And if the handwriting is attributed to the defendant’s scribe, the defendant is questioned about it before the scribe is questioned. If he acknowledges its contents, he is held to them. If he does not acknowledge them, the scribe is questioned. If the scribe denies it, the suspicion is weakened by his denial; he is subjected to intimidation if he is suspect, but not if he is deemed trustworthy. If he acknowledges both the document and its accuracy, he becomes a witness to it against the defendant, and judgment is issued against the defendant on the basis of his testimony if the adjudicating authority recognizes judgment based on one witness together with an oath—whether as a matter of legal doctrine or as a policy dictated by the circumstantial indications. Circumstantial indications have an effect in grievance cases on the variation of judgments, and each circumstance has a limit in the use of intimidation beyond which it may not go. This serves to distinguish between circumstances according to what their indications require.

But if the claim is accompanied by something that weakens it—namely, one of six circumstances contrary to the circumstances that strengthen a claim—the intimidation shifts from the defendant’s side to the claimant’s side.

The first is that the claim is countered by a document containing present, legally upright witnesses who testify to facts requiring the claim to be invalidated. This takes four forms: first, that they testify against the claimant that he sold the property he is claiming; second, that they testify to his acknowledgment that he has no right to what he is claiming; third, that they testify to an acknowledgment by his father—the person from whom he stated that ownership had passed—that he has no right to what he is claiming; and fourth, that they testify in favor of the defendant that he owns the property the claimant is claiming against him. The claim is thereby invalidated by their testimony, and the jurisdiction over grievances requires that the claimant be disciplined in accordance with his circumstances.

If the claimant says that the testimony against him concerning the purchase was given under intimidation and coercion—a practice people sometimes resort to—the purchase document is examined. If it states that the transaction was not conducted under intimidation or coercion, the suspicion supporting this claim is weakened. If it does not state that, the suspicion supporting the claim is strengthened by it. Intimidation is then employed against both parties according to the circumstantial indications of their respective situations, and the inquiry returns to investigation through the neighbors and associates. If evidence emerges warranting departure from the apparent meaning of the document, that evidence is acted upon. If no such evidence emerges, upholding the judgment on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses to the purchase is more appropriate.

If the claimant requests that the defendant be required to swear that his purchase was rightful and was not made under intimidation or coercion, it is possible to require him to swear, since the claim made is possible; and it is also possible not to require him to swear, because the prior acknowledgment contradicts the subsequent claim. The authority over grievances may act according to what the circumstantial indications of both situations require.

Likewise, if the claim concerns a debt owed, and the defendant produces a written release discharging him from it, while the claimant states that he had acknowledged the release before receiving payment but had never in fact received it, the defendant is required to swear as explained above.

The second circumstance is that the witnesses to the document countering the claim are legally upright but absent. This takes two forms. The first is that the defendant’s denial contains an acknowledgment of the underlying cause, such as his saying: “He has no right to this property, because I bought it from him and paid him its price. This is my deed showing that I had the transaction witnessed.” The defendant thereby becomes a claimant relying on a document whose witnesses are absent. The matter is treated as explained above, with the additional consideration that he has possession and control. Thus, the indication