Talk:Furtum

Odd Phrase in Applicable Actions
The article contains the following text, under Applicable Actions:

There were several possible actions available to the claimant. In the typical theft, the damages were a multiple of the value of the thing stolen.[16] A subsequent rise in the value of the thing stolen whilst the claim was being brought was borne by the defendent, if found liable.[21] If the claimant had an interest short of ownership, then the value of that interest formed the basis for the damages instead.[22] An heir of the claimant could sue, but the heir of a thief was not liable.[23] If part of a thing was stolen, probably the value of that part. A successful action for theft brought with it infamia for the thief.[23] (emphasis added)

I thought at first that the sentence made no sense and that words had been omitted. After several readings, I think the sentence is trying to say that in the situation of only part of an item being stolen, the value of the damages would be based on the value of the stolen part. But the preceding sentences discusses who is liable, not damages. So the sentence comes off as odd and disconnected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.244.8 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)