Cale of an
infant committing
an
offence at the
inftigation of
a flave or an
infant.
** mulct for his eye,” — in which cafe his affertion is credited, and
the former owes him a fine accordingly, as having acknowledged an
aft which induces refponfibility, (namely, the ftriking out of an eye,)
without referring it to a time repugnant thereto; and after having
thus.acknowledged an occafion of refponfibility, he pleads an exemption
therefrom, which the other denies ; and the affertion of a negator
muft be credited ;— and fo likewife in the prefent inftance, the
declaration of the female flave, who is the negator, muft be credited.
It is otherwife with refpeft to the earnings of the flave, or the enjoyment
of her perfon; becaufe, as a mafter is not liable to a fine of
trefpafs for having carnal connexion with his flave, notwithftanding
fire be involved in debt, nor refponfible for taking her earnings under
the fame circumftance,— he therefore, in thefe two cafes, refers the
a£t to a time which was notorioufly repugnant to refponfibility.
If an inhibited flave, or an infant, inftigate an infant to kill a man,
and the infant fo inftigated kill the man accordingly, the fine for the j
man’ s blood is due from the infant’s Akilas ; becaufe he has actually
killed the man ; and the malice or error o f an infant is one and the
fame,— that is, a fine is incurred equally in either inftanCe, as has
been already explained. A fine is therefore impofed on the infant’s
A k ila s; and nothing whatever is incurred by thofe who directed him,
(the inhibited flave, or infant,) as they are not liable to be taken to
account for their Words, nothing being cognizable except what is
noticed in the l aw , which pays no regard to the words of fuch per*
Tons. T h e Akilas, moreover, having paid the fine, are not at liberty
to reimburfe themfelves from the infant, either at prefent, or after
he (hall have attained ma t u r i t y the y may, however, require re-
imburfement from the flave fo directing, when he (hall have obtained
his freedom; for his words were uncognizable becaufe of the
right of his mafter, not becaufe of any defeft in his natural competency
; and as, on his becoming free, the right of his mafter
(which was the obftacle) no longer remains, they are then entitled
8 . t0
to take the fine from him. It is otherwife with an infant; for as his
words were uncognizable becaufe of a defied! in his naturaleompetency,,
he is therefore.not liable,to be (ued-for. the fine, either at prefent, or.
after having attained maturity.
If one inhibited flave inftigate^another inhibited flave to kill a
man, and he kift him accordingly, it is incumbent on his mafter
either to make him over, or to pay his fine of redemption, without,
at prefent, demanding any recompence from the inftigator: but he is
at liberty, after the inftigator (hall have become free, to take from
him the amount of whichever is the lead,— the value of the flave he
had made over, or the redemption he had paid for him. This proceeds
upon a fuppofitioH o f the flave having killed the man by mifad-
venture,— or, having killed him wilfully, being himfelf an infant, as;
the malice and error o'f an infant are. the fame thing:— but where’the:
(lave who thus-kills thé man is an adult, and kills him wilfully, he.
incurs retaliation, a flave heing liable to retaliation for a freeman.’
If a flave wilfully kill two freemen, and: each o f thofe leave two
heirs, and one heir of each pardon the offence, the mafter has it at his
option either to make over a moiety of the (lave to the two heirs who
have not pardoned it, or to pay them one.thoufand firms as a redemption
for the fame; becaufe, upon one of each two heirs grantino- a
pardon, retaliation is remitted, and the remaining heirs are only entitled
to property; and as the (hares of the pardoning heirs amount to
one half, that half is remitted, and the other half remains due-
If, on the contrary, a (lave kill two freemen, one wilfully, and
the other by mifadventure, and each leave two heirs, and one of the
heirs of the perfon (lain wilfully pardon the offence, and the mafter
prefer paying a redemption, he muft pay fifteen thoufand Jirms,—
ve thoufand to the heir of the perfon wilfully (lain who had not
F f f granted.
Cafe o f a Have
committing a
murder at the
inftigation o f
another fla ve ,.
One o f two*
heirs pardoning
a fla ve,.
in a cafe o f
wilful murder,
the other
heir receives
only his juft,
proportion*
A flave killing
one man
‘wilfully, and
another accidentally,
where one heir
o f the former
pardons thes
offence, is di