requires. It is otherwife with refpedl to pawn, as that is not a
contrail of exchange, but merely a contrail of fecurity' for the receipt
of the fubftance of the pawnee’s right; for which reafon it is lawfuls
to give a pawn as fecurity for the price, in a S ir f fale, or for the
goods, in a Sillim fale, although an exchange with refpeit to either, of
thefe be unlawful:— in other words, if a pledge fhould be deftroypd
whilftin the poffeffion of the pawnee, the pawnee is in that cafe held
to have received the fubftance o f his right;— whereas, if a contrail of
pawn were in the nature of a contrail of exchange, it would follow
that in thefe cafes an exchange for the price in a S ir f fale, or for
the goods in a Sillim fale, had been made previous to the feizin, and
this is unlawful. The perfon, therefore, who diredts others to enter
into a contrail of pawn cannot be rendered refponlible for the debt
to which the pawn is oppofed. Analogous to this -is a cafe where
the mafter of a Have fays to merchants, “ trade with this Have
■i of mine, ,for I have privileged him to trade;” and the merchants
having traded with him accordingly, it becomes afterwards known
that the faid Have is the property of another; for in this cafe the
creditors have a right to receive payment -of their debts from the
mafter.— It is to be obferved that the difficulty, in this cafe, arifes
from the tenets of Haneefa; for, according to him, a claim is a ne-
ceffary condition for the eftabliffiment of freedom; and here a claim is
out of the queftion, fince, if the Have, after. the acknowledgment of
his flavery, fhould alfert a claim to his freedom, he-would be guilty,
of prevarication; and prevarication is deftrudtive of the validity of a
claim. It is therefore impoffible that, after his own declaration, his
freedom fhould be made apparent ; and hence the ftatement of this
cafe, according to the tenets of Haneefa, is erroneous.-'-But, in reply
to this objedlion, fome have obferved that the proper ftatement of this
cafe is,— that a perfon purchafes a flave at a time when the Have him-
felf faid “ purchafe me, for I am a flave,” and it afterwards appears
that the perfon lb purchafed was originally free; for this ftatement is
ftridtly agreeable to the tenets of Haneefa, fince (according to him)
the
the claim of freedom is required as a condition only in the Cafe
of a freedman, and not in that of a perfon originally free.— Others
again maintain that the claim of freedom, in this ftatement of the cafe
alfo, is a neceflary condition; and that the prevarication fo occafioned
is not deftru&ive of the validity of the claim; for generation is a concealed
circumftancer; and the perfon not knowing that his mother was
free at the time of his generation, he on that account-declared himfelf
a flave; but afterwards, attaining a knowledge of his mother’s .freedom
at that period, he therefore claims his freedom.— If it be thus
ftated, that, a perfon having purchafed a flave, it afterwards appears
that the perfon fo purchafed was free, as having been emancipated by
his mafter, fuch ftatement is corredt, as it does not involve prevarication,
fince the mafter is empowered to emancipate his flave.— This
cafe is therefore, in fafit, the fame as if a woman fhould purchafe her
divorce from her hulband, -and fhould afterwards eftablilh, by wit-
nefles, that previous to fuch bargain he had divorced her three times;
or, as if a Mokatib fhould eftablilh, by witnefles, that, previous to
the contract of Kitdbat, his mafter had emancipated him;— for in both
thefe cafes the claim and the evidences are admitted, notwithftanding
the prevarication; and fo alfo in the preceding cafe. The ground of
this is that the mafter'being competent to emancipate his flave, he may
have done it during- his abfence, and the flave may afterwards have
preferred his claim immediately on its coming to his knowledge; and
on this fuppofition the prevarication is not held to be deftrudlive of
the claim.
I f a perfon claim a right in a houfe, in an indefinite manner, and Cafe of claim
_ ° to an itn
then compound his claim with the poffeflbr of the houfe for an hundred moveablepro-
dirms,. and a third perfon afterwards prove a right to the whole of the co^ofitiorT
houfe excepting the quantity of a cubit, for inftance, in that cafe the rcfP=a
pofleffor of the houfe has no right ‘to any reftitution from the perfon
with whom he entered into the compofition; becaufe that perfon,
having before made an indefinite claim without explaining the extent
T t t i of