The attefta-
tion o f the
fame tivo
witneffes fuf-
fices to prove
the evidence
o f two:
wjtnefs.— An atteftation of evidence, therefore, is never admitted
where it tends to eftablifo a matter which is repelled by the exiftence
ot a doubt, fuch as punijhment or retaliation.
T he attention of two men with regard to the evidence of two
others is valid. Shafii maintains that the evidence of four men is
neceffary to authenticate that of two men; beeaufe, in his opinion,
•two fecondary witneffes are equivalent to one principal, in the fame
manner as. .two women are equivalent to one man.' The arguments
of our doftors in fupport of their dodrine upon this point, are twofold.
r i r s t , Alee has declared that an atteftation of the evidence of
one man is not admiffible unlefs attefted by Iwo. - S econdly the
ating the evidence of a principal or original witnefsis included i’n the
number of rights. If, therefore, two men teftify to the evidence of
a principal witnefs, and afterwards teftify to the evidence of another
principal witnefs, both evidences are valid; nor is it required that the
evidence of each principal witnefs Ihould be teftified by two foarate
fecondary witneffes. J ^
but the evidence
o f each
mud be at
T he atteftation of one perfon to the evidence of one witnefs is
tefted by the BIBilM M i of the B | WSk as before quoted.-
■ two refpec- a ' 3 ™ ts the att,eftation of one perfon to the evidence of one wit-
“ X’ r f ' ~ ! rh e PjrCCept o {J lee’ however, is in proof againft him.— Be-
ides the evidence of one principal witnefs is included am on aft the
number of rights, and therefore requires to be proved by two H
JH 1 reqUlflt\that the PnnciPal witnefs defire the fecondary to
bear teftimony to his evidence, after the following m an n e r,-“ Bear
1 teftlmon7 t° my evidence, which is, that A. the fon of B. has made
««
“ f°re mC t0 " Particukr efFea> 3nd defired
1 1 1 I / atteft the faid acknowledgment.”— The reafon of this is that
ony ,the fecondary witncfi is a deputy of the principal, and it is therefore
neceflary
The -attefta-
tion m u ft be
at the delire
o f the primary
witnefs,
who muft
Hate the terms a o f his teftineceflary
that he appoint him his agent, and defire him to bear evidence
in the manner above related.— It is alfo requifite that the principal
give his evidence to the fecondary, in the lame manner as he
would have done fig the aflembly of the Kdzee, in order that he [the
fecondary] may report the fame literally, in that aflembly.— It is to be
obferved, however, that if the principal Ihould not mention that “ A.
“ the fon of B. had called him to witnefs his acknowledgment,” ftill his
atteftation is valid; beeaufe whoever hears another make an acknowledgment
may lawfully give evidence of the fame, although the acknowledger
Ihould not have defired him to bear teftimony.
I t is requifite that a fecondary witnefs deliver his: teftimony fo the-
following manner:— “ Zeyd has called upon me to atteft his evidence
“ that Omar has made an acknowledgment before him to a particular
“ effeft, and that he had defired him to bear teftimony to his evi-
“ dence of the laid acknowledgment.”— All this is required, beeaufe-
it is neceflary that a fecondary witnefs recite the fubftance of the evidence
of the principal, and fpecify that he had called upon him to bear
teftimony to it.
I f Omar hear Zeyd aflert that a particular perfon had defired him-
to bear teftimony to fome circumftance, it is not in that cafe lawful-1
for Omar to atteft the faid evidence of Zeyd, unlefs Zeyd Ihould have
particularly called upon him to atteft the fame ; becauie, in the atteftation
of evidence, that of haying been called upon to.atteft it is a neceflary
condition. This is according to all our doflors according ta
Mohammed, beeaufe-, in his opinion, the decree of the Kdzee pafles on
the ftrength o f both evidences ; that is, of the principal and the fecondary
; and alfo beeaufe both of them are liable, in an equal degree,
to the penalty in cafe of a receffion. from their evidence: —and according
to Haneefa and Aboo Toofaf, beeaufe, in their opinion, a repetition
of the evidence of the principal witnefs before the Kdzee. is neceff
* C . ■ - ; IS
attefting
witnefs.
Form o f an
atteftation.
A perfon cannot
atteft the
atteftation of
another, unlefs
that other
defire him fb*
to do.