızaları olmazsa davanın iki tarafında da öğleden önce forum komitesinde ifade vermelerine izin verir. Daha sonra hazır bulunduklarında davayı birlikte konuşmalarına izin verir.
1:8; Davacı ve davalı, yukarıda belirtildiği gibi görüşmek üzere yerlerini alamazlarsa onlara davalarını Comitium veya Forum’da bir hakimin varlığında gün doğumundan öğleye kadar görüşmeleri, ifadelerini vermeleri sağlanır. Taraflardan biri, öğleye kadar davaya gelmeyi başaramazsa hakim kararını mahkemede bulunanın yararına verir. İki taraf da mevcut ise, duruşma gün doğumundan gün batımına kadar sürebilir ancak daha sonra süremez; Ve ikisinin hazırunluğunda biribirlerini işitebilecekleri kadar sesle konuşmalarına izin verilir.
1:9; Öğleden sonra, yargıç davanın görülmesine hükmetmesine izin verirse, kararını davalı ve davacının önünde sunabilir.
1:10; Güneşin batması, yargıcın kararını verebileceği sürenin en sonudur.

Tablet 2; Hırsızlık ve Yargılama Usulü

2:1; Yargıcın varlığında dava açıldığında iki tarafın kefilleri ve vekillerinin duruşmada bulunmaları sağlanmış olmalıdır. Taraflar, bir yabancı ile buluşması önceden tayin edilmemiş, bir devlet işi nedeniyle gelmesi engellenmemiş, bir yemini yüzünden tanrılar için gözden çıkarılmamış bir tür kimse olmak veya hastalık hali gibi mahkemeye gelmesini engelleyecek ciddi nedenlerle engellenmedikçe şahsen duraşmada bulunmalıdırlar.
2:2; Yukarıda bahsedilen, taraflardan birinin hasta olması, bir işi yapmaya yemin etmiş olması, birinin devlet işi nedeniyle gelememiş olması, bir yabancı ile tayin edilmiş iş görüşmesinin olması, hakem veya müdafiinin hazır bulunmalarının engellenmesi, davanın görülmesinde güvenliğin sağlanamaması hallerinde davanın ertelendiği duyurulur.

2:3; Bir tanığın deliline ihtiyacı olan kimse, her üç günde bir şahitlerinin kapıları önünde seslice onları çağırmalıdır.

2:4; Her kim geceleyin hırsızlık yaparken yakalanıp öldürülürse, öldürülmesi yasaldır.
2:5; Gündüzün hırsızlık yaparken yakalanan birisi kırbaçlanır ve malını çaldığı kimseye köle olarak verilir. Eğer hırsızlığı yapan kişi bir köleyse, demirden sopayla dövülmeli ve Tarpeian kayasından aşağı atılmalıdır. Eğer ergenlik yaşının altındaysa yargıç/Praetor kırbaçlanmasına ve verdiği zararı telafi için teslimine karar verebilir.
2:6; Bir kimse, özgür, veya köle ya da küçük olsa da gün ışığında hırsızlık yaparken görülüp, kendisini silah veya herhangi bir şey ile savunmaya kalkar, mülk sahibi başkalarından yardım istemek için çığlık atarark yardım ister ve orada olanlardan gelen olur, onların yardımıyla hırsız öldürülürse bu kişinin veya mülk sahibinin   savunması olup yasaldır ve   cinayet sayılamaz.
2:7; Tespit edilen hırsızlığa konu olan tabak, kemer gibi şeyler olsa da aynı yasa geçerlidir ve aynı ceza verilir.
2:8; Başkasının malını çalmakla itham edildiğinde, çalınan mal olmadığı açıkça belli olsa da, hırsızlık yapamayacak duruma getirmek için hırsız, çalınanın değerinin iki katını ödemeye mahkum edilir.
2:9; Her kim, gizlice başkasına ait bir ağacın dallarını gizlice keserse, kestiği her dal için 25 asses/para ceza ödemelidir.
2:10; Her kim hırsızın yararına, kaybı için uzlaşırsa, ondan sonra hırsızlık hakkında dava açamaz.

2:11; Çalınan mal, ne yasal olarak uzun süre sahipliğini yapana, onu ne kadar süre sahipliğinde bulundurduğuna bakılmaksızın başkasınca elde edilmiş olmasına ve bunun nasıl olduğuna bakılmaksızın eski sahibine iade edilir.

Tablet 3; Kiralık Mülk

3:1; Bir kimse, dolandırmak niyetiyle bir malı kendine ayırmış bulunup emniyette tutarsa, malın değerinin iki katını ceza olarak öder.
3:2; Her kim, yıllık faizle borç vermek için bronz sikke toplarsa, bu şekilde verilen cezanın dört katı kadar para cezası ödemeye mahkum edilir.
3:3; Bir yabancı, başkasının malına zaman aşımı süresi yüzünden sahip olamaz; fakat Roma vatandaşı mülkün yasal sahibiyse hakkını ondan istemeye hakkı vardır.
3:4; Borç kabul edilip, mahkemede karar tebliğ edildikten sonra 30 gün yasal süre verilmelidir. Bundan sonra borçlunun tutuklanmasına, borçluya el konulmasına (borçluyu haciz etme) karar verilebilir.
3:5;Hukukun borçluya tanıdığı 30 gün sonunda sürenin dolmasına rağmen borçlu ödemez, yargıyı tatmin etmezse, alacaklıya onu tutuklayarak mahkemeye zorla getirme yetkisi verilir.
3:6; Bir davalı otuz gün sonra davacı tarafından ikinci kez mahkemeye getirilirse ve mahkemeyi ve bu manada karşı tarafı tamin etmezse (ki kimse onun yararına kefillik önermez) alacaklı borçluyu alır, bağlayarak götürür. Onu bir yere kapatır veya 15 libreden (30 kg kadar) aşağı olmamak şartıyla bir bukağı ile bağlar. (İsterse ağırlığı arttırabilir.)

3:7; Borçlu alacaklıya teslim edildikten, zincirle bağlandıktan sonra, yiyecek almak ister ve parası da varsa, kendi parası dışında bir kaynak bularak onu almasına izin verilebilir. Ama hiçbir şeyi yoksa, alacaklı onu zincire bağlı olarak tutar, her gün 453 gr. tahıl vermelidir, isterse daha fazla verebilir.
3:8; Bu zaman zarfında, alacaklıya teslim edilen taraf, alacaklıyla anlaşma yapabilir, yapamazsa zincirlere bağlı olarak tutulmaya 60 gün devam edilir. Sürenin sonunda üç alışveriş günü içinde Forum’daki yargıcın huzuruna yapılan toplantıya getirilir ve huzurda yargının tüm kararı kendisine resmen bildirilir.

3:9; 60 günlük tutukluluk süre sonunda Forumda halkın huzurunda üç kez kendisine mahkeme kararı tebliğ edildikten sonra, teslim edildiği kişiye indirilmiş kölelik etme cezasına mahkum edilir, alacaklı iserse Tiber dışında onu köle olarak satabilir.

3:10; Taraflardan biri, borçlarından dolayı çok sayıda kişiye teslim edilmişse, Forum’da okunan karardan sonra haftanın üçüncü alışveriş günü, eğer isterlerse, borçluyu, aralarında parçalara ayırmalarına izin verilir. Az veya çok kesilmesi halinde artan aralarında paylaşılır ve bu suç değildir.

Tablet 4; Babanın ve Evliliğin Hakları;

4:1; Bir baba, yasal evlilikten doğan oğlunu yaşatmaya veya öldürme hakkına sahiptir; ve hatta üç kez sattıktan sonra özgür bırakabilir.
4:2; Baba, oğlunu üç defadan fazla başkasına satmışsa, oğul babadan alınarak azad edilir.
4:3; Bir baba son doğan oğlu, bir insandan çok canavara benzer, şeklen korkunç derecede bozuksa, öldürülebilir.
4:4; Bir bebek, babasının ölümünden 10 ay sonra doğarsa yasal mirasçı olarak kabul edilemez.

