Cafe o f an
injury inflicted
on two
flaves, after
the matter indefinitely
declares
one of
them fr e e .
. for the hand is due, together with the diminution occafioned in the
value, as aforefaid.
I f a mafter fay to two of his flaves, “ one of you is free,” and a
perfon then ftrike and wound both the flaves upon the head, and the
mafler afterwards fpecify the one whom he defigned to emancipate by
the above fpeech, ftill he is entitled to the recompence for the offence
committed upon both ; for he emancipated an «»fpecified Have; and
the wounds have been received by Specific flaves; and as what is Specific
is one thing, and what is ««fpecified is another, they are both,
therefore, his property, with refpeft to the offence. If, on the
other hand, a perfon were thus to Jlay the two flaves in queftion, he
incurs a fine for the one emancipated*, (payable to his heirs, i f he
leave heirs, or otherwife to the mafter,) and the value of him who
was to have remained in bondage, payable to the mafter,— provided
that the murderer be one perfon, and have flain the two together,
(not fiucceJSively,) and that the value of both be equal-j-. If, on the
contrary, the two flaves be murdered by the one perfon fuLcsJJkiely,
(that is, one after the other,) he incurs the value of the one fir jl flain,
payable to the mafter, and a fine for the other, payable to his heirs-;
becaufe, by one of them being flain, the emancipation is, of neceflity,
determined to the other. If, on the other hand, the two be flain by
the one perfon together, and they be of different value, the murderer
incurs a moiety of the value of each, refpectively, together with a
fine for a freeman ; hecaufe he has, to a certainty, killed a freeman
and a flave; and the murder of the one fubjefts to a fine, and of the
* T h a t is, the one to whom the mafter afterward? explains his indefinite emancipation
to have applied,
t reafons for this diftintSHon between a cafe o f murder and o f wounding are here
ftated at large.— T h e tranflator, however, conceives himfelf juftified in omitting them,
as they involve a long train o f metaphyfical fubtleties o f no ufe, and the fubftance o f which
are to be found under the head o f Indifcriminatc ManumiJJion. (See V o l. I . p. 456.)
other
other to the value; and neither of them precedes the other. T h e
murderer, therefore, in this inftance, owes one half of the value of
each, together with an half o f the fine for each ; for as, in confe-
quence of the death of both, no fubjedt remains for the mafter’ s explanation,
the emancipation indiferiminately pronounced by him applies
in an indefinite manner to each,
I f a perfon put out both the eyes of another’s flave, the owner Cafe o f a .
has it in his option either to make over the flave to the offender p.erfon P“'"
1 • r v • 1 1 . 9 tlDS out £“e
taxing trom mm the value, or to retain the flave, without getting any eyes an*
thing for the defeft thus occafioned in him. This is the doftrine of othc''’3flave'
Haneefa. T h e two difciples maintain that the mafter has it in his
option either to keep the flave, taking a compenfation for the damage
he has fuftained, or to give him to the offender, taking the whole of
his value. Shafiei, on the contrary, holds that the mafter is entitled
to keep the flave, taking, at the fame time, his complete value ; for
as the refponfibility is oppofed to what is defiroyed, not to what remains,
(in the fame manner as in the cafe of a freeman,') this remainder,
therefore, ftill continues the property of the mafter;_as
where, for inftance, a man ftrikes off one hand of a flave, and’ puts
out one of his eyes; in which cafe the offender incurs the whole value
of the flave, who ftill remains with his mafter ; and fo here likewife.
(It is proper to obferve, in this place, that our dodors. maintain that
worth * exifts in the perfon; but regard-is alfo paid to it with refped
to the members of the body, for otherwife any regard to it with re-
fpeft to. the perfon (fo as to be confined to that alone), muft be nugatory,
fince as the members of the body are held equivalent to property,
for the fecurity of the b o d y f, it follows that a regard to the
worthy
* Maleeat-, it has been already explained to fignify the quality o f icin g property.—
'S whole paflage is fom ew hat enigm atical, and (to underftand it properly) requires th at
Jifpute 3ttentl° n bC ? a‘d “ the con£ext-— is altogether detached from the q ueftion in
t With a view to p ro te a the body from the injuries it m ig h t otherw ife be liable to , in