Fishing from the earliest times - Blog

234 ROMAN FISHING REGULATIONSBracton, 2. 1.4) but for fishes I know of no other passage than:the one cited by you. Perhaps jurists, not so early as Mucian,would have declined to admit that there had been a trueoccupatio of this Anthias. The partner, who sold this fish,which was partnership property, would be called on to accountfor it, and pay over, in damages, his partner's share of the priceby the contractual action Pro Socio. He might, in addition,be made to pay a penalty for his wrong-doing in the delictualActio Furti. For, though there was a legal primd-facic presumption{Dig., 17. 2. 51) in favour of the honesty of any partnerin the sales of partnership-property, we are here expressly toldthat he acted ' maleficii voluntate,' i.e. his contrectatio of thefish was ' fraudulosa,' and therefore a Furtum. The defraudedpartner might well have brought both actions at once{Dig., 17. 2. 45), but Pliny speaks only of his having brought thelast named one."