Tablet 5; Gayrimenkul ve Koruyuculuk Hakları;
5:1; Mülk sahibinin, ev halkının başı olması sıfatıyla mülkünü, yasal mirasçılarına veya koruyucularına bırakmayı yasanın gücü ve izniyle takdir etmesi sorun değildir.
5:2; Bir baba mirasçı belirtmeden, mirasçılarına hiçbir şey bırakmadan ölürse, en yakın baba tarafından erkeğe veya hiç biri yoksa kan bağı olan ailesinden en yakını ona mirasçı olur.
5:3; Bir azadlı adam mirasçı belirtmeden, koruyucusu hariç mirasçılarına, kendisinden sonra hayatta kalan çocuklarına bir şey bırakmadan ölürse, mirası koruyucusunun en yakın akrabasında verilir.
5:4; Bir alacaklı veya borçlu ölürse, malları davalıktır, dava açılırsa, hisseleri oranında mülkten alabilirler; veya borçtan artan aynı oranda aralarında paylaştırılır.
5:5; Ortak mirasçılar, henüz bölünmemiş mülkün hisselerini elde edebilirler. Davacı ve davalı tarafın bir kayıplarının olmayacağı şekilde, eşitlik ve hukuk ilkelerine uygun olarak, Praetor/Yargıcın tayin edeceği üç hakem tarafından hisseleri verilebilir.
5:6; Ailenin başı, mirasçı belirtmeden ölür ve henüz reşitliğe ulaşmamış oğluna özel bir miras bırakırsa, onun en yakın baba tarafından olan erkek koruyuculuğunu üstlenir.
5:7; Koruyucu tayin edilmemiş bir deli veya en akrabasının malını harcayan bir savurgan veya baba tarafından en yakın birisi yoksa, öteki akrabaları mülkünü işletme hakkını alır.

Başka çeviriden alıntılar;
5:8;Atalarımız, “ailenin çoğunluğunca olgunluk/ergenlik göstermekten yoksun buldukları dişilere (kız-kadın) koruyucu tayin edilmesini uygun bulmuşlardır”.
5:9; Koruyucunun, hamisi olduğu dişinin maları üzerinde savurganlık yapması yasaktır.

Tablet 6; Sahiplik ve Zilyetlik Hakları

6:1; Bir kişi, yasal zorunluluk ile bir mülkü hakkında, ağzı ve dili ile adını söyleyerek bir senet yapar ve devrederse o yasaldır. Sonradan taraf, bu ifadesini inkar eder sözünü tutmazsa, malının değerinin iki katı kadar para cezası öder.
6:2; Bir köle, içinde bulunduğu belirli şartlar yüzünden şikayet eder, satın alıcısı olan sahibine parasını öder ve azadını isterse, serbest bırakılır.
6:3; Bir mülk yerinde satılıp teslim edilmiş olsa bile, parası satıcıya ödeninceye kadar alıcı sahip olamaz, bir kefil veya belge verilerek bu manada alıcı tatmin edilebilir.
6:4;Taşınamaz malların zaman aşımıyla mülkiyetinin kazanılması, iki yıllık sürenin tamamlanmasından sonra gerçekleşir. Bu menkullerde bir yıldır.
6:5; Evliliğin kullanılması (usus): Bir kadın, evlilik bağı ile bağlanmadan bir erkekle yaşar, bir yıl boyunca üç gecelik aralıklarla birlikteliği kesilirse evli kabul edilir;
6:6; Taraflar, Preator/yargıcın önüne gelmeden önce mülk hakkında rızalarıyla tartışmak isterlerse onlara şahitler huzurunda ifade hakkı verilir.
6:7; Her kim, köleliğe karşı diğerinin özgürlüğünü isterse, Preator özgürlükten yana karar verir.
6:8; Bir bina veya bağa biçim vermek için yapılan eklenti kaldırılamaz. Sahibinin rızası olmaksızın biri bir eve veya bağa bir su kemeri veya eklenti inşa etmişse yerinden sökülemez.
6:9; Bir binaya veya bağa döşenmiş keresteler yerlerine tam olarak tespit edilmemiş olsalar da sadece kendisinden çalındıysa sahiplerince geri alınabilir.
6;10; Bir koca eşini boşamak, evlilik bağını çözmek istiyorsa uygun bir gerekçe göstermelidir.

Tablet 7; Ceza Hukuku

7:1; Bir dört ayaklı hayvan herhangi birini incitir, yaralarsa, yaralanan/incinen, zararının miktarını isteyebilir. Hayvanın sahibi bunu kabul etmeye gönüllü olmazsa, yaralamaya sebep olan hayvan, telafi için teslim edilmelidir.
7:2; Yasal olmayan bir zarara kazara veya istemeden neden olursanız, zarar görenin istediği kaybı vermeli veya nakit ödemeyi kabul etmelisiniz.
7:3; Her kim büyü ve sihir sanatlarını kullanarak başkasına ait bir yerde tahılların ve mahsullerin büyümesini engellerse Ceres’e kurban edilmelidir.
7:4; Her kim ergenlik yaşını doldurduğunda, başkasının araziyi sürerek, toprağı işleyerek büyük emeklerle elde ettiği tahılları, ürünleri geceleyin gizlice yok eder veya mülkiyetine geçirise Ceres’e kurban edilir ve asılır.
Eğer ergen değilse, bu ceza için uygun sayılmaz ve Praetor tarafından çalınan miktarın iki katını ödemeye, kırbaçlanmaya mahkum edilir.
7:5; Her kim, hayvanlarını başkasının arazisine otlatmak niyeti ile sürerse, zararın telafisi için sürüyü teslim etmelidir.
7:6; Her kim, bir binayı veya evde depolanmış bulunan bağlı tahılları yakarak yok ederse kırbaçlanır, yanlışlıkla yaptığını söylediği halde art niyetle yaptığı anlaşılırsa ölüme mahkum edilir. Ama, istemeden, kazara, ihmal sonucu yaptığı anlaşılırsa zararı telafi etmesi emredilir, bunu yapamayacak kadar fakirse daha az bir ceza verilir.
7:7; Bir kimse herhangi bir şekilde başkasının yaralanmasına ciddi olarak sebebiyet verirse 20 asses (Roma parası) para cezası verilir.
7:8; Bir kimse, iftira ve incitme kastıyla birine karşı bir şarkı (carmen/karmen) yazar ve bestelerse veya böyle bir şarkıya sahipse... ölünceye kadar sopayla dövülür.
7:9; Bir kimse, diğerinin organını kırar veya sakatlarsa, aralarında tazminat anlaşması olmadıkça kısas (retaliation) uygulanır. (Lex talionis/Talyonis yasası)
7:10; Her kim vurarak özgür bir adamın dişini damağından dışarı çıkartırsa, 300 asses para cezası verilir. Vurduğu adam köle ise 150 asses ceza verilir.
7:11; Her kim sorulduğunda kendisini kendisini bir tanık veya arabulucu olarak gösterir, istenilenin yapılıp, olayın gerçekliğinin ispatı için şahitliği istenildiğinde tanıklık etmezse şerefsiz ilan edilir ve ona kanıt verilmez.
7:12; Her kim, yalancı tanıklıktan mahkum olursa, Tarpeian kayasından aşağı atılmalıdır.
7:13; Her kim özgür bir adamı art niyetle öldürürse en ağır cezadan suçlu bulunur. Art niyetsiz ve kasti olmamak şartıyla kazara öldürürse, maktulün öldürülmesinin telafisi için bir koç kurban etmesine, sonradan istek halinde çocuklarını yatıştırmasına izin verilir.
7:14; Her kim, sihir, büyü ve şeytani sanatlar kullanarak birini hareketsiz kılar, hasta eder, zehir yapar verir, zehirlerse en ağır cezaya mahkum edilir ve ölüm cezası verilir.
7:15; Her kim kazara birini öldürürse, başını bir çuvala sardırmalı, çuvalı diktikten sonra su içine fırlatmalıdır. (?)
7:16; Her kim koruyuculuğunu yaptığı kimseyi dolandırmaktan suçlu bulunursa şerefsiz sayılır ve koruyuculuğu elinden alınır. Herhangi bir hırsızlık olduğu ifade edilip kanıtlanmış ise zararın iki katını ödemeye ve istenilen miktarda kaybı ödemeye zorlanır.
7:17; Koruyucu, müşterisini dolandırırsa cehennem tanrılarına adanır.

Tablet 8; Özel Mülkiyet.

