The further legal question—were the fish in such _piscinæ res nullius_ or were they such individual property as to make any one taking them without permission liable for theft—was answered by the jurist Nerva in _Digest_, 41. 2. 3, _s._ 14, who held that they were individual property—“pisces quos in piscinas coiecerimus a nobis possideri.” Thus the owner of _vivaria_ could proceed against a poacher by (1) an interdict for trespass, and (2) a prosecution for theft, in case of a fish being caught with the intention of taking it away. On the other hand, a person prevented from fishing or navigating by another could only proceed by an action of _Injuria_, personal affront (_Digest_, 43. 8. 17, _ss._ 8 and 9; 41. 1. 30; 43. 14, _s._ 7). Although I purposely limit myself to a very slight sketch of Roman regulations, the case reported by Pliny (_N. H._, IX. 85) seems, alike from legal and piscatorial interest, worthy of reproduction and examination. As the _Anthias_ is one of the shyest of fishes, special precautions and plenty of patience were necessary for a good catch. Thus fishermen wore clothes of the same colour as their boats. They sailed without fishing over the same stretch of sea. They merely went on “baiting the swim” on each tack, day after day, till some spirit, bolder than the rest, could be induced to take the bait. Still more days elapse before the fish, which has by this time been well identified, is followed by any of his mates. Eventually example proves so infectious that shoals innumerable, of which the Elder Brethren even eat from the fisherman’s hands, surround the boat. Now is the accepted hour for “the fisherman to throw out a little beyond his finger tips a hook concealed in bait,” and (to prevent alarm) smuggle the fish out gently, one by one, by a very slight jerk. His mate receives the fish on pieces of cloth, so that no floundering about or other noise may scare their comrades. On no account must “the betrayer of the others” be captured, lest instantly the shoal take to flight and be no more seen. But “there is a story that a fisherman, having quarrelled with his mate, threw out a hook to one of the leading fishes, which he easily spotted and with malicious intent captured. The fish was, however, recognised in the market by his mate, against whom he had conceived this malice: accordingly an action for damages (_damni formulam editam_) was brought, which the defendant, as Mucianus adds, was condemned to pay.” Now, as shown above, (1) a fish is “res nullius,” (2) a fish becomes the property of him who first “reduces it into possession,” (3) the sea, with some exceptions which do not apply here, is not capable of individual ownership.