or for the
wages of a
public fin g e r
or mourner.
A Muffulman
cannot give
or take ^wine
in pawn: but
j f he fo receive
wine
from a Z im mee
t and it be
deftroyed, he
is refponfible.
A pawnee is
ftill refponfible
for the
pledge, although
it appear
that the
debt to which
it was op-
pofed is not
due.
I t is not lawful to give a pledge for the wages either o f a mourner*
or of a finger. If, therefore, a pawn be given in fuch cafe, and be
afterwards deftroyed in the hands of the pawnee, he is not refponfible
for it, as the thing in fecurity for which it was pledged is not a fub-
je£t of refponfibility.
I t is unlawful for a Muffulman either to give or take wine in.
pawn, whether from a Muffulman or a Zimmee. Notwithftandino'
this, however, if the Zimmee be the pawner and the Muffulman the
pawnee, and the w'ine be loft or fpoiled, the Muffulman is accountable
for it, in the fame manner as in the cafe of his having ufurped it:
whereas, i f the Muffulman were the pawner and the Zimmee the
pawnee, and the wine be loft in the hands of the latter, he would
not oWe any compenfation to the Muffulman, any more than a perfon
who had ufurped wine from a Muffulman. It is otherwife where the
pawner and pawnee are both Zimmees', for wine is property with
them. Carrion, on the contrary, is not property with them any
more than with Muffulmans; and accordingly a pawn of carrion is not
valid among them any more than with us.
If a perfon purchafe vinegar, a flave, or a flaughtered goat, and,
having given a pledge for the purchafe-money, afterwards difcover
the vinegar to be wine, the flave to be a freeman, or the goat to be car-
rion-f-, ftill the feller is refponfible for the pawn in cafe o f its being loll
or deftroyed; for it was depofited in oppofition to a debt to all appearance
due. T h e fame rule alfo holds in a cafe where a perfon, having killed a
[fuppofed] flave and given a pledge for the payment of his value, after-
* Mean ing, a perfon employed, on occaiions o f grief, in making lamentations.— It is
a cuftom amongft th e M ujfulmans to employ fuch perfons, although prohibited by the LAW,
— whence it is that they cannot legally fue for their hire.
+ A s having died a natural death.— T h e term carrion is applied to the flelh o f all animals
not /lain according to the prefcribed form.
" wards
wards difcovers that he was a freeman. So, likewife, where the
parties in a fuit compromife the bufinefs for a part of the plaintiff’ s
demand, and the defendant depofits a pledge to anfwer the fame, and
they afterwards agree that nothing was owing from the defendant, the
pledge is infured in the hands of the holder of it.
I t is lawful for a father to pledge, in fecurity o f his own debt,
the flave of his infant child; for a father has the privilege of depofiting
the goods of his infant child1 in truft; and to pledge them is ftill more
conducive to the intereft of the proprietor than to place them in truft,
fince if a pledge be loft it muft be accounted for, whereas a truftee is
not refponfible for the depofit in his hands. A guardian alfo is the
fame as a father in this particular, becaufe fuch an authority vetted in
him is beneficial to the child. Abort Yeofaf and Ziffer maintain that
this is not lawful either to the father or guardian; (and fuch is what
analogy would fuggeft;) for a pledge is, in effedt, equivalent to a
payment; and as a father is not privileged to pay off his debts with the
goods of his child, it follows that he has no power o f giving them in
pledge.— T o this, however, it may be replied, that there is an obvious
difference between the act of pledging and that of payment; for dif-
charging the debts by means of the child’s property is a deftrudtion of
his right without any equivalent; whereas, placing his property in
I pledge is providing it a guardian, for the interim, without in any de-
I gree affedting his right. As, therefore, the contradt of pawn is valid
in this inftance, it follows that in cafe o f the pledge being deftroyed
in the pawnee’ s hands, he is confidered to have received payment of
his debt, and that the father or guardian are refponfible to the infant,
as having difcharged their debt by means of his. property.— In like
manner it is lawful, for a father or guardian to order the pawnee to fell
the pledge; for both of thefe have the. privilege of felling the goods of
their infant ward. T h e learned have, faid, that this is founded on the
law in. a cafe of fa le; for where a father or guardian gives the goods
of his ward.to his own.creditors, in payment of, his debt, it is lawful;
and.
A father or
guardian may
pledge the
flave of his
infant ward
for a debt
owing by
himfelf;
(but they are
accountable
in cafe of
lofs;)
and they may
alfo authorize
the pawnee to
f e l l the flave.
o