Book 17
6
I forbear to say more in defence of this view of mine; for the opinion of Verrius and mine are before you, each by itself; anyone therefore may adopt whichever of the two seems to him the truer.
7
These words from the Atinian law, the claim on whatever shall be stolen shall be everlasting, seemed to Publius Nigidius and Quintus Scaevola to have reference not less to a past theft than to a future one.
7
THE words of the ancient Atinian law Different from the plebiscitum of xiv. 8. 2. The date is uncertain. are as follows: Fontes Iur. Rom., p. 45, 6. Whatever shall have been stolen, let the right to claim the thing be everlasting. Who would suppose that in these words the law referred to anything else than to future time? But Quintus Scaevola says Fr. 3, Huschke; Iur. Civ. xvi. 5, Bremer. that his father Resp. 4, Bremer. and Brutus Resp. 5, Bremer. and Manilius, Resp. 5, Bremer. exceedingly learned men, inquired and were in doubt whether the law was valid in cases of future theft only or also in those already committed in the past; since subruptum erit seems to indicate both times, past as well as future.
