corrcfponding with five hundred dirtm of the complete fine ; and con-
fequently the firft heir gets twenty lots, and the fécond nineteen..
nor is the If a Mobabbir commit an offence*, and his owner pay the value
fponfible for of him to the avenger of the offence, by order of the magiftrate, and
any thing on j-h.e fame Modabbir afterwards commit another account oi his offence, the owner is
future ai- not accountable for any thing,, becaufe, in before paying the value.
fheanvciensg, amftaedr,e ,h e ac| t ed, upon compuglnf on, i°n . conIle quence orr t1h e magi-lrtfr ater s ord, er,
mentP-aJr' The fécond avenger, however, is in. this cafe entitled to fhare the
value with the firft avenger. If,, on the contrary, the owner have
paid the value to the firft avenger without an order from the magi*
ftrate, the fécond avenger has it in that cafe at his option either to require
a fine for the offence from the mafter, or to have recourfe to the
, firft avenger for his proportion of the value. This is according to.
Haneefa. T h e two- difciples maintain that,, in this laft inftance, the
fécond avenger has no claim, whatever, on the mafter becaufe he [the
mafter] has already paid all that was incumbent on him to a proper
claimant,, as at that time no fécond offence had taken place. The argument
of Haneefa is that as the owner of the Modabbir has un-
juftly given to the firft avenger what is the right of the fécond avenger,
and as the firft avenger (on the other hand) has unjuftly taken
the fame,, the fécond avenger has therefore an option, as above. The
ground of this is that the fécond offence is,, in the eye of the l aw ,
afi'oeiated with the firft in one fhape ; for the fécond avenger is made
to participate with the firft ;— and the fécond offence is alfo,, in the
eye o f the l aw , a follower of the firft, in another fhape ; for, with
refpedt to the fécond avenger, regard is paid to the value o f the Modabbir
at the time of the fécond- offence. T h e fécond offénee, therefore,
is confidered. as afloeiated with the firft, fo far as regards- taking
the compenfation either from the mafter or from the firft avenger, be-
* A lw a y s meaning homicide hy mifaduenture, this being the only offence which involves
the flave’s value.
caufe
caufe o f each o f them having difregarded the right of the fecond aven- '
ger, in order that a due attention may be paid to both points of view,
to the ««vz-aflociation, where.the value has been given [to the firft
avenger] by order o f the magiftrate,. and to the affociation, where it
has been given without his ord-er ; - f o r it is not poffible that the fecond
avenger fhould have it in his choice to take his compenfation from
either party, except where the two offences had been perpetrated together.
1
If a Modabbir commit a variety of offences, and his owner then
emancipate him, he [the owner] is not accountable for more than one
payment of his value; becaufe he was fubjecled to this refponfibility
only in confequence o f having conftituted the offender a Modabbir, an
aft a prion-, and his. emancipating him, or otherwife, afterwards is
one and the fame. (It is to be obferved that an Am-Walid is confidered
m the fame light as a Modabbir, with refpedt to all thefe rules.)
nor for more
than one v alue,
where he
emancipates
him after a
variety o f offences.
not admitted, nor does it fubject the mafter to any penalty, whether h
have emancipated him or otherwife; becaufe the penalty for any of
fenceby mifadventure, committed by a flave, refts upon his mafter
and the mafter is a different perfon from the Modabbir; and therefor
the acknowledgment of the latter, as tending to effed another that
mmieil, is not valid.
His aehnovj*
ledgmentoî an
offence is not
cognizable.
H h h 2
C H A P .