emancipated, other poor,") becaufe each partner afi'erts that the other ha« emanci-
fonn’errLnci- pated his {hare, and hence (agreeably to the doftrine of Haneefa) the
jtatory labour q a v e [s as a Mokdtib in the conception of both, fo that it is not lawful
partner. for either to make him an abfobute Jlave; the declaration of both therefore
is to be credited; and as neither can make him an abfolute Have,
each partner is at liberty to require his labour for the value of his {hare,
becaufe the right of requiring labour is cftablilhed in each indifputably,
whether his declaration may have been falfe or true; for the Have is
■ either his hondfinan in the former fuppofition, or his Mokdtib in the
latter; each partner, therefore, is to require labour of the (lave, whatever
his circumftances may be, whether rich or poor, becaufe the
right of each is oneof two things,— indemnification from the emancipator,
or labour from the {lave,— the competency of the emancir
pator to indemnify his partner not being regarded by Haneefa as any
obftrudtion to the requifition of labour; and as, in the cafe here fup-
pofed, indemnification, cannot juftl-y be required by either partner of the
other, (fince each controverts the other s affertion,) nothing remains
but that labour be required.— And here it is to be. obferved that the
Willacd the {lave refts equally with both partners, as each refpeftively
fays “ my~ partner’s {hare is-emancipated by his manumiffion, and the
“ Willa of it confequently appertains to him, and my {hare is eman-
H cipatedfrom me by labour, and eonfequently the Willa of it appertains
“ to me.”— The two difeiples allege that if both the partners be rich,
labour is not due from, the {lave to, either,, becaufe each difeharges
him from this obligation, by advancing a claim for emancipation a gain ft
the other, (fince they hold that competency of wealth in the emancipator
forbids labour;) but the claim is- not eftablilhed on account of the
negation, of the refpondent, whereas the difeharge of the {lave from
labour is eltablilhed by the declaration of each refpeftively. But if
both the partners be poor, the Have mu* in that cafe perform labour
to each, becaufe each advances a claim for labour againft the Have,
whether they fpeak truly or falfely, as the alleged emancipator is
poor.— And if one of the partners be rich, and the other poorI the
* Have
{lave muft perform labour to the former, becaufe he cannot be fup-
pofed in this cafe to fue for indemnification from his partner, who being
poor is incompetent to grant i t ; and hence nothing remains but that
the rich partner require labour of the {lave, from which he has not releafed
him by the nature of his teftimony; but the Have does not owe
any labour to the indigent partner, whofe declaration mull; be interpreted
into a claim of indemnification from his partner, fince he is
rich.— In all thefe cafes the Willa of the {lave, is undetermined, (according
to the. two difeiples,)- becaufe each o f the two owners re-
linquifh.es it to the other, who. on his- part rejects it, wherefore it remains
fufpended until fuch time as both agree in their teftimony re-
fpefting the partner who firft emancipated his portion-
If one of two partners fhould lay to their joint Have— “ i f fuch a
“ one enter not thishoufe to-morrow, you are free,” and the other
partner fhould at the fame time lay “ if fuch an one Jhould enter this
“ houfe to-morrow, you are free,” — and the morrow fhould pafs
without its being known, whether fuch perfon had entered the houfe
or not, in this cafe the Have becomes emancipated in one half, and
performs labour to each of his owners for the remaining half*.— This
is the doctrine of Haneefa-, and Aboo Toofaf coincides with him, provided
both the partners be poor-, but he-alleges-that if one of thefe be
rich and the other poor, the Have muft perform labour to the former
in the proportion of one quarter of his whole value; or, i f both be
rich, that the {lave has not to perform any labour to either,— Mohammed
fays that where both partners- are poor, the {lave muft perform
labour to each for his fu ll value, becaufe it remains unafeertained
which of the partners has forfeited'his right to this advantage, as it is
unknown with refpect to whom it may have dropped; and a magiftrate
cannot pafs a decree upon a perfon unknown;— in the fame manner as
where a man, in a-company, fays to another, “ there is fuch a debt
* That-is to fay,, in the proportion of a quarter to each refp.e£tively.
S-C
Cafe of
emancipation
by two1
partners, re-;
fpe&ively,
fufpended
upon two
oppofite
conditions of
uncertified
occurrence,
with refpedt
to their joint-
flave.
due