mg the debt owing to one be of prior date to that owin°- to the
other*. ° e
lF 3 man ftrike off the right hands of two others, or the left hands
appear, reta- of two, and only one of the parties appear, retaliation is executed on
excutedon*' behalf o f this one, and a moiety of the fine of blood is due to the IBM °ther; becaufe the party prelent is entitled to take his right; and
gets the fine. *be right of the abfent party is dubious, fince it is poffible that, if
prefent, he might either pardon the offence or decline profecutino-;
and it is not allowable to make any delay in rendering a certain right
on account of one which is merely conjeliural;— and as, upon the
party prefent taking the retaliation, the fubjea on which the other
party might execute it no longer remains, the fine is the appointed
right of the other, fince here the offender has loft his hand on account
of a right which lay againft him, and may therefore be faid to
have obfrubied the right of this one.
If a flave confefs a murder, he incurs retaliation. Ziffer maintains
that the acknowledgment of a flave is not valid in this inftance;
for as he, by fuch acknowledgment, fets, at nought the right of his
mafter,, it therefore cannot be admitted, any more than the acknowledgment
of a flave concerning propertyf.— T h e arguments o f our
doctors upon this point are twofold. F ir s t , a flave, in confeffin«-
a murder, is not liable to ahy fufpicion, fince fuch confeflion is effen-
tially prejudicial to himfelf, as being productive of his death— Secondly,
a flave, with refpeft to his blood, contihues in his origtoinal
* The tranflator apprehends that little apology is neeelTary for his here omitting the
argnments advanced by in fupport ° f his M i and the reafonings adduced by
|tnBole wHnicn haHve been ma,lrreeaPd7y tr0ec titheedm. ’ 38 M are ■ rf the SS complexion with
t A Have'S acknowledgment concerning property is not of any weight. See Vol.
111. p; 13$.
date
A flave may
be put to
death on con-
fefling a murder.
ftate of liberty, freedom being the original ftate of MAN,—whence it
is that the acknowledgment of a mafter, inducing punifhment or
retaliation upon hiß flave, is not admitted.— With refpedt to the arc
gument of Ziffer, we obferve that the acknowledgment of murder,
by a flave, is prejudicial to himfelf poßtively-, but it is fo to his mafter
only by implication, which is of no weight.
I f a man wilfully fhoot an arrow at any perfon, and the arrow cafe of mur-
pafs through that perfon, and then hit another, and they both die. der and err°-
retaliation is incurred on behalf of the former perfon, and-a fine of cide united,
blood on behalf of the latter, to be paid by the Akilas of the murderer;—
becaufe thefrrjt killing is murder-, whereas the fecondis only
homicide by mifadventure,— in the fame manner as where a perfon
fhoots at a deer, and his arrow hits a man.— An aft, moreover, is
eftimated according to the number of its effefts; and hence it is poffible
that the afit of the murderer, in fhooting the arrow, was wilful
with refpedt to the one perfon, and inadvertent with refped to the
other.
S E C T I O N .
If a man ftrike off the hand of another by miftake, and then flay Cafes of
him wilfully before he has recovered from the wound, - o r , ftrike
off his hand wilfully, and then flay him by miftake before he has re-
covered,— or, ftrike off his hand by miftake, and after the wound is
healed flay him by miftake,— or, ftrike off his hand wilfully, and
after the wound is healed flay him wilfully,— he is profecuted on
R r 2 . both