Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/415

 374

PIGS. By R. Vashon Rogers. MR. IRVING BROWNE, who for several years so ably filled the Lawyer's Easy Chair of The Green Bag, was fond of dilating on the animal kingdom in court', but he does not appear to have given the porkers that attention to which their num bers and prominence before the law en title them. Moses and Mahomet legislated against them, the German barbarians of early Christian days and St. Patrick passed laws for their protection, and the jurists and judges of the Middle Ages treated them like men and brethren, letting the skirts of the mantle of Justice fall over them if they transgressed; they have raised serious polit ical questions, and have caused peace to shudder. During the dog-days it may be well to think about them while we recline at our ease in country homes within sound of their familiar voices. Sir James Stephens remarks that it often seemed to him singular that in proportion as we go back in legal history, the law be comes more and more technical, intricate and minute in its details and more and more vague in its general principles. This, as Professor Ferguson points out, is because in the earlier days, the rules of life were not recognized as general principles leaving room for freedom of action in detail — there was no idea of systemising: each injury in flicted, each crime committed, stood as an isolated fact and had its own penalty. The learned Professor sustains his position by quoting the Salic Law on the subject of stealing pigs. The Salic Law existed in the fifth century, and the Salians com posed the chief tribe of that conglomera tion of Teutonic peoples known as the

Franks. Its best known provision was the one which excluded women from inheriting real estate or succeeding to the thrones of their ancestors. However, it did not only deal with such lofty subjects as thrones. Thus it lays down the law anent swine : (i ) "If anyone shall have stolen a suck ing pig and it shall be proved against him, he shall be fined (culpabilis judicitur) 1 20 denarii, which make 3 solidi. (2) If any one shall have stolen a little pig from the field, which could live without its mother, and it shall be proved against him, he shall be fined 40 denarii, which make I solidus. (3) If anyone shall have stolen a one-year pig, and it shall be proved against him, heshall be fined 1 20 denarii, which make 3 solidi. (4) If anyone shall have stolen a pig two years old (porcutn bimum), he shall be fined 600 denarii, equal to 15 solidi. (5) Which fine it will be well to observe in regard to two pigs. (6) If, however, he shall have stolen three or more, he shall be fined 1,400 denarii, equal to 35 solidi. (7) If anyone shall have stolen a pig from his sty (de intro) he shall be fined 600 de narii or 1 5 solidi. The same minute rules prevail here as prevailed in the case of the pig stolen de campo. Then the law goes on to draw a distinction between the stealing of a sow and a boar. If the hog should have been gelded and thus prepared for sacrifice, the fine was 700 denarii. If, how ever, it could be proved that it was not in tended for sacrifice, then the fine was 600 denarii. If the thief should steal twenty-five, which should be the whole number in the pen, he should be fined 2,500 denarii. If, however, there should be more in the pen, then the fine was only 1,400 denarii. If