Definition of
the term.
A man ac-
cufing his
wife of
whoredom
muft verify
his charge by
an imprecation.
C H A P . X.
Of Lad/i) or Imprecation.
L a ah , in the language of the law, fignifies teftimonies confirmed
by oath, on fhe part o f a hufband and wife, (where the teftimonyis
len g th en ed by an imprecation o f the curfe o f G od, on the part of
the hufband, and of the wrath o f G od, on the part of the wife,) in
•cafe of the former accufing the latter of adultery.
I f a man flander his wife, (that is to fay, accufe her of whoredom,)
or deny the defcent of a child born of her, by faying “ this is
“ not my child,” and fhe require him to produce the ground of his
accufation, imprecation is incumbent upon him, provided both parties
be competent in evidence,— (that is, of found mind, adults, free, and
Mujfulmans,') and that the woman be of a defcription to fubjeft her
flanderer to punifhment, (that is, married*,') for i f fhe be not fuch,
(as if fhe have been, for inftance, enjoyed under an invalid marriage, or
delivered of a child whofe father is unknown,) the man is not under
any obligation to make an imprecation, although fhe be a perfon competent
in evidence.
* A rab .— M a h f a n a ,— F o r a full definition o f this term fee S l a n d e r .
L aAn
L a a n , according to the tenets of our doctors, is a teflimony confirmed
by oath, as wag before obferved; and it involves, on the part of
the hufband, if his accufation be falfe, the c u r s e o f G o d , which
hands as a fubftitute o f punifhment for flander,— or, on the part of
the woman, the w r a t h o f G o d , which hands in the place of punifhment
for whoredom, if it be true:— it is therefore requifite that the
parties be both competent in evidence, as the ground thereof is tefii-
mony; and it is alfo requifite that fhe be o f a defcription to fubject her
flanderer to punifhment, as the Loan, with refpedt to the hufband,
hands as a fubftitute of punifhment for hander, (whence the neceffity
of her being a married woman :) and Ladn is incumbent on account
of the denial of a child, becaufe the hufband, in denying the child’s,
defcent, accufes his wife by implication.
O b j e c t i o n .— The denial of the child’s defcent does not pohtively
imply an accufation of the wife, as it is poffible that the child may
not have been begotten by the hufband, and yet that the wife is not
an adultrefs,^ (as where a man, for inhance, has had carnal connexion
with her erroneoufly, and a child is produced from it, in which cafe
the child is the undoubted progenyof another,) and hence, in his denial
of its defcent from him, the hufband fpeaks truly, without any accufation
of adultery againft the wife being implied.
R e p l y .— This poffibility is of no weight, becaufe a ftranger, i f he'
were to deny the defcent of a child from the known and reputed father,
is held to be a fanderer notwithftanding this poffibility; and fo in
this cafe alfo.— It is alfo a condition of imprecation that the wife require
her hufband to produce the ground of his accufation, as this is
her right, the demand of which is neceffary, as well as that of all
other matters of right; and if he decline it, the magiftrate muft im-
prifon him until he either make an imprecation, or acknowledge the
falfity of his charge, by faying “ I falfely attributed adultery to her,” ,
— as this is a right due from him to his wife, and which it is in his
power: to render to her, wherefore he is to be imprifoned till fuch
time as he does w'hat is incumbent, or acknowledges his falfity, fo as'
V ol. I. Y y that
Conditions
under which
the imprecation
is incumbent.