Of the fines and forfeitures paid into the _publicum_, we find that a part went to the royal treasury and a part to the _judex_, and in some cases to the informer or the prosecuting officer; and at different times we find these proportionate amounts definitely defined--as, for instance, in the time of Charlemagne two parts went to the king and one part to the count who acted as _judex_;[36] this we know from two of the Lombard laws of that emperor.[37] In one of these,[38] speaking of those who evaded military service, he says: "Heribannum comes exactare non praesumat: nisi Missus noster prius Heribannum ad partem nostram recipiat, et ei," the Count, "suam tertiam partem exinde per jussionem nostram donet."[39] We even find evidence of quite a large amount of liberty used by the _duces_ in the ultimate disposal of property coming under their jurisdiction by forfeiture, the more powerful making use of it precisely as if it were private property. For example, in the Chronica Farfensis[40] appears a case judged by Hildeprandus, _dux_ of Spoleto, in the year 787. A certain nun named Alerona, for having married a man named Rabennonus, "secundum legem omnis substantia ipsius ad Publicum devoluta est"; a little later Rabennonus, for having killed a man, "medietas omnis illius substantiae ad Publicum devoluta est." In consequence, in poetic justice and for the good of his soul and the king's, Hildeprandus quite arbitrarily presents "omnem praedictam illorum substantiam, qualiter secundum legem juste et rationabiliter, ad Publicum devoluta est," to the Monastery of Farfa "pro mercede Domnorum nostrorum Regum et nostra." Here, as in many other cases, we see the _dux_ making gifts of property belonging clearly to the _publicum_, to persons favored by him and for his own benefit. Such a condition of affairs would certainly never have existed had public property been administered by authority other than that of the _dux_.