234 ROMAN FISHING REGULATIONS 
Bracton, 2. I. 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-facie pre- 
sumption (Dzg., 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,’ z.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.” 
