Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

1203 VINDICTA. VINEA.
either by the Sacramentuin, so long as it was in plaint which could be instituted by a filiusfaimilias
use, or the Sponsio, or the Petitoria Formula. in his own name, because the object was Vindicta.
(Gains, iv. 11, 31; Walter, Geschkichte des RMm. The ground of this capacity of a filiusfamilias was
Rechts; Puchbta, Inst. ii. ~ 161.) [G. L.] an injury done to him personally by a person who
VINDI'CIAE. [VINDICATIO.] acted in opposition to his remonstrance. If for iLnVINDICTA. [MANuMISSIO; VINDICATIO.] stance the son inhabited a house belonging to his
VINDICTA. A class of actions in the Roman father or one hired from a stranger, ald was disLaw have reference to Vindicta as their object, turbed in his enjoyment by some act of his neighwhich is thus expressed: ad ultionem pertinet, in bour, the filitsfamilias might have an action for
sola vindicta constitutum est, Vindictam continet. the amount of the damage, but the pecuniary
(Dig. 47. tit. 12. s. 6. 10; 29. tit. 2. s. 20. ~ 5.) satisfaction would belong to the father as in the
Some of these actions had for their object simply case of the Actio Injuriarum. But the action was
compensation, as the Actio doli. Others had for not in bonum et aequum concepta, since it had a
their object to give the complainant,something more definite object, which was either the restoration of
(poena) than the amount of his injury, as in the things to their former condition, which might be
Furti actio, and sometimes in addition to this corm- immediately for the benefit of the filitsfamilias, or
pensation also as in the Vi Bonorum raptortim actio. to ascertain the value of the wrong done (quod
A third class of actions had for its immediate object interest).
money or property, but this was not the ultimate 6. The action against a Libertus in respect of an
object as in the cases already mentioned, but In Jus vocatio. [PATRlONUS.] If the Libertus
merely a means; the real object was Vindicta. had proceeded against the son of his patron, and
This Vindicta consists in the re-establishment of a the father was absent, the son could institute the
right which has been violated in the person of the suit himself, as in the case of the Actio Injuriarnm.
complainant, in which case the individual discharges 7. Querela Inofficiosi. [TESTAMENTUM.]
the office which the State discharges generally in 8. Actiones Populares, which are actions in
matters of Crime. Those actions of which Vindicta which the plaintiff claims a sum of money, but not
is the object, are distinguished from other actions as a private individual: he comes forwvard as a
by forming exceptions to the general rules as to the kind of representative of the State. If the act
legal capacity of those who mnay institute them, complained of be such as affects the interests of insuch as a filiusfamilias and one who has sustained dividuals as such, they can bring an action in
a capitis deminutio. preference to any other person and the action is
The following are actions of this kind:- not purely popular: to this class belong such ac1. Actio Injuriarum. WVhen a filiusfamilias was tions as the Actio sepulcri violati. But if there
injured, a wrong was done both to him and to his are no persons who are individually interested in
father. The injury done to the son is the only the matter complained of, or none such bring an
one that belongs to the head of Vindicta. The action, any person (units expopulo) may bring the
father generally brought the action, for lie could action as the Procurator of the State, and he is
acquire through his son all rights of action. But not bound to give the security which an ordinsary
the son could bring an action in his own name with procurator must give. A filiusfamilias can bring
the permission of the Praetor, if the father was ab- such action. By virtue of the Litis contestatio the
sent, or was in any way prevented from bringing the action becomes the same as if it were founded
action; and in some cases, if the father refused to on an obligatio, and this riglt of action as well as
bring the action. The pecuniary damages which the money which may arise from it is acquired by
were the immediate object of the action belonged the filiusfamilias for his father. These actionles
to the father, so that the son appeared in the being for fixed sums of money are not in bonum et
double capacity of ssuing in his own name in re- aequum conceptae.
spect of the Vindicta, and as the representative of With the populares actiones may be classed as
his father in respect of the damages. If the son belonging to the same kind, the Interdicta Publica
was emancipated, the right of action passed to him or Popularia, and that Novi operis nuntiatio which
and was not destroyed by the capitis deminutio. is for the protection of Publicum Jus with this
2. Actio sepulcri violati, which could be brought distinction, that the proceedings have not for their
by the children of the deceased, even if they object the recovery of a sum of money. But in
refused the hereditas, or by the heredes. The the general capacity of all persons to bring sucll
object was Vindicta, which was effected by giving actions, independent of the usual rules as to legal
the plaintiff damages to the amount of the wrong capacity, all these modes of proceeding agree.
(quanti ob earn reim aequum videbitur, Ce. Dig. 47. (Savigny, Systens des lieat. MIns. Rechlts, ii.
tit. 12. s. 3). The action was consequlently in 121.) [G. L.]
bonum et aequum concepta, and the right was not VI'NEA, in its literal signification, is a bower
affected by a capitis deminutio. If those who had formed of the branches of vinles, asnd from the proa right to bring the action neglected to do so, any tection which such a leafy roof affirds, the name
person might bring the action; but in that case was applied by the Romans to a roof under which
the damages were limited to 100 aurei by the Edict. the besiegers of a town protected themselves against
3. Actio de effusis. When a free person was darts, stones, fire, and the like, which were thrown
injured by anything being poured or thrown from by the besieged upon the assailants. The descripa house, he had an actio is bonum et aequum con- tion which Vegetius (de Re Alif. iv. 15) gives of
cepta, the ultimate object of which was Vindicta. such a machinle perfectly agrees with what we know
4. An action for mischief done to a man by any of it from the incidental mention of other writers.
dangerous animal belonging to another, when it The whole machine formed a roof, resting upon
happened through the want of proper caution on posts eight feet in height. The roof itself was gethe part of the owner. (Dig. 21. tit. 1. s. 40-43.) nerally sixteen feet long and seven broad. The
5. Interdictum quod vi ant clam. This is a wooden frame was in most cases light1 so that it