Servus iurat se nummos ex sacculo non tulisse.

It is an indirect statement (also called an accusative-and-infinitive construction).

After a verb like iurat (he swears), Latin often does not use a separate word for that. Instead, it puts:

• the subject of the reported statement in the accusative
• the verb of the reported statement in the infinitive

So here:

• se = the subject of the reported statement, in the accusative
• tulisse = the infinitive verb

So Latin literally looks like:

• The slave swears himself not to have taken the coins from the bag.

Natural English turns that into:

• The slave swears that he did not take the coins from the bag.

Se is the reflexive pronoun, and it refers back to the subject of the main verb, here servus.

So:

• servus iurat se... = the slave swears that he...
• se specifically means that the person who supposedly did or did not do the action is the same person as servus

If Latin used eum instead, that would usually mean:

• the slave swears that he / that man / someone else...

So se tells you the statement is about the slave himself.

Because in an indirect statement, the subject of the subordinate idea goes into the accusative case.

In a direct statement, you would have something like:

• ego nummos ex sacculo non tuli = I did not take the coins from the bag

But when that idea is reported after iurat, Latin changes the subject into the accusative and the finite verb into an infinitive:

• servus iurat se nummos ex sacculo non tulisse

So se is accusative because it is the subject of the infinitive tulisse.

Tulisse is the perfect active infinitive of fero, ferre, tuli, latum (to carry, bear, bring, take).

This verb is highly irregular:

• present stem: fer-
• perfect stem: tul-
• supine stem: lat-

So:

• ferre = to carry / to take
• tuli = I carried / I took
• tulisse = to have carried / to have taken

It is a very common verb, but one of the trickier irregular ones, so it is normal for it to look surprising.

Because Latin uses the infinitive in indirect statement.

English says:

• He swears that he did not take the coins.

Latin usually says the equivalent of:

• He swears himself not to have taken the coins.

So instead of a finite verb like tulit or non tulit, Latin uses the infinitive tulisse.

That is one of the most important patterns in Latin syntax: after verbs of saying, thinking, knowing, perceiving, and similar ideas, Latin often uses accusative + infinitive.

Tulisse is the perfect infinitive.

In indirect statement, the tense of the infinitive is understood relative to the main verb, not simply as an absolute tense.

Here the main verb is:

• iurat = he swears (present)

The perfect infinitive tulisse shows action earlier than the swearing. So the sense is:

• he swears that he did not take
• or more literally, he swears that he had not taken

In ordinary English, did not take is usually the most natural translation.

Because nummos is the direct object of tulisse.

The verb ferre can mean to carry or to take, and the thing being taken is put in the accusative:

• nummos tulisse = to have taken the coins

So:

• se = subject of the infinitive, accusative because of indirect statement
• nummos = object of the infinitive, accusative because it is the direct object

They are both accusative, but they do different jobs.

The preposition ex means out of or from, and it takes the ablative case.

So:

• ex sacculo = out of the bag / from the bag

That is why the noun is not sacculum but sacculo.

This is a standard prepositional usage:

• ex + ablative
• ab + ablative
• cum + ablative
• and so on

Non negates the infinitive idea tulisse.

So the sense is:

• not to have taken
• that he did not take

Latin often places non directly before the word or phrase it is negating. Here it comes before tulisse, which makes the negation very clear.

So:

• se nummos ex sacculo non tulisse = that he did not take the coins from the bag

Latin word order is relatively flexible, because the endings show the grammatical relationships.

This sentence is perfectly normal as written:

• Servus iurat se nummos ex sacculo non tulisse.

But other orders are possible, especially for emphasis, for example:

• Servus se nummos ex sacculo non tulisse iurat.
• Nummos servus ex sacculo se non tulisse iurat.

The basic relationships stay the same because of the forms:

• servus = nominative subject of iurat
• se = accusative subject of tulisse
• nummos = object
• sacculo = ablative after ex

So word order helps with style and emphasis more than with basic grammar.

Classical Latin strongly prefers the accusative-and-infinitive after verbs like iurat for reported statements.

So this sentence is the normal classical way to say it.

A quod clause can sometimes appear in later Latin, or in certain contexts, but for a learner of standard classical prose, you should expect:

• iurat se... tulisse not
• iurat quod...

So this sentence is a good model of the usual classical construction.

In most classical Latin contexts, servus means slave, not merely servant in the modern sense.

English translations sometimes soften it depending on context, but the ordinary Roman meaning is slave.

So if your translation says servant, it may be aiming for smoother English, but grammatically and historically slave is usually the more exact meaning.