had been received in Western Europe. It had been received, though transformed. And at the present time what is called the Aquilian action is still the standard South African remedy for most delictal offences which involve financial loss. In fact, given the extent to which discussion of the lex Aquilia, even of minor points, has been relevant for subsequent lawyers, it must be accepted that there has been a reception of the statute. Yet doubts have been forcefully expressed. The famous German jurist, Christianus Thomasius (-) published a thesis at Magdeburg in entitled Larva legis Aquiliae detracta actioni de damno dato, receptae in foris Germanorum; ‘The Ghost of the Lex Aquilia removed from the Action on Inflicted Loss Accepted in the Courts of the Germans’. In this work he claims that the action in Germanyde damno dato was as different from the lex Aquilia as a bird from a quadruped. First he gives his opinion on what the ius gentiumon the subject would be. Then he demonstrates that this is very different from the provisions of thelex Aquilia. Next he shows that the law in use is vastly different from the Roman statute and argues that the lex was therefore never received. And finally he puts up a plea for the acceptance of the dictates of theius gentiumin these points where it differs from the law accepted in Germany. Thomasius is vigorously supported by J.G. Heineccius (-) who summarizes the points where hodiernum ius differs from the lex Aquilia in his Recitationes in Elementa Iuris Civilis, 4.3 §MXCV iiii: Fourthly, it remains for us to look into the present use of this title. And here indeed the Doctors commonly praise the use of this action in a marvelous manner. But if you calculate properly, you will scarcely ever find it in court. There is in this land an action on account of loss inflicted, for recovering loss and for exacting a penalty. But that is also so among the Turks and the Chinese who never took anything from Roman law. But, I ask you, do we today distinguish slaves and four-footed herd animals from all other things? And do we estimate the highest value which the thing had within a year or thirty days? And do we ask in a subtle manner, whether the loss was inflicted by the body to the body, or by the body but not to the body, or neither by the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=