234 ROMAN FISHING REGULATIONS 



Bracton, 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 true 

 occupatio of this Anthias. The partner, who sold this fish, 

 which was partnership property, would be called on to account 

 for it, and pay over, in damages, his partner's share of the price 

 by the contractual action Pro Socio. He might, in addition, 

 be made to pay a penalty for his wrong-doing in the delictual 

 Actio Furti. For, though there was a legal primd-Jacie pre- 

 sumption {Dig., 17. 2. 51) in favour of the honesty of any partner 

 in the sales of partnership-property, we are here expressly told 

 that he acted ' maleficii voluntate,' i.e. his contrectatio of the 

 fish was ' fraudulosa,' and therefore a Furtum. The de- 

 frauded partner might well have brought both actions at once 

 {Dig., 17. 2. 45), but Pliny speaks only of his having brought the 

 last named one." 



