[001] to his estimate of the injuria.1 An indirect action is also available to the lord, to the [002] extent of his interest in not being deprived of the services of those of his household [003] and the labour of his bondsmen and the like.2 Even though not deprived of the [004] service or the labour of his bondsmen, he has an action arising out of this act if [005] such persons were beaten or struck to his disgrace and shame.3 Thus he may recover [006] his damages on one ground or on the other, sometimes on both, as where he says [007] that he would not have endured the damage for so much nor the shame and [008] indignity for so much, both together or separately.4 But we must see, inter alia, [009] which of these is preliminary, and whether one does not depend upon the other. [010] It seems that it does, for suppose that the servant or bondsman who suffered the [011] violence, though his complaint is true, fails in his proof; the lord's action seems [012] thereby extinguished, for if the act, which is the principal thing, is not proved, [013] nothing that follows from it ought to be good, and thus his servant or bondsman [014] was not beaten to his shame nor to his damage. But in truth, though such persons [015] fail in their proof, it may nevertheless be true that the thing did take place. Hence [016] if one does not prove, the other may. And so if such persons retract or are unwilling [017] to prosecute.