in this matter is to refer to what the person whose handwriting it is states. If he says, “I wrote it so that he would lend me money, but he did not lend it to me,” or “so that he would pay me the price of what I sold him, but he did not pay it to me,” this is something people sometimes do. In such a case, the jurisdiction over grievances requires that intimidation be employed in accordance with what the circumstances indicate, strengthening the circumstantial evidence accordingly. The parties are then referred to mediation. If it leads to reconciliation, the matter is settled; otherwise, the judge shall issue a definitive ruling between them on the basis of mutual oaths.

If he denies the handwriting, some officials who administer grievance cases test it against samples of his handwriting, requiring him to write extensively so as to prevent him from disguising or fabricating his script. They then compare the two specimens. If they are similar, they rule against him on that basis. This is the view of those who regard his acknowledgment of the handwriting as sufficient grounds for judgment. The discerning jurists among them, however, hold that this is not done in order to rule against him, but merely to intimidate him. The suspicion is weaker when he denies the handwriting than when he acknowledges it. If the handwriting is inconsistent with his own, the suspicion disappears, and the intimidation is directed toward the claimant instead. The two parties are then referred to mediation. If it leads to reconciliation, the matter is settled; otherwise, the adjudicating authority shall issue a definitive ruling between them on the basis of oaths.

The sixth circumstance concerning the strength of a claim is the presentation of an account supporting what is claimed. The same applies in transactions. An account can only be in one of two forms: either the claimant’s account or the defendant’s account.

If it is the claimant’s account, the suspicion attaching to it is weaker. In such a case, the jurisdiction over grievances considers the organization of the account. If it is vague and tampering with it is suspected, it is disregarded; it is then more likely to weaken the claim than to strengthen it. But if its arrangement is consistent and its entries have been accurately copied, confidence in it is stronger. It therefore warrants intimidation commensurate with the indications it contains. The parties are then referred to mediation, and thereafter to the final adjudicator.

If it is the defendant’s account, the claim based upon it is stronger. It must then be determined whether the account is attributed to the defendant’s handwriting or to that of his scribe. If it is attributed to his own handwriting, the jurisdiction over grievances requires that the defendant be asked about it: “Is this your handwriting?” If he acknowledges it, he is asked, “Do you know what it contains?” If he acknowledges knowing its contents, he is asked, “Do you know that it is accurate?” If he acknowledges its accuracy, then through these three acknowledgments he has admitted what follows from the account, and he is held to its contents.

If he acknowledges that it is his handwriting but says that he did not know what it contained, and does not acknowledge its accuracy, those officials who regard handwriting as a basis for judgment would rule against him according to what his account entails. If its accuracy is not acknowledged, however, others would not rule on its basis, since an account cannot establish receipt of something that was never received. The majority held that no judgment should be based upon it, because an account whose contents the defendant has not acknowledged as accurate cannot serve as a basis for judgment. Nevertheless, it warrants a greater degree of intimidation than the stand-alone handwriting did. The parties are then referred to mediation, and thereafter to a definitive judicial ruling.