the judge of the district where the property is, conveying the witnesses’ testimony. That judge then takes custody of the item and sends it to the court clerk so that the witnesses may identify it directly. The stronger view, however, is that he should hand the item over to the plaintiff on condition that a surety guarantees the defendant’s person. If the witnesses later confirm that this is indeed the very object, the judge issues a release for the surety; otherwise the cost of returning it falls on the plaintiff.

If the object is absent from the sitting but not because it is in another district, the judge orders whatever can be produced to be brought in so that the witnesses may see it with their own eyes; testimony based solely on description is not accepted. When production is required and the defendant says, “No such article is in my possession,” he is believed once he has sworn an oath, after which the plaintiff may claim its value. Should the defendant refuse the oath and the plaintiff swear instead, or furnish evidence, the defendant is compelled to produce the item and is detained until he does so or asserts that it has perished.

If the plaintiff is uncertain whether the article has perished and thus whether he should claim its value, he may frame a composite claim, saying, “He usurped such-and-such of mine; if it still exists he must return it, and if not he owes me its value.” This claim is heard. Another opinion holds that he must first claim the article itself and have the defendant sworn, and only then sue for its value. The same two approaches apply when someone consigns a garment to a broker to sell, the broker denies possession, and the owner is unsure whether the broker sold it—so that he should demand the price—destroyed it—so that he should demand its value—or still has it so that he can demand its return.

Whenever the defendant is obliged to produce the item and the plaintiff’s claim is upheld, the cost of production becomes a fixed liability on the defendant; otherwise each party bears his own costs and the expense of returning the item rests with the plaintiff.

Section

An absentee against whom testimony may be heard and judgment rendered is one who is at such a distance that he could not leave there and return to his home early the same night; another opinion sets the limit at the distance that permits shortening the prayer. Anyone nearer is treated as present: no testimony is received against him and judgment is not passed in his absence, unless he is hiding or deliberately avoiding the court. The sounder view permits judgment in absentia for cases of retaliation and for the slander penalty, but not for the other divinely prescribed corporal punishments.

If testimony is taken against an absentee and he arrives before judgment is issued, the evidence need not be reheard; he is merely informed of it and allowed to challenge the witnesses’ integrity. If the judge is removed from office after hearing the testimony and then reinstated, the evidence must be taken anew.

When suit is brought against someone residing in the town, the judge summons him by sending a piece of moist clay bearing the court seal, or by any other recognised means, or through an officer appointed for that purpose. If the defendant refuses to appear without a valid excuse, the judge has him brought in by the court bailiffs.