BOUND BY LAW OF MOSES

Evening Star, Issue 15481, 1 May 1914, Page 9

BOUND BY LAW OF MOSES

LOVE FOR BROTHER'S WIFE HELD TO BE A CRIME.

By a decision of Scottish Judges a law | which was in operation in tho time of Moses is held to be sliil a part of the criminal code of Scotland. The judgment was given in the Hiijh Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh by a bench of five Judges in a case in which Martin Ryan, a young ■man, wae charged with ' having, in his brotlirar'jj house, Gouvock, misconducted himself with his brother's wife, contrary to Act 1 James VI., cap. 14, and the 18th Chapter of Leviticus incorporated therein. Counsel for accused challenged the relevancy of the indictment in that it did not refer to tbe crime of incest according to the Scots law. It was pointed out that there was only one case reported where a man Was convicted of this offence. That was in 1765. In 1624 there was a case in tfhich a man was convicted of misconduct with his brother's widow, by whom he had four children. In both instances the death sentence followed. Counsel maintained that the Legislature had failed , to make such, misccr.duct a crime, and said that the 16th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus was directed against polyandry, which actually existed among the Canaanitcs. Cuuii&el for the Crown maintained the relevance of the indictment, and contended that there was no ambiguity about tho 16th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus. Giving judgment, the Court unanimously held that the indictment, was relevant, their lordship; being unable to discover any ambiguity or. dubiety as to the significance of the 16th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus. The prohibition was clear, express, and unambiguous, and they were bound to give j effect to what was there so distinctly Lais, down. The Lord Justice-General (Lord I Strathclyde) said that all that the Act of 1567 did was to enact the punishment o. death for offences which the 18th chapter of Leviticus forbade. Verses 6 to 17 contained a list of examples or illustrations of what was meant by the expression " near of kin," and from an examination of those verses it would appear that the general proposition expressed applied both to the degrees of affinity and consanguinity. There was, therefore, no doubt that the degree in tho ancient statute embraced both affinity and consanguinity. It had been argued that verse 16 had no relation to incest, but was oonfined exclusively to the custom of polyandry, and forbade expressly any woman having two brothers as husbands at the same time. He could not think so. The words of the verse would not bear that construction. They might entertain their own views with regard to the propriety and wisdom of retaining that ancient statute in the Criminal Code of Scotland, but, in the meantime, they could only give effective expression to them in the sentence which they though* it their duty to pronounce if they were t< confine themselves to their proper fun< tions as interpreters, and not makers, o! lie law. The other Judges concurre:' Counsel for the Crown, in view of the.timt that accused had been in prison, moved the Court for leave to "desert the diet eimpliciter" (not to proceed further With the case). Lord Justice-General: A very proper motion. Accused wias then dismissed from the bar. ■