A perfon
ufurping a
maimedilave,
who afterwards
dies,
is refponfible
for the value
he bore when
maimed;—
but he is not
refponfible
for any thing
i f the Have
was maimed
(by his maf-
ter) after the
ufurpation.
CHA P . V.
Of Offences committed upon ufurped Slaves, or Infants,
during the Ufurpation.
I f a matter ftrike off the hand of his {lave, and a perfon then ufurp
fuch Have,. and he die in the ufurper’ s poffeltton in confequence of the
difmemberment, the ufurper is accountable for the value he bore after
he was maimed. If, on the contrary, a perfon ufurp a {lave, and
the flave’s matter then ftrike off his hand whilft in the ufurper’ s pof-
feffion, and the flave die in confequence, the ufurper is not refponfible
for any thing. T h e reafon of the diftinftion here made is ’ that
ufurpation (as being in itfelf a caufe of property, where a compenfa-
tion is paid by the ufurper) precludes the confequence; and therefore,
upon the ufurpation taking place,-bet ween the offence and its confequence,
the letter is put out of the queftion, (in the fame manneras
where a fale intervenes between the offence and its confequence;)
whence the matter {lands upon fimilar ground as if, the perfon having
ufurped the maimed flave, he [the flave] were afterwards to die by
the vifitation of heaven and accordingly, the value he bore when
maimed is due. In the fecond inftance, on the contrary, as nothing
has occurred between the offence and its confequence, to preclude the
latter, that is therefore immediately referred to the difmemberment
committed by the mailer, and he is confidered the immediate de-
ftroyer of the flave,— whence the cafe is as if he [the matter] had
taken back the flave from the ufurper, (as having performed an aft
7 , upon
upon him,)— and the ufurper is confequently exempted from refpon-
fibility.
I f an inhibited flave ufurp another inhibited flave, and fuch Have One inhi-
die in the ufurper’ s hands, he [the ufurper] is refponfible, as an inhi- u[“ p^gVjn.
bitedflave is liable to beprofecuted for his afts. diM^sre0
fponfible.
I f a perfon ufurp a Modabbir, and the Modabb'ir commit an off Cafe o f a
fence whilft in the ufurper’s hands, and be afterwards reftored to His being ufurp-
mafter, and then commit a fecond offence, in the mailer’ s hands,’ 7 the meii:t ti?nngd caonm
matter is in that cafe accountable to the two avengers of offence for offence, and
the Modabbir % value, which is {hared equally between them for it JeftorecTtcf
is out of the matter’s power to make over the offender, becaufe of his
having conftituted him a Modabbir ; and he has therefore, by that aft, another ofannulled
the right of the avengers; but as he has been guilty of this
obftruftion with refpeft to one body only, he therefore is accountable
for no more than one value. T h e value, moreover, is divided equally
between the avengers, becaufe the cafe proceeds on the fuppofition o f j
both the offences inducing the fame penalty, and the Modabbir bearing
the fame value at the time of each relpeftive offence. Upon the mafter,
however, thus paying the value to the two avengers, he is. to
take one half of the value from the ufurper, as having paid the fame1
on account of an offence perpetrated [by the Modabbir whilft] in his
poffelfion; and this he is to pay to the avenger of the firft offence ; ■
after which he is again entitled to take the fame, a fecond time, from.
the ufurper. This is according to the two JLldcrs. Mohammed fays'
that the matter is to refume one half of the value from the ufurper,
which he is to retain with himfelf, (that is, he is not to make it over
to the firft avenger;) becaufe what he thus takes from the ufurper is
in lieu of what he has paid to the firft avenger, and he therefore is
not required to pay this alfo to him; for if fo, it follows that the'
confideration and the return unite in one perfon, which is unlawful;
and it alfo follows that the claim is repeated, as what the matter takes
from