been rolled into the river: he may have been accidentally pushed into a pond out of which the pusher refrains from helping him.

In conclusion, however, though there are all these divisions, sub-divisions and distinctions in the offence, he who turns to the exposition of the Chinese law of homicide, as it is set forth in the Code, will be singularly disappointed for the exposition therein is not remarkably full, and the classification is simply misleading. The truth is, that in this matter, as in other considerations of Chinese Law, concentration in our sense has not been attempted; relationship has been, on the whole, too powerful a force; and considerations of homicide independently of the small area set

apart for them

appear first in one section, and then in another, throughout the Code.

Killing several of a family. There is also another consideration, which arises when two or more persons of the same family are killed. This, as the reader has already gathered, is one of the most serious of offences and much more so than killing the same, or even a greater, number of individuals not related to one another.

C. E. G.

15

In the case of killing two or more persons not related to one another, each offence is properly dealt with separately, and the offender tried for one only; but to kill two or more persons of the same family is dealt with as one offence (H. A. H. L. vol. XLIV. p. 59). So if a person kill three members of the same family, the slayer himself will suffer the lingering death, his property will be confiscated, and the wife and children involved in the offence. It is essential that the persons killed should be on the same footing as the slayer 平人殺平人,and if one of the victims was a man who might justifiably, or ought to be killed, the law does not apply. Such might occur in a fray, where the prisoner first killed one member of a family, and then chanced to kill another; as in the case of Chang Yuan-shih, where the prisoner was tried for killing a father and his son the first being killed by the prisoner in rescuing a stepmother, and the second in his own personal self-defence. The Board held that the prisoner should be sentenced on the latter count only (H. A. H. L. vol. XLIV. p. 97).

The question is occasionally one of great delicacy and nicety. For instance in a case where the persons killed were a husband and his wife (a naughty woman), and the latter was killed first, the slayer was adjudged decapitation, exposure of the head, and forfeiture of half his property on the other hand had the slayer used some discretion, and slain the parties in the reverse order, he would have been merely decapitated for under these circumstances the woman would have been a criminal (H. A. H. L. vol. XXVIII. p. 13).

If the parties on both sides are equally worthy to be killed, and so on the same footing, the law of course applies, but decapitation only inflicted on the slayer.

If the offence of the persons killed was due to the slayer, lingering death will be inflicted on the slayer but his property will not be confiscated, nor his family involved. So in the case of Wei Lao-han, who killed an old woman with the aid of the latter's relatives; the object being to extort money from a third party, by depositing the corpse upon the said

party's property

the whole matter being arranged by Wei. The affair being satisfactorily accomplished, and the money duly extorted, the prisoner saw fit to appropriate the money himself. To this the confederates raised many objections, and even threatened the prisoner; whereupon the latter, with the aid of his sons, straightway killed his associates, to stop their mouths. The prisoner was sentenced to lingering death without more, and the sons of the prisoner, for killing persons whom they had no business to kill究非該犯等所應致斃 though persons, as the Board remarked, were sentenced, as accessories, to strangulation subject to the Autumnal Revision.

deserving of death

It is noteworthy that distinction has been drawn in this class of cases between one who premeditatedly or deliberately commits homicide, and one who does so merely in trying to escape arrest some mitigation being allowed in the latter case; as in an instance wherein the offender killed three of a family who sought to arrest him for stealing; confiscation of his property being

remitted, as also the liability of his family for his offence.

The relations that are within the meaning of the statute are held to be, all those within the five degrees of relationship, all relations living together and holding property in common, all members of a household, servants, and slaves. Two partners in business

may also be so considered (H. A. H. L. vol. XXVIII. p. 1). On the other hand, members of the same clan merely, who do not live together and though bearing the same name are not so considered, save under exceptional conditions. So in the case of an adulterer who killed three

such persons in trying to escape, and became thereby legally liable to strangulation simply. Held by the Board that strangulation was inadequate, and that instant decapitation be adjudged.

Limit of Time. Where death occurs not at the time of, but subsequently to, an injury, certain limits of time have been fixed for the purpose of regulating the responsibility of the doer of the injury

both as touching the penalty,