M A N U M I S S I O N .
upon the validity offthe claim advanced againft him; the refufel of
the mafter, therefore, in the prefent cafe, in no refpedt affects the
'daughter.— lx, on the other hand, the adult daughter were to plead,
is her Own behalf, that “ her mother had been firft delivered of a Jon,”
and the mother remain filent, in this cafe the emancipation of the
daughter alone is eftablilhed by the mailer’s refufal to fwear, and not
that of the mother, as her claim in behalf of her mother is invalid,
and upon its validity depends the effefit of the. mafter refufing to
fwear, as before obferved.
"Evidence
concerning
an indiicri-
minate ma'
numiffion of
male flaves
not admif-
fible,
I f two witnejjes bear teftimony concerning a perfon, it that he has
“ emancipated one o f two male flaves,” fuch teftimony is void, (according
to H anefaf) unlefs it relate to zbequefi*:— contrary to evidence
in divorce, for if two witnefles were to bear teftimony that fuch
a man had divorced .one of two wives, this teftimony is admiflible, and
the hulband may be compelled to fpecify which of his wives he had
divorced.— This laft is univerfelly admitted; and the two difciples
maintain that the .cafe of manumiflion is fubjedt to therfame rule.— The
origin of this difference of opinion between our doctors, is that Haneefa
holds evidence to the emancipation of a male Have to be inadmif-
flble, without a claim being entered by the Have himfelf ;—^-whereas
the two difciples hold that it is admiflible, independant of fuch claim,
in the fame manner as evidence to the divorce of a-wife, or the manu-
mifiion of a female Have, which is admitted without any claim being
advanced,— as is univerfally known and allowed.— Now the claim of a
■ male Have being held, by Haneefa, tct be eflential to the admiffion of
evidence to his emancipation, and this eflential condition not exifting
in the cafe here treated of, (fince no claim can proceed from an unknown
perfon,) it follows (according to his tenet) that the evidence of
witnefles thereto cannot be admitted :— with the two difciples, on the
contrary, the claim o f a male flave not being held eflential to the ad-
miflion of evidence to his emancipation, it follows (according to their
.tenet) that the teftimony of the witnefles, in the cafe in queftiou,
* That is, to a fentence o f emancipation pronounced upon a -deathbed.
the
is to be admitted; although no claim be advanced by the flave. It
is to be confidered, that in the cafe o f divorce the nonexiftence of a
claim is-in no xefpea prejudicial to the teftimony of witnefles, as claim
is not a condition in that cafe.
if* §
■
If two witnefles bear teftimony concerning a perfon that he has
emancipated one of two female flaves, their teftimony is not admitted,,
by Hani’ifa , although claim be not a condition of the admiflion of evidence
refpefting the emancipation of female flaves; for the reafon why
claim is not a condition, is that the manumiflion of a female flave
comprehends the prohibition of her perfon, and on this account -re-
fembles divorce; but hefle the manumiflion xs indefinite-, and indefinite-
manumiflion does not occafion prohibition of the perfon, (in the opinion
of Haneefa,) as was already ftated ; wherefore the teftimony in
this cafe ftands the feme- as that given relpedting the emancipation of
one of two male flaves-
If
A l l that has been here advanced relates to evidence refpedtino' the unlefs it re-
manumiflion o f one of two flaves by their mafter whilft in health;— S /wm a ,
but where it relates-to a manumiflion of this defeription upon a'death- numiffl0n-
led, or, where two witnefles teftify that a mafter had conftituted one
of two flaves a Aftdabbir, (w hether in Jicknefs or in health,) their
teftimony is valid, .according to a favourable conftrudtion o f the law
whether it be given during the illnefs Of the mafter, or after his death.
The reafons for a favourable conftrudion of the law on this occafion
are twofold;— f i r s t , fadbeer is a fpecies of hequeft, under whatever
circumftances it may be granted;— and, in the feme manner, .manumiflion
is a fpecies of bequefi, when granted upon a deathbed-, and the
claimant 111 a caufe refpedting a bequeft is thetefiator*, who is known,
and a reprefentative o f whom exifts in the perfon of his heir or execu-
* All claims of this nature are made, not in the name of the legatee or the executor, but
of the tejiator himfelf, who is M l fuppofed by the law to exift in his reprefentatives.
tori
1 1 1 H
m
i ill