" Hossô-shiyôshô " is an important book from the viewpoint of the Japanese legal history, as it was a contemporary source of the Law of Kuge which had changed much from the the law of the previous period contained in the Ritsuryô Code. But there are two theories concerning the authorship of this book and it has not been determined which is the true author, either Sakanouye Akikane (1079-1147)or Sakanouye Akimoto (1138-1210). The present treatise aims at solving this problem.
As the result of the comparative study of some manuscripts of the " Hossô-shiyôshô " and the comparative study of contents of the " Hossô-shiyôshô " and of the " Saiban-shiyôshô, " the author of the latter being assuredly Sakanouye Akimoto, the present author came to the following conclusion:
The author of the " Hossô-shiyôshô " is not an individual person, thus neither Akimoto nor Akikane. The book is an accumulation of legal theories throughout the period from the end of XI century to XII century, and so several jurists were concerned in this compilation.

View full abstract

Die nicht zur Beackerung an die Gemeindeglieder überwiesenen Stücke, kurz alles was nicht getheilt worden war, gehörten zur gemeinen Mark. Nach der Einbringung der Ernte erhielten auch die Äcker Allmendecha-rakter. Das Markrecht war eine Pertinenz des im markrechtigten Dorfe besessenen Hauses and Hofes. Wohnstatt and Ackerland sind mit dem gehorten Markrecht als ein Ganzes betrachtet and ebenfalls Hufe genannt worden. Daher hat es immer nur so viele Berechtigungen gegeben, als vollberechtigte Häuser and Höfe in den Dorfschaften vorhanden waren. Mit den Hausern and Höfen hat indessen auch die Anzahl der Markre-chten gewechselt.
Die Antheile an der gemeinen Mark and die Markberechtigungen waren ursprünglich in einer and derselben Mark verhältnissmäßig gleich groß. Die Größe der Berechtigung richtet sick wesentlich offenbar, wie die Größe des Besitztums selbst, nach dem Bedürfnisse eines jeden Genossen. Durch spätere Ansiedlungen, Veräußerungen and Theilungen hat sick jedoch dieser ursprüngliche Stand der Dinge gänzlich verändert. Dazu kamen nun noch die Veräußerungen and Theilungen der einzelnen Höfe and der mit ihnen getrennten Marktheile in halbe and viertels Were, in gauze, halbe, drittels, viertels and sechstels Gewelden and Rotten, dann die Vereinigung oft sehr vieler Marktheile in einer and derselben Hand, wodurch die ursprüngliche Gleichheit der Berechtigung völlig vernichtet worden ist. Dieser gänzlich veränderte Zustand führte zu neuen Anor-dnungen und Einrichtungen. Die Art and Weise der Benutzung der ungetheilten Mark wurde von der Gemeinde genau regulirt, die Größe der Rechtigung nicht mehr nach dem Bedürfnisse eines jeden Genossen, sondern ein für alle Mal bestimmt oder jedes Jahr wieder neu bestim-mt, oder auch auf ein bestimmtes Quantum fixirt.
Beisassens Marknutzung war eine bloße Begünstigung. Erst seit dem 16ten and 17ten Jahrhundert, hat sich dieses geändert, indem nun in manchen Dorfern auch die Kotter and anderen Beisassen als Gemeinde-genossen betrachtet worden sind.

View full abstract

The Law of Manu (B. C. 200-A. D. 200) is an ancient Indian law in which we find a family system where the paternal line and paternal rights played very important parts. As the Indian people respect their ancestor, the first son was much needed in order to carry out their ancestor worship. So, the Law of Manu provided the primogeniture system. But, on the other hand, the Law of Manu had the system of division of inheritance property. In'the Law of Yajnavalkya(later period of Manu), we can not find the primogeniture system. Through these facts, we suppose that the division of inheritance gradually became popular in those times.
The ancient Indian people thought that, unless the ancestor was respected by his paternal descendant, his spirit could not live in the heavens. So Manu provided the system of PUTORIKA and NIYOGA. In order to continue his paternal line, a father who had no son could appoint his daughter and her son who would carry out his maternal grandfather's line. And this appointed daughter was called PUTORIKA. For the same reason, Manu provides NIYOGA. If the husband died without a son, his wife tried to get a son in order to carry out her husband's line. In this case, this widow must unite with her husband's brother or relatives.
Besides the above mentioned, Manu also provided for twelve kinds of sons. Among these sons, six kinds of sons had to succeed their father and the other six only lineage respect their anscestors.
Thus, we noticed that how to keep their family was quite a big pro-blem in ancient India, and we find they make great efforts to solve these problems.
Generally, the women's status was quite low, but in the Law of Manu, the daughter could inherit her mother's own property, and no one could inherit such property except the daughter.
A wife could not inherit any property from anyone else.
In conclusion, the Law of Inheritance was most important in the ancient Indian Family Law.

View full abstract

1. Changes in the Penal Procedures for the Smuggling.
In the firstpart of the Tokugawa period (1666-1717), the government took the policy of terror as regards the crime of Smuggling, and heavy punishments, such as Haritsuke _??_ (crucification) and Gokumon _??__??_ (gibbeting of head), were inflicted upon the offenders.
In the second part (1718-1788) of the same period, the offenders were seldom punished with death, and such lighter punishments as Tsuiho _??__??_ (banishment), Irezumi _??__??_ (tattooing), Kessho _??__??_ (confiscation) were imposed upon the offenders. Measures were also taken to facilitate Sonin _??__??_ (information), Jiso _??__??_(self-surrender), Sashiguchi _??__??_ (secret information), and by exposing thoroughly these different cases of pu-nishment, the government aimed at special prevention.
In the last part of the period, the government returned to its original policy of terror, and people had to smuggle at the risk of their lives, though actually they were not so mercilessly treated as before, when they were captured. But it is noteworthy that in this last period capital punishment was imposed not only on those who committed the crime itself, but also on those who dealt in smuggled articles, and that the off-shore smugglers were punished just as heavily as the in-shore ones.
2. The Penal Regulations concerning Smuggling and the Osadamegaki-Hyakkajo _??__??__??__??__??__??_ (The Code of 100 Articles)
The penal regulations concerning smuggling can not be found in the Code of 100. Articles, which is to be regarded as the basic code of the Tokugawa Regime. That they were not included in the Code is not accidental. The legislators of the Tokugawa Period decided that smuggling had better be left out of the Code. The reason for this decision was that smuggling was in its nature one of those crimes that could best be dealt with by the Nagasaki-Bugyo _??__??__??__??_ (the Nagasaki Magistrate), and the legislators authorized this official to deal with it at his own discretion.
3. The Crime of Smuggling and the Feudal Lords
Smuggling was under ban all over the country. It constituted a crime either in the districts under the direct control of the Shogunate or in the private estates. Now the Shogunate endowed the feudal lords with extensive jurisdiction, and as a rule, authorized them to administer justice in criminal cases that occured in their own estates. However, as to the crime of smuggling in question, they were not invested with the power to punish it, though they were allowed to make inquiries. Why was it that the Shogunate made an exception of the crime of smuggling? Obviously because smuggling was considered a serious crime to the Shogunate which engrossed the profits of the oversea trade, whereas, the feudal lords, who gained nothing from the trade, considered it a negligible crime, and upon the arrest of the offenders, behaved only half-heartedly. They rather tried to protect and encourage smuggling, because the smugglers could be helpful in recovering the difficult positions in which they often found themselves.

View full abstract