be interpreted in the same manner (as before). For the words ‘should’ and ‘be made’ must necessarily be understood.” (Ch. II. Sec. 29). That is, there is a verb wanting in the above phrase “a gift or a sale not by him,” consequently “should” or “ought “ and “be made” are necessarily to be inserted, and the phrase is thus read: “A gift or sale should not be or ought not to be made by him,” expressing a prohibition of the free disposal by a father even of his self-acquired immoveables. This text also, says the author, cannot be intended to imply the invalidity of a gift or sale by a lawful owner; but it shews a moral offence by breach of such a prohibition: “Since the family is distressed by a sale, gift, or other transfer, which argues a disposition in the person to make an ill use of his power as owner.” Moreover, as Munoo, Devulu, Gotumu, Boudhayunu, Sunkhu, and Likhitu, and others represent a son as having no right to the property in possession of the father, in the plainest terms, as already quoted in para. 21) no son should be permitted to interfere with the free disposal by the father of the property he actually possesses. The author now concludes the subject with this positive decision. “Therefore, since it is denied that a gift or sale should be made, the precept is infringed by making one. But the gift or transfer is not null: for a fact cannot be altered by a hundred texts.” (Ch. II. Sec. 30).
29. In illustration of this principle it may be observed, that a man legally possessed of immoveable property (whether ancestral or self-acquired) has always been held responsible and punishable as owner, for acts occuring on his estate, of a tendency hurtful to the peace of his neighbours or injurious to he community at large. He
