is due to him. He, however, gets a third of the fine, on a favourable
conftru&ion of the l a w , as above fet forth,— the ground of which
is, that the third heir does not completely deny, but pafles the matter
to the attefting heirs, and acknowledges the property in qtfeftion to
be their right.
Evidence to
a perfon’s
"dying o f a
“ wound,
proves the
perfon who
in flitted it to
be guilty of
murder.
If witnefles give evidence that “ a certain perfon had wounded
“ another with a weapon foas to render him bedridden until at length
“ he died,” retaliation is in this cafe incurred by the perfon who’iri-
fiicted the wound;— for whatever is eftablilhed upon the teftimony of
witnefles is (as it were) eftablilhed by aElual J ig h t; and as, where a
murder is aBually feen, retaliation follows,To here likewife. Evidence
to wilful murder is, moreover, eftablifhed after this manner;
as death cannot be afcertained to have been occafioned by any particular
wounds, but from the circumftance of the wounded perfon having
been thereby rendered bedridden until he died.
Any effcm'ial I f two witnefles to murder difagree in their teftimony concerning
the tme i £ faft, (one ftating that the murder was committed on a
mony o f the particular day, and the other that it was committed on: another day,)
dersthe whole or th& place, (one ftating that it was committed in fuch a place,‘bd
evidence null, ^ o t j j e r t h a t j t was comrnitted in another place,)—or the injlrument,
(one ftating that it was committed with a- weapon, and the other that
it was committed with a fic k ,') their evidence is altogether null;
becaufe_ the murder to which they teftify is a Angle act; and the
murder committed in one place cannot be the murder committed in
another place; nor is a murder committed with a Jlick the fame as
with a weapon, the former being only manjlaughter, whereas thef
latter is w ilful murder, and thefe two are fubjeft to different rules
hence the teftimony of each can only be regarded as a feparate evidence
to a diftindt fadt; and the teftimony of one witnefs cannot be
admitted. In the fame manner alfo, if one of the witnefles teftify
that “ the murder was committed with a J lic k f and the otfej
the P E R S O N . 3Z3
that “ it is unknown with what inftrument it was committed,”——
their evidence is. null; becaufe evidence Jo a murder committed with
* Jlick tends to prove only murder in a reftridted fenfe, (as it amounts
merely to evidence; of manflaughter,) whereas evidence to pojitive
murder applies generally, that is, to murder in its moft extehfwe (not
in a rejirikied) fenfe; and the-, one being altogether different from
the other, the teftimony of each is therefore feparate evidence to a
diftindt fadt.
a murder,
which does
.not afcertain
the injlrument,
proves only
manjlaughter,
“ another perfon, but it is unknown with whit inftrument,” a fine
of blood is in this cafe due [from the alleged murderer,] on a favourable
tconftruaion. Analogy would fuggeft that the evidence is not to
be; credited, as bloodlhed bears a different conftruaion.according to
the difference of the inftrument; and therefore the matter teftified to
(namely, murder) is here uncertain!; whence the evidence cannot be
credited. T h e reafon, however, for a more favourable conftruaion
is, that as the .witnefles here teftify to a murder unrejlriaedly, the
lealt of the two different penalties in cafes of bloodlhed (namely fine)
is therefore declared due, out of caution. As, moreover, the inftru-
ment is here dubious, no one in particular can be proved. It is to be
cbierved that in this cafe the fine is due from the murderer, (not from
■ H becaufe a11 aas ■ ftppofcd wilful, unleft they be
proved .otherwife. Here, moreover, the evidence is given to bloodlhed
um e/lriBively, whence there I s a doubt with refpea to mifudven-
lure : and a dubious point cannot be eftablilhed.
H tW0/ erfons’ refpeaively, make acknowledgment of their Evidence«
ing muidered a particular perfon, and the heir of the murdered amurderin
perfon alfo affert the fame, he is at liberty to put them both to death ■ M
M M l f ■ bear evidence t0 a man’s having murdered
P ticular perfon, and two others atteft that another had murdered
^ 4 2 that