8:1; Komşu binalar arasında 75cm aralık bırakılacaktır.
8:2; Dernekler ve lokaller toplanma hakkına sahiptirler, kendilerinin onayladıkları sözleşmeleri, kuralları ve arzularını onaylamak ve bildirmeleri amme uygulamasına ters değildir. Amme hukukuna tecavüz değildir.
8:3; Sahiplerinin rahatça gezebilmeleri, sabanla sürebilmeleri için bitişik tarlalar arasında 1,5m boşluk bırakılmalıdır.Bu boşluğu hiç kimse zaman aşımı gerekçesiyle sahiplenmeyi isteyemez.
8:4; Birinin böyle bitişik bir tarlası varsa ve aralarında tartışma çıkarsa, Praetor/yargıç, sorunları yerinde tespit etmeleri için üç hakem tayin eder ve hakemler, sınırları belirtilen şekle uygun olarak iki tarafında sahip oldukları araziden alarak sınırları tespit ederler.
8:5; Bir ağaç, komşunun arazisine uzanır, gölgesi ile veya yaralanmasına neden olursa, zemine giren dallar 4,5m kadar kesilir.
8:6;Komşunun bağı veya bahçesindeki bir ağacın dalı kırılarak sizin bahçenize düşmüşse, yasal olarak sadece onu kaldırabilirsiniz.
8:7; Bir adamın tarlasına yağmur fazla düşer ve diğerinin mallarına zarar verirse yargıç, istek üzerine diğer tarafa zarar veren suyun hapsedilmesi için üç hakem tayin eder. Bu mülk sahibinin uygun bulmasıyla, büyük yangınlar çıkmasının engellenmesi için yangınların söndürülmesinde kullanılmak üzere yapılır.
8:8; Düz giden bir yol 2.4m, eğer dönüş yapıyorsa 4,8m genişliğinde olmalıdır.
8:9; Bir adamın arazisi anayola bitişik ise, isteği halinde arazisini yola ekleyebilir, eğer bunu ihmal ederse herkes hayvanlarını onun arazisine serbestçe sürebilir.
7:10; Bir adam, başka bir adamın bağından başka bir adamın bağına düşen meyvaları toplayabilir.

Tablet 9; Kamu Hukuku

9:1; Rütbeleri, hakları ne olursa olsun, hiçbir mevki sahibinin, bireylerin ve özel şahısların yararına, bütün vatandaşların kamu hukukuna muhalif olarak başkalarını incitecek şartları veya ayrıcalıkları yoktur.
9:2; Aynı haklar, Latium’un (Roma şehri ve çevresi) içinde ve ötesinde kalan, sadık, iyi Roma vatandaşları için görüşülüp, kararlaştırılarak yasalaştırılmıştır.
9:3; Rüşvet alan yargıç veya hakem yasal olarak suçlu bulunduğunda, hakkında en ağır ceza uygulanır.
9:4; Bir Roma vatandaşının yaşamı ve özgürlüğü için en büyük bir mahkemenin (örn;Comitia Tributa/Anayasa mahkemesi gibi) oyu dışında hiçbir karar esas alınamaz.
9:5; Kamu adına önemli davaların açılması halk tarafından tayin edilecektir.
9:6; Geceleyin şehirde hiç kimse toplantı yapamaz, yaparsa ölüme mahkum edilir.
9:7; Vatana İhanet; Biri kimsenin vatana ihaneti ortaya çıkar ve halk düşmanlığı teslim edilirse en ağır ceza uygulanır.
9:8; Ölüm cezası verilmesi, hiç mahkumiyet almamış bir adama verilemez.

Tablet 10; Dini Hukuk

10:1; İyi imana zorlamak amacıyla yaptırılan bir yeminin büyük gücü ve etkisi vardır.
10:2; Bir ailenin ve üyelerinin uyguladığı özel dini ayinleri varsa, onu daima uygulayabilirler.
10:3; Hiç kimse şehir içinde yakılamaz ve gömülemez.
10:4; Bir cenaze alayında ve bu cenaze alayı ayinlerinde hukukun koyduğu sınırlar aşılamaz.   10:5; Cenaze alaylarında izin verilen özel yas tutma halleri dışında aşırılığa izin verilmez.
10:6; Ölü yakmak için kesilmiş ayrılmış odunlar, patlatılmamış ve kaba olmalıdır.

Birileri ÇARŞAF- PEÇE MÜSLÜMAN KIYAFETİ DER.
OYSA İSLAM KIYAFET DEVRİMİ YAPMAMIŞTIR.


10:7; Evde gömülmeye hazırlanan bir cesedin başında hizmet etmek üzere, başları peçeli üç kadından fazlası bulunamaz. Beden, mor kumaşlara sarılmalı, dışarıda yakıldığında cenaze alayına eşlik edenler arasında 10 kavalcı bulundurulabilir.
10:8; Yas tutan kadınlar, ölünün yanında tırnaklarıyla yanaklarını yırtmamalı, “Eyvah” diye ağıt yakmamalıdırlar.
10:9; Ölünün yakılmasından sonra, ölüye ait hiçbir kemik kalmamalı, yakılanın külleri başka bir yerde uhafaza edilmelidir. Her ne şekilde olursa olsun, savaşta veya işte yurt dışında ölen birinin kalan parçaları yakınlarınca atalarının yanına taşınabilir.
10:10; Hiçbir ölü kölenin vücudu yağlanmamalıdır. Ne de ölünün onuruna cenaze alayında içki içilmemeli ve bir şeyler yenilmemelidir.
10:11; Hiçbir şarap veya ön içki Laden reçinesi(myrrh) ile çeşnilendirilmemeli, gömülme esnasında ölünün üzerine serpilerek dökülmelidir.
10:12; Cenazenin bulunduğu sunak üzerinde geniş çelenkler ne de kokular yakılmamalıdır.
10;13; Hiç kimse, savaşta aldığı cesaret ödülünden, umum yarışmalarda kazandığı ödüllerden, kendi çabası veya başkalarının namıyla edindiklerini, kazandığı parasını, atlarını, kölelerini, ömrü boyunca iyi şans veya kazandığı cesaret ödüllerini yakılırken veya mevcut cesedinin üzerine çelenk olarak konulmasını isteyemez.
10:14; Sadece bir bireye ait cenaze için yeterli ayaklıklar bulundurulmasına izin verilebilir.
10:15; Her ne şekilde olursa olsun altının ceset üzerinde, yanında bulundurulmasına gömülmesine izin verilemez. Sadece yakılmasında cenesinin kilitlenebilmesi için altın kullanılması yasaldır.
10:16; Hiç kimse, bir diğerinin onayı ve izni olmadıkça kendi evine 20.m den daha yakın yerde ölü yakmak için odun yığamaz.
10:17; Hiç kimse zaman aşımıyla bir lahitin yerinin sahipliğini kazanamaz.
10:18; Devlet içinde önemli bir kişinin dalkavukluğunu yapmak üzere kimse toplanamaz.

Bizde toplanıp; "ERDOĞAN'ıN GÖTÜNÜN KILIYIZ, YALARIM, ÖPERİM..." DİYEBİLİYORLAR.
DÜNYAYA REZİL OLUYORUZ. BU MU İSLAM?


Tablet 11; Önde Gelen Beş Ek Yasa

11:1; Yasa çıkarmak, yargıçları atamak, vatandaşları mahkum etmek, yasa çıkarmak gibi büyük önemi olan işler halkın oyu olmaksızın muameleye konulamaz. Yasalar sonradan geçirilerek eskisinin yerine tercih edilen konulabilir.
(Bizde OHAL- SIKIYÖNETİM'Lİ ileri demokrasi var her halt olur.)
11:2; Evlilikler, patrician (Asil Romalı) ile plebian (avam/halk) arasında yapılamaz.

Tablet 12; Önde Gelen Beş Ek Yasa

12:1; Daha önce mahkemede kutsallığına karar verilmiş veya verilmesinde mahkemece çelişki bulunan kutsal mülk, kimsenin onayıyla sahipliğe geçirilemez. Biri o mülkü kutsal saydığında, mülkiyetine geçiren değerinin iki katı kadar para cezası öder.

12:3; Bir köle, sahibinin bilgisi dahilinde hırsızlık veya bir zarar yapsa, zarar verme fiili kölenin adınadır. (Suç emri veren sahibinin değil, kölenindir demek oluyor.iyi iş)
12:5; En son, Halk olarak takdir edilen herkes, hukukla bağlıdır.
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.htm

Dilimize Çeviren ve Yayınlayan;
Alaeddin Yavuz/
Alaeddin Yavuz wordpress
keykubat
/adilyargic
/ adilyargicc,

Metnin İngilizce'si, yukarıdaki Anayasa Araştırmacısı Hukuk sitesinden alınmıştır.

