or à nuoman.
A claim of
bondage may
be compounded;
Ip a Woman claim marriage with, a man, it is lawful for him to
compound the claim with her. T h e author of the Hedaya remarks,
upon this, that although the law be thus ftatedin feveral copies of the
compendium *, yet in other copies fuch compofition is declared to be
illegal.— T h e legality of it is eftablifhed: by fuppofing that the thing
given in compofition is an increafe of her dower; and that he afterwards
fells her a divorce for the amount of her original doWerf, fo that
the increafe, or the amount of the compofition, remains binding upon
him.— T h e reafon of its illegality is, that the man having given fome-
thing by way of compofition to the woman, to induce her to retradt
her claim, it follows that this retractation muft either be confidered as
equivalent to a feparation between them, or as not equivalent to a fe-
paration: now, if it be equivalent to a feparation, it is invalid,
becaufe no property is given for a feparation, fince it operates of itfel'f
upon the parties; (as, for inftance, where a woman admits the fon of
her hulband to carnal connexion, in which cafe the l aw enjoins a feparation
between them:)— if, however, on the other hand, the retractation
from the claim be not confidered as equivalent to a feparation,
then the cafe remain's as before; and the cornpofition is con-
fequeiitly invalid, as not being oppofed to any advantage in exchange.
I f a perfon claim another as his {lave, and that other compound
with him for his claim, by giving him fome fpecific property, fuch
compofition is valid, as being, with refpeCt to the plaintiff, an emancipation
in exchange fo r property'-, becaufe in his belief the defendant
gives the compofition in exchange for his freedom; and is therefore
confidered in the light of a Mokdtib.— It is for this reafon, alfo, that
the compofition in queftion is valid, if made in confideration of an
animal due, and to be delivered at a fixed future period"; becaufe
* The Moakhtajfir-, a compendium of thwcommentary of Kaiooree. t See Khoola.
6 it
it would not be valid i f it were confidered as an exchange of property
for property itjftead of an emancipation for property: for an
animal cannot exift as a debt ip exchange for property, as has been
explained in treating of the Siliim fale of animals: but it may exift
as a debt for fomething elfe than property,, as in the cafe of
marriage or a fine o f blood.— It is therefore requifite that the compofition
in queftion be confidered as an emancipation, and not as an
exchange.— With refpefo to the defendant, the compofition, in this
cafe, is merely a removal o f contention, fince he believes himfolf to be
originally free.— It is to be obferved that in this cafe no right oUVilla but it leaves
over the defendant refts with the plaintiff, becaufe of the denial of the sr,y/f the
former.— If, however, the plaintiff prove by witnefles that the de- dclima’“ -
fondant was his {lave, fuch evidence is admitted, and the right of
Willa then refts with him.
If a Mazoon, or privileged Have, wilfully kill a perfon, he is not A privileged
of himfolf entitled to compound for the murder: but i f his flave Ihould compoundfor
commit murder, he may then lawfully compound for it. T h e dif- °®:nc“ com-
tinction between thefe two cafes is that the perfon of a privileged himfelf-, but
Have not being a fubjedt of traffic, he is not entitled to difpofe o f It in ofecescomany
manner, (fuch as, for inftance, to fell himfelf,) and in the fame “ itted bXllis
. . ' Jlavc.
manner he is not entitled to redeem his perfon by means of the property
of his mafter, being confidered with refpect to his perfon as a ftranger.
His {lave, on the contrary, is a fubjedt of traffic, whence he is at
liberty to fell, or otherwife to dilpofe of him, and confequently may
alfo redeem him. T h e reafon of this is that the Have, on commit-
ing the crime, ceafes to be his property; whence the compofition
refembles a purchafe o f him; and this it is lawful for a privileged flave
to make.
If a perfon ufurp cloth from a Jew, of which the value was lefs Cafeofcom-
than a hundred dir ms, and, having» loft or deftroyed the fame, com- property^1 *
pound the matter with the ’few by agreeing to pay him a hundred ufurped; and
t > l ° t> r J whic h pe. J i b 2 dwms