Cafe o f converting
ufurped wine
into vinegar,
by means of
mixing in i t .
fome valuable
ingredient.
U S U R P A T I O N ,
cording to the dodtrine of the two difciples, the proprietor is to take
From the ufurper the value of the dreffed Ikin, and return to him
whatever increafe it may have received from the dreffing, in thé fame
manner as in the cafe of a deftrudtion; whilft others have faid that the
proprietor is entitled only to the value of an undreffed Ikin of an animal
killed-according to the prefcribed form.— All that has been advanced
on this topic proceeds on the fuppofition of the ufurper having
dreffed the Ikin with fomething of value; for if he Ihould have dreffed
it with fomething of no value, fuch as by means of moifture, or the
heat of the fun, the proprietor is then entitled to take it from him
without making him any return, fince a dreffing of that nature is
equivalent to the walhing of cloths. If, alfo, in this cafe, the ufurper
deftroy the Ikin, he is refponfible for the value of it in its dreffed date.
Some, on the contrary, have faid that he is refponfible for the value
of it in its ««dreffed Hate, becaufe the dreffing, as being an acquifi-
tion of his own, ought not to 'fubjedt him to refponAbility.' The firffc
opinion is adopted by moil: of the modem lawyers; and the reafon. of
it. is, that the quality of dreffing, as being a dependant of the Ikin,
cannot be feparated from i t ; and confequently, when refponfibility
takes place with refpedt to the original [the Ikin] it mull alfo operate
with refpedt to the dependant, namely, the quality [of dreffing.]
If an ufurper o f wine convert it into vinegar by throwing lalt
into it, lawyers have faid that, according to Haneefa, the vinegar
becomes the property of the ufurper without any thing being due from
him; whereas, according to the two difciples, the proprietor is’ entitled
to take the vinegar, making a compenfation to the ufurper for
the increafe of the article by means of the fait;— (that is to fay, he
muff give him a quantity of vinegar equal to the weight of the fait.)
If, on the contrary, the proprietor wilh to’ leave the vinegar with the
ufurper, and take a compenfation from him for its v’alue, the fame
two opinions that have heen given with regard to thé cafe above recited
of the dreffing of a Ikin, prevail with regard to this cafe. If, alfo,
the ufurper deftroy the wine, he is ho ways refponfible, according
to Haneefa,— in oppofition to the opinion of the two difciples, as has
been already recited in the cafe of dreffing a Ikin.— I f the ufurper convert
the wine into vinegar by means of pouring vinegar into it, in that
cafe it ,is related as an opinion of Mohammed that, provided the wine
be turned into vinegar within the hour in which the ufurper poured
the vinegar into it, it is his property, without his being fubjedt to any,
compenlation; becaufe the pouring of the vinegar, in fuch cafe, is
equivalent to a deftrudtion of the wine; and wine is not an article of
value. If,- on the other hand, the wine, becaule of the quantity of
vinegar poured into it being fmall, Ihould not become vinegar until
after the lapfe of a confiderable period, it muff in that cafe be divided
between the ufurper and the proprietor, according to its meafure;
that is, the ufurper is entitled to a part o f it in -proportion to the quantity
poured in, and the proprietor to a part of it in proportion to the
quantity of wine; becaufe in this cafe the ufurper has mixed his vinegar
with what eventually became the vinegar of the proprietor; and
this (in the opinion of Mohammed') is not a deftrudtion. In the . opinion
of Haneefa, however, the vinegar, in both cafes, becomes the
property of the ufurper; becaufe the immediate adt of his pouring
vinegar into the wine is (according to him) a deftrudtion o f it;, and
this deftrudtion does not, on any fuppofition, oceafion refponfibility,
becaufe if confidered as a deftrudtion of wine, it is a deftrudtion of a
thing that bears no value, or if confidered as the deftrudtion o f vinegar,
it is a deftrudtion of his own property, inafmuch as- the vinegar
becomes the property o f the ufurper. According to Mohammed the
ufurper is not refponfible where he deftroys the: liquor after its having
become vinegar on the hour in which he put the other vinegar into
i t ; for as, in this cafe, he acquires a right in the whole, he of courfe
merely deftroys his own property; whereas i f he deftroy it where it
has become vinegar after a length of time, he is refponfible, fince in
this cafe he deftroys the property of another. With refpedt to what
has been recited in Kadooree, fome of our modern lawyers have faid
that