THE LAWS OF THE TWELVE TABLES
TABLE I.
Concerning the summons to court.
Law I.
When anyone summons another before the tribunal of a judge, the latter must, without hesitation, immediately appear.[1]
Law II.
If, after having been summoned, he does not appear, or refuses to come before the tribunal of the judge, let the party who summoned him call upon any citizens who are present to bear witness.[2] Then let him seize his reluctant adversary; so that he may be brought into court, as a captive, by apparent force.
Law III.
When anyone who has been summoned to court is guilty of evasion, or attempts to flee, let him be arrested by the plaintiff.
Law IV.
If bodily infirmity or advanced age should prevent the party summoned to court from appearing, let him who summoned him furnish him with an animal, as a means of transport. If he is unwilling to accept it, the plaintiff cannot legally be compelled to provide the defendant with a vehicle constructed of boards, or a covered litter.[3]
[1] Under the Roman method of procedure, until the thorough organization of the judicial system by the emperors, service of summons was always made by the plaintiff in the action. This was even sometimes done after the custom of regularly appointing court officials for that purpose had been established. — Ed.
[2] Notification of the bystanders was made to show that the arrest of the defendant was to compel his appearance before the tribunal, a proceeding authorized by law; and not to insult him, or forcibly restrain him of his liberty, which might form the ground of prosecution for an illegal act. — Ed.
[3] Litters were originally used exclusively by women and sick persons during the early ages of Greece and Rome. They, afterwards, in the time of the Empire, became a favorite mode of conveyance with the Romans, and especially with the wealthy nobles, who vied with one another in the profuse and costly decoration of their luxurious lecticæ, upholstered in silk, embellished with ebony, ivory, and lazulite, and glittering with precious stones and gold. The sella, one form of the litter, was almost identical with the sedan chair of the eighteenth century. The vehicle referred to in the text was probably a public one, like our cabs and carriages for hire. — Ed.
Law V.
If he who is summoned has either a sponsor or a defender, let him be dismissed, and his representative can take his place in court.[1]
Law VI.
The defender, or the surety of a wealthy man, must himself be rich; but anyone who desires to do so can come to the assistance of a person who is poor, and occupy his place.
Law VII.
When litigants wish to settle their dispute among themselves, even while they are on their way to appear before the Prætor, they shall have the right to make peace; and whatever agreement they enter into, it shall be considered just, and shall be confirmed.
Law VIII.
If the plaintiff and defendant do not settle their dispute, as above mentioned, let them state their cases either in the Comitium or the Forum, by making a brief statement in the presence of the judge, between the rising of the sun and noon; and, both of them being present, let them speak so that each party may hear.
Law IX.
In the afternoon, let the judge grant the right to bring the action, and render his decision in the presence of the plaintiff and the defendant.
Law X.
The setting of the sun shall be the extreme limit of time within which a judge must render his decision.
TABLE II.
Concerning judgments and thefts.
Law I.
When issue has been joined in the presence of the judge, sureties and their substitutes for appearance at the trial must be furnished on both sides. The parties shall appear in person, unless prevented by disease of a serious character; or where vows which they have taken must be discharged to the Gods; or where the proceedings are interrupted through their absence on business for the State; or where a day has been appointed by them to meet an alien.
[1] From this it will be seen that the office of defensor, or "defender," of the party sued was one of the most ancient recognized by Roman jurisprudence. Its duties were often undertaken without solicitation, through motives of friendship or compassion, or the influence of family ties; and, as the defendant's representative, he occupied the legal position of the former, including the unqualified assumption of all his liabilities arising from, or dependent upon the matter in litigation. — Ed.
Law II.
If any of the above mentioned occurrences takes place, that is, if one of the parties is seriously ill, or a vow has to be performed, or one of them is absent on business for the State, or a day has been appointed for an interview with an alien, so that the judge, the arbiter, or the defendant is prevented from being present, and the furnishing of security is postponed on this account, the hearing of the case shall be deferred.
Law III.
Where anyone is deprived of the evidence of a witness let him call him with a loud voice in front of his house, on three market-days.
Law IV.
Where anyone commits a theft by night, and having been caught in the act is killed, he is legally killed.[1]
[1] While the ordinary presumption certainly arises that no one can encounter a desperate malefactor in his house at night without incurring risk of serious injury; still, the Roman jurists, in enacting this provision, evidently had in view the prevention of homicide except when absolutely necessary, even under circumstances which might justify almost any violent act in the defence of life and property. Other lawgivers, generally speaking, did not recognize such nice distinctions.
The rule, somewhat modified, has been adopted by the majority of subsequent judicial systems as being thoroughly consonant with the principles of justice. It was incorporated, with but slight alteration, into the Visigothic Code, and Las Siete Partidas. "Fur nocturnus captus in furto, dum res furtivas secum portare conatur, si fuerit occisus, mors eius nullo modo vindicetur." (Forum Judicum, VII, II, 16.) "Otro tal decimos quo seria, si algun one /allasse algun ladron de noche en su casa, e lo quisiesse prender para darlo a la justicia del lugar, si el ladron se amparasse con armas. Ca entonce, si lo matare, non cæ por esso en pena." (Las Siete Partidas, VII, VIII, 3.) As stated above, to render the modicide justifiable, the Visigoths required that the thief should be in possession of the stolen property; and the Castilian law provided that he should be armed and resist arrest while in the house of the owner. Under the law of Athens, a thief taken flagrante delicto, at night, could be killed with impunity. (Potter, Antiquities of Greece, I, 24, 126.)
With the Jews, homicide was not punishable when the culprit was killed under circumstances essential to constitute the crime known to us as burglary. "If a thief be found breaking up, and he be smitten that he die. no blood shall be shed for him; but if the sun be risen upon him, there shall blood be shed for him; for he should have made full restitution." (Exodus XXII, 2.)
With the Anglo-Saxons, a thief caught in the act, at any time, either by day or by night, could be slain with impunity. "He who slays a thief must declare on oath that he slew him offending." (Ancient Laws and Institutes of England; Laws of King Ine, 16.)
This principle does not appear to have been accepted in the earliest age of the Common Law. Glanvil does not mention it. Bracton, however, refers to it as being sound, and applicable by day or by night, without regard to place, if the homicide, at the time, could not avoid serious personal injury. "Qui latronem occiderit, non tenetur, nocturnum vel diurnum, si aliter periculum evadere non possit." (Bracton, De Legibus et Covsuetudinibus Angliæ, III, 155, 36.)
Fleta says: "Quicunqiie enim furem nocturnum interfecerit, non teneatur, & qui invasorem domus suæ, se ipsum & hospitium suum saltem illa hora defendendo interfecerit, juste interficit." (Fleta, Commentarius Juris Anglicanæ, I, XXIII, 14.) This applied not only to a burglar, but to anyone found in the "curtilage," or enclosure containing the residence, at any hour between nine P. M. and six A. M.; and under these conditions, homicide was authorized either in self-defense, or when it occurred in an attempt to arrest the intruder, or was committed in order to prevent his escape. The necessity for the homicide must be absolute in order to render it justifiable. "Si necessitas evitabilis fuerit, absque occasione, reus est homicidii, qui si fuerit inevitabilis, ad pœnam homicidii non tenebitur, eo quod felonice non occidit." (Ibid. I, 23.) It is held by Coke that the act of killing must be in self-defence, and be preceded by violent aggression on the part of the thief. "If a thiefe offer to rob or murder B, either abroad or in his house, and thereupon assault him, and B, defend himself without any giving back, and in his defence killeth the thiefe; this is no felony." (Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England, Vol. IV, Ch. 8.)
This doctrine is explicitly set forth in Stat. 24, Hen. VIII, Chap. 5. "If any person do attempt to break any mansion-house in the night time, and shall happen to be slain by any person or persons, etc. (tho a lodger or servant) they shall upon their trial be acquitted and discharged." The above mentioned Statute, as is held by a high authority, may be construed to apply to an illegal act of this kind committed during the day with felonious intent "It seems it extends not to a braking the house in the day-time, unless it be such a braking, as imports with it, apparent robbery, or an intention or attempt thereof." (Hale, The History of the Pleas of the Crown, I, XL, Page 488.)
This was also the rule in Scotland, "It is lawful to kill a Thief, who in the night offers to break our Houses, or steal our Goods, even though he defend not himself, because we know not but he designs against our Life; and Murder may be easily committed upon us in the night, but it is not lawful to kill a Thief who steals in the day time, except he resist us when we offer to take him, and present him to Justice." (Mackenzie, The Laws and Customes of Scotland in Matters Criminal, I, XI, III.) The general rule, while well established, was formerly, to a certain extent, so far as its application is concerned, largely dependent upon the circumstances of each particular case. No distinction was made between an invasion of the house and an attack upon the person, provided the alarm experienced by the homicide was considered to be so well founded as to justify his act. In some respects great latitude was allowed the injured party. "The same right of defending our property, may also justify our killing a thief, or predonious invader, in the act of running away with our goods, if he cannot otherwise be taken, or the goods secured." (Burnett, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of Scotland, I, page 57.)
