O b j e c t i o n .— It would appear that the two rights cannot poffibljr
be united, fo that both fhould be fatisfied by means of the flaveV
perfon ; for if the Have were made over to the heirs [the avengers of
blood,] he could not be fold on behalf of the creditors ; and via
wrf a- .
R e p l y .— T h e two rights may be united, in this way, that the
Have be fir ft made over to the heirs, and then fold on behalf of the
creditors.
O b jection.— I f the Have is to be fold on behalf o f the creditors,
where is the advantage in making him over to the heirs ?
R e p l y .— T h e advantage is, the eftablifhment of the right of the
heirs to releafe the Have upon payment of a redemptionary atonement
_As, moreover, the flave committed the offence at a time when he
was occupied by debt, he is confequently made over under the fame
predicament.— The mafter, therefore, is refponfible for both the rights,
as having invaded both__It is otherwife where a ftranger* kills, by mifadventure,
a flave of this defcription, (that is, involved in debt;) for
in this cafe the ftranger owes merely the Angle value of the flave,
which he muft pay to the mafter, who again delivers the fame over to
the creditor; beCaufe the ftranger is a priori refponfible to the mafter,
the flave being his property ; and as the creditor’s right (to a tr-anf-
fe r of the flave) is weak in comparifon with the majlers right (to the
property of him,) it confequently cannot come in competition with it,
the cafe being, in fa ft, the fame as if no other right were involved.
But the creditor is afterwards entitled to take the value from the mafter,
as this value is the worth of the flave, and the creditor’s right in
the worth precedes the right of the mafter, it being incumbent on him
[the mafter] to fet up the flave to fale, for the difcharge of his debts.
This (it is to be observed) is where the flave is merely involved in
debt, without having committed any offence; for if he had eom-
* Mean ing, any perfon not concerned in the flave, as his creditor, or fo forth.
. gutted
mittbd an offence, and a ftranger flay him by mifadventure, the
mafter muft in that cafe pay the value of him to the avengers of the
offence, and alfo to the creditors; but the ftranger is only to pay the
value to the mafter, in the manner above mentioned. In the cafe of
emancipation, on the contrary, the mafter owes twice the value to
the parties ; becaufe he has invaded the rights of both ; and as the
right of one has no preference over that of the other, an equal regard
is paid to the rights of both, and the mafter confequently owes each a
compenfation.
If a licenfed female flave, involved in debt, bring forth a child,
fhe is liable to be fold, together with her child, for the difcharge of
her debts ;— whereas, i f fhe. commit an offence, the mafter is not required
to make over .her child, as well as herfelf, to the avengers of
the offence. T h e difference between thefe two cafes is that, in the
former, as the debt, in the contemplation of the l aw , is due from
the perfon o f the flave, (in this way, that the difcharge is to be effected
by means of her perfon,) debt is therefore her legal defcription;
and as every legal defcription appertaining to the perfon extends to the
offspring of the perfon, the flave’s debts, therefore, extend to and af-
fe£t her child ;— in the fame manner as where a man pawns his female
flave, and fhe brings forth a child ; in which cafe 'the child' alfo is
comprehended in the contraft of pawn. It is otherwife in a cafe of
offence; becaufe an offence committed by her requires that fhe be
made over in compenfation for i t ; but as that is a matter which
refts upon the mafter, not upon the flave, the obligation o f transfer
(being the legal defcription) applies to the mafter, not to the flave,
fhe not encountering any thing except merely the effeflo f the transfer,
which is a certain predicament, not the, legal defcription, or, in other
words, the obligation o f transfer ;—and a certain predicament extends
to the child, not a mere legal defcription.
The child of
a licenfed female
Have is
made over
with herfelf
in difcharge
of her debt,
but not in fa-
tisfa&ion of
her offences.
Ip