yes possibly but only in certin states if he was afree slave but most likely he wouldn't want to be
beat him to a pulp
They were not allowed to get married officially but allowed to make intercourse sex with other slave women.The slave - or "trell", as the Vikings called him, is not mentioned in the law because they were not protected by the law.The slave was owned by his owner in the same way the owner owned his domestic animals. Slaves were looked upon as the owner's property. The owner could buy and sell a slave, and he could treat his slave as he liked.When a female slave bore a child, her child automatically became the property of her owner. If a pregnant slave was sold, her unborn child became the new owner's property as well.
Slave owners could not be tried in court. There was no law against the mistreatment of slaves.
A master is the owner of a slave.
In Roman times the slave owner could free them.
because they could get caught by their owner and get punished
To see how hard they could work their new slaves. Also, if their slave was in bad condition, they could blame the previous owner for selling them a bad slave.
A person who owns a slave is typically referred to as a "slave owner" or "master."
Yes, but if the slave was incapacitated he may have to pay the owner of the slave for a replacement.
no john Adam was not a slave owner
A person who owns a slave is commonly referred to as a slaveholder or slave owner.
If a Roman slave stole something, the consequences could be severe. The slave might face harsh punishment, such as whipping or branding, and their owner could choose to impose additional penalties. In some cases, the owner might seek restitution from the slave, or even sell the slave to recover losses. The theft could also damage the slave's reputation and standing within the household, making their life even more difficult.