The laws of France and Italy excuse the homicide of an intruder who commits burglary or theft with violence. (Code Pénal de France, III, II, Arts. 322, 329.) (Codice Penale, II, III, Art. 376.)
In the United States, killing is only justifiable where the crime could not otherwise have been prevented, and where force is employed. When an attempt is made to commit a secret felony, without violence, the right does not exist. It is different, however, where the precincts of a man's home are invaded in the daytime, or at night. "An attack on a house or its inmates may be resisted by taking life. This may be when burglars threaten an entrance, or when there is apparent ground to believe that a felonious assault is to be made on any of the inmates of the house, or when an attempt is made violently to enter the house in defiance of the owner's rights."
"But this right is only one of prevention. It cannot be extended so as to excuse the killing of persons not actually breaking into or violently threatening a house." (Wharton, A Treatise on Criminal Law, Secs. 629, 630, 634, 635.) — Ed.
Law V.
If anyone commits a theft during the day, and is caught in the act, he shall be scourged, and given up as a slave to the person against whom the theft was committed. If he who perpetrated the theft is a slave, he shall be beaten with rods and hurled from the Tarpeian Rock.[1] If he is under the age of puberty, the Prætor shall decide whether he shall be scourged, and surrendered by way of reparation for the injury.
Law VI.
When any persons commit a theft during the day and in the light, whether they be freemen or slaves, of full age or minors, and attempt to defend themselves with weapons, or with any kind of implements; and the party against whom the violence is committed raises the cry of thief, and calls upon other persons, if any are present, to come to his assistance; and this is done, and the thieves are killed by him in the defence of his person and property, it is legal, and no liability attaches to the homicide.
Law VII.
If a theft be detected by means of a dish and a girdle, it is the same as manifest theft, and shall be punished as such.[2]
[1] This mode of punishment was considered especially ignominious by the Romans, and was usually inflicted upon traitors.
"The rock Tarpeian, Fittest goal for treason's race, The promontory whence the traitor's leap Cured all ambition." — Ed.
[2] Various explanations have been suggested for the elucidation of this obscure passage. It has been supposed by some that a dish, perforated with two holes for the eyes, was carried by the thief to hide his face and conceal his identity; the girdle being intended for the removal of the booty. Others have advanced the theory that religious impostors, masquerading as members of the priesthood, passed the dish for the collection of money for alleged sacrificial purposes, and appropriated the amounts obtained to their own use. A few have maintained that the dish was employed to hold a piece of bread which had been subjected to certain magic ceremonies, and, for this reason compelled the thief to confess as soon as he had eaten it, a species of ordeal, as it were. The most plausible interpretation of the furtum per lancem et licium refertum is, however, that when the officer appointed for that purpose entered a house to seek for property which had been stolen, he was required to be naked, except for a girdle, and to hold a dish before his face, as a concession to the modesty of any woman he might encounter. The owner of the property was also entitled to make search under the same conditions. Nakedness was regarded as necessary in order to avoid anything being carried into the house which might afford ground for a false accusation. — Ed.
Law VIII.
When anyone accuses and convicts another of theft which is not manifest, and no stolen property is found, judgment shall be rendered to compel the thief to pay double the value of what was stolen.
Law IX.
Where anyone secretly cuts down trees belonging to another, he shall pay twenty-five asses for each tree cut down.
Law X.
Where anyone, in order to favor a thief, makes a compromise for the loss sustained, he cannot afterwards prosecute him for theft.
Law XI.
Stolen property shall always be his to whom it formerly belonged; nor can the lawful owner ever be deprived of it by long possession, without regard to its duration; nor can it ever be acquired by another, no matter in what way this may take place.[1]
TABLE III. Concerning property which is lent.
Law I.
When anyone, with fraudulent intent, appropriates property deposited with him for safe keeping, he shall be condemned to pay double its value.
Law II.
When anyone collects interest on money loaned at a higher rate per annum than that of the unciæ, he shall pay quadruple the amount by way of penalty.[2]
[1] This doctrine as set forth in the maxim "Spoliatus debet, ante omnia, restitui," is recognized by the courts of all civilized, and most semi-barbarous nations. — Ed.
[2] The rate of interest authorized by law at Rome was, despite statutory regulations, often a matter of avarice on one side and necessity on the other. Money lenders were accustomed to wring from distressed borrowers the last sestercewhich heartless rapacity and extortion could exact. The rate was usually dependent upon agreement, and while the collection of compound interest was illegal, a bond for the increase of what was in arrears was sometimes required, which amounted to the same thing.
As shown by the text, the Twelve Tables forbade anything in excess of the unciarum fœmus, or interest on the twelve "ounces" into which the as, the integral amount representing capital for one year, as well as an estate when its assets were estimated for distribution, were divided. The term, however, is ambiguous, and has been interpreted in several ways. The best authorities hold that ten per cent is the rate referred to. — Ed.
Law III.
An alien cannot acquire the property of another by usucaption; but a Roman citizen, who is the lawful owner of the property, shall always have the right to demand it from him.
Law IV.
Where anyone, having acknowledged a debt, has a judgment rendered against him requiring payment, thirty days shall be given to him in which to pay the money and satisfy the judgment.
Law V.
After the term of thirty days granted by the law to debtors who have had judgment rendered against them has expired, and in the meantime, they have not satisfied the judgment, their creditors shall be permitted to forcibly seize them and bring them again into court.
Law VI.
When a defendant, after thirty days have elapsed, is brought into court a second time by the plaintiff, and does not satisfy the judgment; or, in the meantime, another party, or his surety does not pay it out of his own money, the creditor, or the plaintiff, after the debtor has been delivered up to him, can take the latter with him and bind him or place him in fetters; provided his chains are not of more than fifteen pounds weight; he can, however, place him in others which are lighter, if he desires to do so.
Law VII.
If, after a debtor has been delivered up to his creditor, or has been placed in chains, he desires to obtain food and has the means, he shall be permitted to support himself out of his own property. But if he has nothing on which to live, his creditor, who holds him in chains, shall give him a pound of grain every day, or he can give him more than a pound, if he wishes to do so.
Law VIII.
In the meantime, the party who has been delivered up to his creditor can make terms with him. If he does not, he shall be kept in chains for sixty days; and for three consecutive market-days he shall be brought before the Prætor in the place of assembly in the Forum, and the amount of the judgment against him shall be publicly proclaimed.
Law IX.
After he has been kept in chains for sixty days, and the sum for which he is liable has been three times publicly proclaimed in the Forum, he shall be condemned to be reduced to slavery by him to whom he was delivered up; or, if the latter prefers, he can be sold beyond the Tiber.
Law X.
Where a party is delivered up to several persons, on account of a debt, after he has been exposed in the Forum on three market days, they shall be permitted to divide their debtor into different parts, if they desire to do so; and if anyone of them should, by the division, obtain more or less than he is entitled to, he shall not be responsible.[1]
TABLE IV. concerning the rights of a father, and of marriage.
Law I.
A father shall have the right of life and death over his son born in lawful marriage, and shall also have the power to render him independent, after he has been sold three times.[2]
[1] While a strict construction of the provisions of this law has been rejected by some jurists, there can be little doubt that its abhorrent features, far worse than those of the famous claim of Shylock, were susceptible of literal interpretation, and that the partition of the body of the unfortunate debtor was entirely dependent upon the inclination of his creditors to whom he had been adjudged. The statement of Aulus Gellius relative to a fact evidently well known to his countrymen, would seem to be conclusive upon this point. "Nam, si plures forent, quibus reus esset judicatur, secare si vellent, atque partiri corpus addicti sibi hominis permiserunt." (Aul. Gell. Nodes Atticæ. I. XX. 1.) Fabius, alluding to the same law, says that public sentiment was opposed to its enforcement. "Quam legem mos publicus repudiavit." In view of the eminent authority of these Roman writers, and the clear meaning of the text, the opinion entertained by some respectable commentators, that the word "secare," "to divide," merely has reference to the apportionment of the debtor's property, is hardly tenable, as it must have been already taken in execution and divided, before his person was delivered up to gratify the resentment of his disappointed creditors. — Ed.
