fight, in the inftance in queftion, occurs merely in an adventitious
way; in other "words, the aft, in the firfh inftance, proceeded from
the offender, and then occafioned the lofs of fight. In the cafe
moreover, of wounds communicating an additional injury, it is a rule
that, if.the legal effeft* of the firft injury ftill remain, the fécond injury
is regarded merely , as being occajional\ whereas if, on the con-'
trary, no legal effeft remain, it is confidered as an immediate confe-
quence of the offender’ s aft. As, therefore, in the cafe in queftion,
the legal effeft of the wound ftill remains, it [the wound] is confe-
quently regarded as the intermediate caufe of the lofs of the eye-fight,
in the fame manner as the digging of a well in the highw.vy is the intermediate
caufe o f homicide;— and retaliation is not inflifted in the
inftance of an intermediate caufe. It is otherwife where a wound is
attended with the lofs of life, for as, in that cafe, the legal effeft
of the firft injury no longer remains, the fécond, injury js
therefore confidered as an immediate confequènce of the offender’s
aft.
Retaliation is I f part of atooth be broken off, and the remainder afterwards fall
m m out, retaliation is not due;— and in the fame manner, i f a perfon give
jury received another two wounds upon the head, and the two wounds afterwards
produces any r
additional become one, retaliation is not due. Ibn Simmdia holds that it is! due
and unex- . . . , . n
peaeddefea. both lnltances.
Cafes of in- If a perfon1 ftrike out another’ s tooth, and a fecond tooth grow
teeUu in its place, the fine for the firft tooth is remitted, according to Ha-
neefa; for here the offence in effeft no longer remains, as the ufe and
ornament both continue; and the cafe is therefore the fame as if nothing
whatever had been deftroyed,—rthis being analogous to where a
* Meaning, the liability o f the offender to fine or retaliation.
5 perfon
perfon ftrikes out the tooth of an infant, which grows again, in which
inftance no fine whatever is incurred.
If a perfon ftrike out another’s tooth, and this perfon keep the
tooth in its place Until the gum grow round it, and it remain, after
all, unlike to the reft in point of ufefulnefs or beauty, a fine for the
tooth is due from the ftriker, the growing of the gum round it
not being regarded, fince it" is impoffible that the veflels and nerve
of the tooth fhould be connefted with it in the fame manner
as before.
If a perfon ftrike out another’ s tooth, and this perfon draw a
tooth of the ftriker, in retaliation, and afterwards obtain, by growth,
a new tooth, he in that cafe owes the ftriker five hundred d im s, as it
then becomes evident that he executed the retaliation unjuftly, fince
it is the deflrudiiqn o f the root [the renovating power] which, in the
cafe of a tooth, gives caufe for retaliation ; but here it appears: that the
root ftill remains, for if it did not, the tooth could not poffibly grow
again. In the cafe in queftion, therefore, the offence no longer remains,
but is utterly done away.-—(It is for the reafon here alleged
that, in executing retaliation for a tooth, a delay is obferved of one
year, according to all our doftors.)— Retaliation, however, cannot be
executed upon the unjuft exaftor of it in return, becaufe of a doubt;
and confequently a pecuniary recompence is due from him.
If a perfon ftrike another upon the month, fo as to loofen his-
teeth, a delay of a year muft be obferved, (as mentioned above,) in
order to afcertain the effefj. If, therefore, the Ktizee appoint a year’s
«lay, and the perfon whb: was ftruck appear before him without his
teeth, previous to the expiration of the year, and the plaintiff and defendant
difagree,— the former afferting that his teeth fell out in confe-
quenee-of the blow he had received from him [the defendant,] and the
Y 7 3 latter
I f they be
loofened by a
blow, a delay
o f one year
muft be
granted before
palling
judgment,