Kitap 4
2
With regard to a eunuch in particular it has been inquired whether he would seem to have been sold contrary to the aediles' edict, if the purchaser did not know that he was a eunuch. They say that Labeo ruled Ad. Ed. Aed. fr. 28, Huschke; 12, Bremer. that he could be returned as diseased; and that Labeo also wrote that if sows were sterile and had been sold, action could be brought on the basis of the edict of the aediles. But in the case of a barren woman, if the barrenness were congenital they say that Trebatius gave a ruling opposed to that of Labeo. For while Labeo thought Fr. 28; Huschke; 3, Bremer. that she could be returned as unsound, they quote Trebatius as declaring Fr. 10, Huschke; Resp. 24. Bremer. that no action could be taken on the basis of the edict, if the woman had been born barren. But if her health had failed, and in consequence such a defect had resulted that she could not conceive, in that case she appeared to be unsound and there was ground for returning her. With regard to a short-sighted person too, one whom we call in Latin luscitiosus, there is disagreement; for some maintain that such a person should be returned in all cases, while others on the contrary hold that he can be returned only if that defect was the result of disease. Servius indeed ruled Fr. 17, Huschke; Resp. 108, Bremer. that one who lacked a tooth could be returned, but Labeo said Fr. 29, Huschke; 2, Bremer. that such a defect was not sufficient ground for a return: For, says he,many men lack some one tooth, and most of them are no more diseased on that account, and it would be altogether absurd to say that men are not born sound, because infants come into the world unprovided with teeth.