[2] This privilege, the patria potestas, enjoyed by Roman fathers, was a relic of the patriarchal authority originally asserted by a man over his household, including the members of his immediate family, his slaves, and other dependents. Derived from ancient custom, it continued to exist for centuries after Rome had attained an exalted rank in the scale of civilization, and other practices of barbarous origin and primitive character had long been abandoned. It is said by Justinian (Code VI, 26) to have been an institution peculiar to the Romans; for while other nations possessed authority over their children unlimited by any legislative provision, few of their regulations bore even a distant resemblance to those which confirmed the Roman father in the exercise of his unquestioned and arbitrary power, the jus vitæ et necis. This power in early times was unbounded, and usually endured through life.
A marked peculiarity of this relation was what was known as the unitas personæ, under which a father and his son subject to his control were, by means of a legal fiction, held to be but a single person in law. Hence, when the father died, the son at once succeeded him; for the reason that, during his father's lifetime he had been a joint owner of the undivided estate. Despite the unitas personæ, the child was strictly not a person but a thing, one of the res mancipi, which by quiritarian right could be sold by the owner. The father was authorized to make any disposition of his offspring that he chose; he could scourge, maim, imprison, torture, or execute them at his pleasure. Nor was this right infrequently or sparingly exercised; the Roman annals are full of instances where sons were inhumanly treated and put to death by their fathers.
The acquisition of the patria potestas was dependent upon the status of the parent at the time of the birth of the child; he must be free, or sui juris, to be entitled to exercise paternal control, for if he were subject to the authority of another ascendant, his child would also come under the power of the latter.
Under ordinary circumstances, a son could acquire no property for himself, all he obtained belonged to his father. Exceptions were subsequently made in the cases of private, independent ownership of what was received by him while preparing for, or engaged in military service, or as a member of the priesthood; and finally of all acquisitions derived from maternal or other inheritances, or which were the remuneration of his individual labor or skill. This species of property designated peculium castrense, and quasi peculium castrense, was the subject of numerous Imperial enactments, which, in the course of time, afforded substantial relief to children oppressed by this legalized tyranny; as the censors, in the time of the Republic, had frequently exerted their authority for the same purpose.
Patria potestas was a necessary incident of lawful wedlock, which indeed was indispensable; and the authority thereby obtained was imposed on all the descendants through the son, but did not affect the offspring of a daughter who was subject to the paterfamilias of the family into which she had married. In addition to birth, paternal power could be acquired by means of the public acknowledgment of legitimacy, by adoption, and by matrimony.
As a natural result of placing children in the same category with slaves and domestic animals, liable to sale, barter, and the most cruel abuse, there was a time at which a child could be given up to the injured party by way of reparation for some unlawful act, or noxa, which it had committed; a practice condemned by Justinian in unmeasured terms.
It was not until about 370, during the reign of Valentinian and Valens, that measures were taken to place restrictions upon the irresponsible power of the head of the household; an example which was followed by many succeeding emperors. The sentiment expressed by Hadrian in condemning to exile a father who had killed his son, discloses the change of public opinion with which the excessive exercise of -paternal authority was, even in that day, regarded. "Patria potestas in pietate debet, non in atrocitate, consistere."
This right, in a greatly modified form, and relating principally to the obligations of obedience and support, is explicitly recognized by the jurisprudence of Continental Europe. — Ed.
Law II.
If a father sells his son three times, the latter shall be free from paternal authority.
Law III.
A father shall immediately put to death a son recently born, who is a monster, or has a form different from that of members of the human race.
Law IV.
When a woman brings forth a son within the next ten months after the death of her husband, he shall be born in lawful marriage, and shall be the legal heir of his estate.[1]
[1] At Common Law, the time prescribed was forty weeks. "Et si ele eyt un enfant dedens t's XL semaines adõques soit cel enfant receu el heritage." (Britton, Chap. 66, p. 166.) The countries whose jurisprudence is directly derived from that of Rome, as well as Japan, follow the rule of the text, and fix the limit at three hundred days. (Code Civil de France, Art. 315. Código Civil de España, Art. 108. Codice Civile de Italia, Art. 160. Codigo Civil Portugues, Art. 101. Civil Code of
TABLE V. concerning estates and guardianships.
Law I.
No matter in what way the head of a household may dispose of his estate, and appoint heirs to the same, or guardians; it shall have the force and effect of law.[1]
Japan. Art. 820.) According to Moslem law, the presumption of legitimacy may be established at any time from six lunar months — adopted as the shortest period of gestation — to two years. (Syed Ameer AU, Mohammedan Law, Vol. II. II, 2, p. 191.) As is well known, the Civil Law maxim, "Pater est quem nuptiæ demonstrant," is not accepted by the Common Law, which requires the birth to precede the marriage in every instance. The law of Scotland coincides with that of Rome on both the above-mentioned points. (More, Lectures on the Laws of Scotland, Vol. I, Chap. I. Sec. II.) — Ed.
[1] This law, which placed the distribution of his estate absolutely in the hands of the testator, without regard to the natural claims of consanguinity, was strictly observed for centuries. The abuse to which the privilege was liable became in time so flagrant that various measures were introduced to correct it. If the legacies bequeathed were large enough to include all, or so much of the assets as to render the remainder undesirable or burdensome, the estate was forthwith rejected by the heir. This act invalidated the will, and the heir-at-law took possession, the legacies being, of course, no longer of any effect. To obviate the confusion and injustice resulting from this proceeding, the Tribunal of the Centumviri devised the querela inofficiosi testamenti, or complaint of inofficious testament; by means of which the will was declared void on account of the mental incapacity of the testator, which was considered to be established prima facie by the existence of the clause of disinheritance. The Lex Furia Testamentaria limited the amount of a bequest to the insignificant sum of one thousand asses, which the ingenuity of testators evaded by simply increasing the number of legacies.
The Lex Voconia, passed A. U. C. 594, prohibited any legatee from accepting a bequest which exceeded in value the amount obtained by the heir. Women were also discriminated against by this law, presumably to prevent the affection of the testator from being indulged in their favor at the expense of members of his family; as well as to avoid the excessive accumulation of property in the hands of persons generally considered as ill-qualified to make a proper use of it.
The Lex Voconia having proved ineffective, the Lex Falcidia, by which the previous enactments on this subject were repealed, was introduced one hundred and twenty years later. It provided that the heir, should, under ordinary circumstances, be entitled to one-fourth of the estate after all claims had been paid; and that no legacy should exceed three-fourths of the amount of the same. In case this rule was violated, the heir was authorized to diminish the bequests pro rata, until the sum to which he was entitled was made up. This apportionment, known as the "Quarta Falcidia," or "Falcidian Fourth," has, without substantial change, under the name of "legitime," been incorporated into much of the jurisprudence of Europe. It is in force in Louisiana, where it exists in favor of all direct descendants, and of ascendants in the first degree. "Donations inter vivos or mortis causa cannot exceed two thirds of the property of the disposer, if he leaves at his decease a legitimate child; one half, if he leaves two children, and one third, if he leaves three or a greater number." (Civil Code of Louisiana, Arts. 1480, 1481.) With the exception of the above-mentioned State, no similar restraints are, in this country, imposed upon the testamentary disposition of property, which is, of course, always subject to the dower of the widow. The same rule prevails in England. — Ed.
Law II.
Where a father dies intestate, without leaving any proper heir, his nearest agnate, or, if there is none, the next of kin among his family, shall be his heir. '
Law III.
When a freedman dies intestate, and does not leave any proper heir, but his patron, or the children of the latter survive him; the inheritance of the estate of the freedman shall be adjudged to the next of kin of the patron.
Law IV.
When a creditor or a debtor dies, his heirs can only sue, or be sued, in proportion to their shares in the estate; and any claims, or remaining property, shall be divided among them in the same proportion.
Law V.
Where co-heirs desire to obtain their shares of the property of an estate, which has not yet been divided, it shall be divided. In order that this may be properly done and no loss be sustained by the litigants, the Prætor shall appoint three arbiters, who can give to each one that to which he is entitled in accordance with law and equity.
Law VI.
When the head of a family dies intestate, and leaves a proper heir who has not reached the age of puberty, his nearest agnate shall obtain the guardianship.[1]
Law VII.
