17/4 Wilda, Strafrecht, 590.

18/1 Cf.  Wilda, Strafrecht, 660, n. 1; Merkel, Lex Salica, Gloss.  Lege, p. 103.  Lex Saxon.  XI.  Section 3:  “Si servus perpetrato facinore fugerit, ita ut adomino ulterius inveniri non possit, nihil solvat.”  Cf. id.  II.  Section 5.  Capp.  Rip. c. 5:  “Nemini liceat servum suum, propter damnum ab illo cuibet inlatum, dimittere; sed justa qualitatem damni dominus pro illo respondeat vel eum in compositione aut ad poenam petitori offeret.  Si autem servus perpetrato scelere fugerit, ita ut a domino paenitus inveniri non possit, sacramento se dominus ejus excusare studeat, quod nec suae voluntatis nec conscientia fuisset, quod servus ejus tale facinus commisit.”

18/2 L. Saxon.  XI.  Section 1.

18/3 Lex Angl. et Wer.  XVI.:  “Omne damnum quod servus fecerit dominus emendet.”

19/1 C. 3; 1 Thorpe, Anc.  Laws, pp. 27, 29.

19/2 C. 74; 1 Thorpe, p. 149; cf. p. 118, n. a.  See LL.  Hen.  I., LXX.  Section 5.

19/3 C. 24; 1 Thorpe, p. 79.  Cf.  Ine, c. 42; 1 Thorpe, p. 129.

19/4 C. 13; 1 Thorpe, p. 71.

19/5 1 Tylor, Primitive Culture, Am. ed., p. 286.

20/1 Cf.  Record in Molloy, Book 2, ch. 3, Section 16, 24 Ed. III.:  “Visum fuit curiae, quod unusquisque magister navis tenetur respondere de quacunque transgressione per servientes suos in navi sua facta.”  The Laws of Oleron were relied on in this case.  Cf.  Stat. of the Staple, Ed. III., Stat. 2, c. 19.  Later, the influence of the Roman law is clear.

20/2 Quon.  Attach., c. 48, pl. 10 et seq.  Cf.  The Forme and Maner of Baron Courts, c. 62 et seq.

21/1 Forme and Maner of Baron Courts, c. 63.

21/2 C. 64.  This substantially follows the Quoniam Attachiamenta, c. 48, pl. 13, but is a little clearer.  Contra, Fitzh.  Abr.  Corone, Pl. 389, 8 Ed. II.

22/1 Fitzh.  Abr.  Barre, pl. 290.

22/2 Mitchil v.  Alestree, 1 Vent. 295; S.C. 2 Lev. 172; S.C. 3 Keb. 650.  Cf.  May b.  Burdett, 9 Q.B.101, 113.

22/3 May v.  Burdett, 9 Q.B.101.

22/4 Mason v.  Keeling, 12 Mod. 332, 335; S.C. 1 Ld.  Raym. 606, 608.

23/1 Williams, J. in Cox v.  Burbidge, 13 C.B.  N.S. 430, 438.  Cf.  Willes, J. in Read v.  Edwards, 17 C.B.  N.S. 245, 261.

23/2 Mason v.  Keeling, 1 Ld.  Raym. 606, 608.

23/3 In the laws of Ine, c. 42 (1 Thorpe, Anc.  Laws, 129), personal liability seems to be imposed where there is a failure to fence.  But if an animal breaks hedges the only remedy mentioned is to kill it, the owner to have the skin and flesh, and forfeit the rest.  The defendant was held “because it was found that this was for default of guarding them,...for default of good guard,” in 27 Ass., pl. 56, fol. 141, A.D. 1353 or 1354.  It is much later that the reason is stated in the absolute form, “because I am bound by law to keep my beasts without doing wrong to any one.”  Mich. 12 Henry VII., Keilway, 3b, pl. 7.  See, further, the distinctions as to a horse killing a man in Regiam Majestatem, IV, c. 24.