the statute to the attention of the judges? Lord Denning had a solution for at least one case. Since he could not cite Hansard on what members of Parliament said he cited a law review article which quoted the Parliamentary speeches. His stance met with strong disapproval. Second, “mixed systems of laws.” Here I wish to deal with one case each from Scotland and the Republic of South Africa. They both concern the same factual problem. Roman law drew distinctions between types of rivers. A river was to be distinguished from a stream by its size or by the opinion of those who lived round about.119 Some rivers were perennial, others were torrential. A perennial river was one that flowed all year round (even if it occasionally dried up); a torrent was one that flowed only in winter.120 Some rivers were public, others private. The jurist Cassius defined a public river as a perennial river; his opinion was followed by Celsus and found acceptable by Ulpian.121 Some public rivers were navigable, others were obviously not.122 As was standard in Roman law there was no legislation on the subject but there were edictal clauses providing interdicts. One read: “Do not do anything in a public river or on its bank nor put anything in a public river or on its bank by which the passage or landing of a boat is or shall be made worse.”123 Another had: “I forbid the use of force against such a one to prevent him from traveling in a boat or raft in a public river or loading or unloading on its bank. I will also ensure by interdict that he be allowed to navigate a public lake, canal or pool.”124 The other interdicts are similar: they are concerned with 119 D.12.1.1.1. 120D.43.12.1.2. 121 D.43.12.1.3.; cf. D.43.12.3.pr. 122 See, e.g., D.43.12.1.12. 123 D. 43.12.1.pr. Part of the translation is omitted from theThe Digest of Justinian, 4, edited by T. Mommsen, P. Krüger and A. Watson (Philadelphia,1985), p. 578. 124D. 43.14.1.pr.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=