When no guardian has been appointed for an insane person, or a spendthrift, his nearest agnates, or if there are none, his other relatives, must take charge of his property.
[1] This was done under the presumption that the person most closely connected with the minor by the ties of consanguinity, and being next in the order of succession and hence directly interested in the preservation of the estate, would be most likely to properly discharge the duties of the trust. The English doctrine, which coincides with that adopted by the Greeks at the instance of Solon, is directly the opposite. It excludes from guardianship those who could, under any circumstances, become heirs, and therefore evinced a preference for cognates. The temptation to foul play to which the next of kin to the minor was supposed to be liable, is stated by the early English jurists in very energetic language. "Nunquam enim custodia alicujus de jure alicui remanet, de quo habeatur suspicio quod possit vel velit aliquod jus in ipsa, hereditate clamare." (Glanvil VII, II.) Coke compares a guardian of this description to a ravening wolf: "quasi agnem committere lupo ad devorandum," are the terms in which he characterizes such an appointment. (Coke Inst. I. 88.) — Ed.
TABLE VI. concerning ownership and possession.
Law I.
When anyone contracts a legal obligation with reference to his property, or sells it, by making a verbal statement or agreement concerning the same, this shall have the force and effect of law. If the party should afterwards deny his statements, and legal proceedings are instituted, he shall, by way of penalty, pay double the value of the property in question.
Law II.
Where a slave is ordered to be free by a will, upon his compliance with a certain condition, and he complies with the condition; or if, after having paid his price to the purchaser, he claims his liberty, he shall be free.
Law III.
Where property has been sold, even though it may have been delivered, it shall by no means be acquired by the purchaser until the price has been paid, or a surety or a pledge has been given, and the vendor satisfied in this manner.
Law IV.
Immovable property shall be acquired by usucaption after the lapse of two years; other property after the lapse of one year.
Law V.
Where a woman, who has not been united to a man in marriage, lives with him for an entire year without the usucaption of her being interrupted for three nights, she shall pass into his power as his legal wife.[1]
Law VI.
Where parties have a dispute with reference to property before the tribunal of the Prætor, both of them shall be permitted to state their claims in the presence of witnesses.
Law VII.
Where anyone demands freedom for another against the claim of servitude, the Prætor shall render judgment in favor of liberty.
[1] This indicates the existence of woman as a mere chattel to be acquired by uninterrupted possession and use for a year, like any other species of personal property. It has been stated, with much probability, that this kind of matrimonial union was the most common and popular one in the early days of Rome. Our Common Law marriage authorized by some States, and which requires the public acknowledgment of the woman as a wife, bears a considerable analogy, in certain respects, to the cohabitation, matrimonii causa, of the text. — Ed.
Law VIII.
No material forming part of either a building or a vineyard shall be removed therefrom. Any one who, without the knowledge or consent of the owner, attaches a beam or anything else to his house or vineyard, shall be condemned to pay double its value.
Law IX.
Timbers which have been dressed and prepared for building purposes, but which have not yet been attached to a building or a vineyard can legally be recovered by the owner, if they are stolen from him.
Law X.
If a husband desires to divorce his wife, and dissolve his marriage, he must give a reason for doing so.
TABLE VII. concerning crimes.
Law I.
If a quadruped causes injury to anyone, let the owner tender him the estimated amount of the damage; and if he is unwilling to accept it, the owner shall, by way of reparation, surrender the animal that caused the injury.[1]
Law II.
If you cause any unlawful damage . . . .[2] accidentally and unintentionally, you must make good the loss, either by tendering what has caused it, or by payment.
Law III.
Anyone who, by means of incantations and magic arts, prevents grain or crops of any kind belonging to another from growing, shall be sacrificed to Ceres.[3]
This was the origin of the proceedings growing out of noxa, an injurious or unlawful act committed by an animal, a slave, or a child under paternal control, for which the owner, master, or parent was held responsible. Whatever caused the damage was held to be primarily liable, under the rule, "omnes noxales actiones caput sequntur"; hence the injured party had a right to seize the offending animal or slave, and hold it as security until his claim was satisfied; which has an exact parallel in the case of a stray found upon the premises of another, and detained or impounded under the English or American law. At first, in neither instance, could me author of the damage be sold, or the injury be otherwise redressed; this defect was, however, subsequently remedied by the passage at Rome of the Lex Aquilia, which granted an action directly against the owner; and by the enactment of the Statutes 5 & 6 Wm. IV. which permitted a sale of the animal in question, after certain legal formalities had been complied with. The American law is similar. — Ed.
[2] Original manuscript illegible.
[3] The intimate association of religion with law in the early life of Rome is disclosed by the frequent appearance of the formula "sacer esto," "Let him be devoted to the infernal gods"; which was attached to many criminal enactments by way of penalty. This not only rendered the offender infamous, as implying the commission of an act of sacrilege, but was virtually a proclamation of outlawry, and enabled anyone to kill him with impunity.—ED.
LAW IV.
If anyone who has arrived at puberty, secretly, and by night, destroys or cuts and appropriates to his own use, the crop of another, which the owner of the land has laboriously obtained by plowing and the cultivation of the soil, he shall be sacrificed to Ceres, and hung.
If he is under the age of puberty, and not yet old enough to be accountable, he shall be scourged, in the discretion of the Praetor, and shall make good the loss by paying double its amount.
LAW V.
Anyone who turns cattle on the land of another, for the purpose of pasture, shall surrender the cattle, by way of reparation.
LAW VI.
Anyone who, knowingly and maliciously, burns a building, or a heap of grain left near a building, after having been placed in chains and scourged, shall be put to death by fire.[1] If, however, he caused the damage by accident, and without malice, he shall make it good; or, if he has not the means to do so, he shall receive a lighter punishment.
LAW VII.
When a person, in any way, causes an injury to another which is not serious, he shall be punished with a fine of twenty asses.
LAW VIII.
When anyone publicly abuses another in a loud voice, or writes a poem for the purpose of insulting him, or rendering him infamous, he shall be beaten with a rod until he dies.
LAW IX.
When anyone breaks a member of another, and is unwilling to come to make a settlement with him, he shall be punished by the law of retaliation.
[1] The punishment, in this instance, is an adaptation of the lex talionis, and the atrocious character of the offence seemed, in the opinion of many of the nations of antiquity, to justify the extreme severity of the penalty. The Visigoths adopted it where the building was in a city. (For. Jud. VIII. II. 1.) The Gentoo Code applied it where any crops or houses were burned. (Gentoo Code XVIII.) The law of England also authorized it. "Ceux que ferount de ceo atteynts soient ars, issint que eux soient punys par meme cêle chose dount Us pêcherent." (Britton IX. 16.)' Bracton says the act must be maliciously and feloniously committed, and that, when this is the case, the crime is capital, but he does not specify the mode of execution. Arson was felony at Common Law. (Hale, Pleas of the Crown, Vol. I, Chap. XLIX.) Incendiaries are styled "fire raisers" in Scotland, and by the ancient law of that country the offence, if wilful, was treason, and was punished by hanging. (Mackenzie, The Laws and Customes of Scotland in Matters Criminal, I. IX. 1.) —ED.
LAW X.
When anyone knocks a tooth out of the gum of a freeman, he shall be fined three hundred asses; if he knocks one out of the gum of a slave, he shall be fined a hundred and fifty asses.
LAW XL
If anyone, after having been asked, appears either as a witness or a balance-holder, at a sale, or the execution of a will, and refuses to testify when this is required to prove the genuineness of the transaction, he shall become infamous, and cannot afterwards give evidence.
LAW XII.
Anyone who gives false testimony shall be hurled from the Tarpeian Rock.
LAW XIII.
If anyone knowingly and maliciously kills a freeman, he shall be guilty of a capital crime. If he kills him by accident, without malice and unintentionally, let him substitute a ram to be sacrificed publicly by way of expiation for the homicide of the deceased, and for the purpose of appeasing the children of the latter.
LAW XIV.
Anyone who annoys another by means of magic incantations or diabolical arts, and renders him inactive, or ill; or who prepares or administers poison to him, is guilty of a capital crime,[1] and shall be punished with death.
LAW XV.
Anyone who kills an ascendant, shall have his head wrapped in a cloth, and after having been sewed up in a sack, shall be thrown into the water.[2]
LAW XVI.
Where anyone is guilty of fraud in the administration of a guardianship, he shall be considered infamous; and, even after the guardianship has been terminated, if any theft is proved to have been committed, he shall, by the payment of double damages, be compelled to make good the loss which he caused.
[1]"Paricida esto." A mistake in the derivation of this word has resulted in much confusion. Paricidium was at first employed to denote felonious homicide, and was therefore synonymous with murder. The root is par, and not pater. The term afterwards obtained a much broader signification than it had originally, and was applied indiscriminately to the killing of relatives. It was sometimes even used to designate treason, or generally, any capital crime.—ED.
[2] The scope of this law—that took its name from a culeus, or leathernsack— was vastly enlarged by the Lex Pompeia de Paricidiis, which virtually made every blood-relative, or person connected by affinity with the culprit, subject to its penalty. A dog, a viper, a cock, and an ape, were sewed up with him in the sack. The ancient writers have not assigned any reason for the selection of these singular companions that shared the fate of the murderer. If no body of water was at hand, the sack and its contents were exposed to wild beasts.—ED.
Law XVII.
When a patron defrauds his client, he shall be dedicated to the infernal gods.
TABLE VIII. concerning the laws op real property.
Law I.
A space of two feet and a half must be left between neighboring buildings.[1]
Law II.
Societies and associations which have the right to assemble, can make, promulgate, and confirm for themselves such contracts and rules as they may desire; provided nothing is done by them contrary to public enactments, or which does not violate the common law.
Law III.
The space of five feet shall be left between adjoining fields, by means of which the owners can visit their property, or drive and plow around it. No one shall ever have the right to acquire this space by usucaption.
Law IV.
If any persons are in possession of adjoining fields, and a dispute arises with reference to the boundaries of the same, the Prætor shall appoint three arbiters, who shall take cognizance of the case, and, after the boundaries have been established, he shall assign to each party that to which he is entitled.
Law V.
When a tree overhangs the land of a neighbor, so as to cause injury by its branches and its shade, it shall be cut off fifteen feet from the ground.
Law VI.
When the fruit of a tree falls upon the premises of a neighbor, the owner of the tree shall have a right to gather and remove it.
Law VII.
When rain falls upon the land of one person in such a quantity as to cause water to rise and injure the property of another, the Prætor shall appoint three arbiters for the purpose of confining the water, and providing against damage to the other party.
[1] This was done in order to render access to the owner's property more convenient, to prevent conflagrations, and to facilitate the extinguishing of fire. — ed.
Law VIII.
Where a road runs in a straight line, it shall be eight feet, and where it curves, it shall be sixteen feet in width.
Law IX.
When a man's land lies adjacent to the highway, he can enclose it in any way that he chooses; but if he neglects to do so, any other person can drive an animal over the land wherever he pleases.
TABLE IX. concerning public law.
Law I.
No privileges, or statutes, shall be enacted in favor of private persons, to the injury of others contrary to the law common to all citizens, and which individuals, no matter of what rank, have a right to make use of.
Law II.
The same rights shall be conferred upon, and the same laws shall be considered to have been enacted for all the people residing in and beyond Latium, that have been enacted for good and steadfast Roman citizens.
Law III.
When a judge, or an arbiter appointed to hear a case, accepts money, or other gifts, for the purpose of influencing his decision, he shall suffer the penalty of death.
Law IV.
No decision with reference to the life or liberty of a Roman citizen shall be rendered except by the vote of the Greater Comitia.
Law V. Public accusers in capital cases shall be appointed by the people.[1]
[1] "Quæstores Paricidii." These officials discharged the triple functions of detectives, State attorneys, and executioners. They were two in number, and are supposed by some authorities to have been identical with the urban quæstors of subsequent times, which conjecture, however, has no positive evidence to support it. They were originally appointed by the King, and, under the Republic, by the consuls. It was their duty to investigate and prosecute capital crimes, such as arson, murder, witchcraft, and the destruction of growing crops, all of which in ancient times were punishable with death. They summoned the Comitia, or Assembly of the People, for the trial of an offender, and executed the sentence after it had been pronounced. — Ed.
Law VI.
If anyone should cause nocturnal assemblies in the City, he shall be put to death.
Law VII.
If anyone should stir up war against his country, or delivers a Roman citizen into the hands of the enemy, he shall be punished with death.
TABLE X. Concerning religious law.
Law I.
An oath shall have the greatest force and effect, for the purpose of compelling good faith.
Law II.
Where a family adopts private religious rites every member of it can, afterwards, always make use of them.[1]
Law III. No burial or cremation of a corpse shall take place in a city.[2]
Law IV.
No greater expenses or mourning than is proper shall be permitted in funeral ceremonies.
Law V.
No one shall, hereafter, exceed the limit established by these laws for the celebration of funeral rites.
Law VI.
Wood employed for the purpose of constructing a funeral pyre shall not be hewn, but shall be rough and unpolished.
[1] The Romans, like all primitive peoples, originally worshipped their ancestors, of whom one, styled the larsfamiliaris, was always selected as the tutelary diety. The various ceremonies attending this worship were of a private character, and hence were entirely distinct from those performed in the temples and at the public altars. Religion being so closely interwoven with State affairs in the Roman polity, its mode of celebration was, in every instance, rigidly prescribed by law. — Ed.
[2] It was the custom at Rome, prior to the enactment of the Laws of the Twelve Tables, for the deceased relatives of the family to be buried in their own homes, which gave rise to the worship of the Lares, above referred to. The inconvenience and unsanitary results growing out of this practice no doubt contributed largely to its abrogation. — Ed.
Law VII.
When a corpse is prepared for burial at home, not more than three women with their heads covered with mourning veils shall be permitted to perform this service. The body may be enveloped in purple robes, and when borne outside, ten flute players, at the most, shall accompany the funeral procession.
Law VIII.
Women shall not during a funeral lacerate their faces, or tear their cheeks with their nails; nor shall they utter loud cries bewailing the dead.
Law IX.
No bones shall be taken from the body of a person who is dead, or from his ashes after cremation, in order that funeral ceremonies may again be held elsewhere. When, however, anyone dies in a foreign country, or is killed in war, a part of his remains may be transferred to the burial place of his ancestors.
Law X.
The body of no dead slave shall be anointed; nor shall any drinking take place at his funeral, nor a banquet of any kind be instituted in his honor.
Law XI.
No wine flavored with myrrh, or any other precious beverage, shall be poured upon a corpse while it is burning; nor shall the funeral pile be sprinkled with wine.
Law XII.
Large wreaths[1] shall not be borne at a funeral; nor shall perfumes be burned on the altars.
Law XIII.
Anyone who has rendered himself deserving of a wreath, as the reward of bravery in war, or through his having been the victor in public contests or games, whether he has obtained it through his own exertions or by means of others in his own name, and by his own money, through his horses, or his slaves, shall have a right to have the said wreath placed upon his dead body, or upon that of any of his ascendants, as long as the corpse is at his home, as well as when it is borne away; so that, during his obsequies, he may enjoy the honor which in his lifetime he acquired by his bravery or his good fortune.
Law XIV.
Only one funeral of an individual can take place; and it shall not be permitted to prepare several biers.
[1] "Longæ Coronæ." This term, while obscure, would seem to refer to garlands of excessive size, exhibited by way of pomp and ostentation at the celebration of funeral rites. The greater part of the legislation of this Table was evidently framed for the correction of the inordinate display of wealth and luxury already becoming prevalent at the burial of the dead. — Ed.
Law XV.
Gold, no matter in what form it may be present, shall, by all means, be removed from the corpse at the time of the funeral; but if anyone's teeth should be fastened with gold, it shall be lawful either to burn, or to bury it with the body.
Law XVI.
No one, without the knowledge or consent of the owner, shall erect a funeral pyre, or a tomb, nearer than sixty feet to the building of another.
Law XVII.
No one can acquire by usucaption either the vestibule or approach to a tomb, or the tomb itself.
Law XVIII.
No assembly of the people shall take place during the obsequies of any man distinguished in the State.
TABLE XI. supplement to the five preceding ones.
Law I.
Affairs of great importance shall not be transacted without the vote of the people, with whom rests the power to appoint magistrates, to condemn citizens, and to enact laws. Laws subsequently passed always take preference over former ones.
Law II.
Those who belong to the Senatorial Order and are styled Fathers, shall not contract marriage with plebeians.
TABLE XII. supplement to the five preceding ones.
Law I.
No one shall render sacred any property with reference to which there is a controversy in court, where issue has already been joined; and if anyone does render such property sacred, he shall pay double its value as a penalty.
Law II.
If the claim of anyone in whose favor judgment was rendered after the property had been illegally seized, or after possession of the same had been delivered, is found to be false, the Prætor shall appoint three arbiters, by whose award double the amount of the profits shall be restored by him in whose favor the judgment was rendered.
Law III.
If a slave, with the knowledge of his master, should commit a theft, or cause damage to anyone, his master shall be given up to the other party by way of reparation for the theft, injury, or damage committed by the slave.
END OF THE LAWS OF THE TWELVE TABLES.

Hiç yorum yok:

Yorum Gönder

Not: Yalnızca bu blogun üyesi yorum gönderebilir.