In ancient times, when disputes arose among people—whether over accusations, violence, or quarrels—the wise and just procedures of the land were carefully followed. If one accused was released, he could not be led away again unless actual misconduct was found; yet, in cases of quarrel or violence, a counterclaim could be made. To ensure fairness, a competent surety was required from both parties, so the matter could be resolved with trust. If either party was suspected of concealing the truth, the surety would be liable to pay the equivalent amount to the king. False accusations were treated with severity: the accuser would pay twice the amount claimed. For offenses like violence, theft, abuse, curses, or those involving women, the penalty was determined as prescribed by law. If someone called for an immediate examination of the matter, it was to be done at once; otherwise, the timing was at the discretion of the parties, especially if one departed or showed signs of nervousness, such as licking his lips. The accused might betray himself: his forehead would sweat, his face would lose color, and his mind, speech, and actions would become disturbed. In claims and testimonies, those whose speech was corrupt were declared so. Whoever, being independent, resolved a doubtful matter or withdrew from it was recognized as such. When a debtor was summoned but remained silent, he was deemed punishable. If there were witnesses on both sides, the plaintiff’s witnesses would speak first. If the first statement was not established, the defendant’s witnesses would have their turn. In disputes involving groups, the one who was deficient would be made to pay. Money, goods, and wealth given or owed—if denied—could be recovered by the king through his agents in legal proceedings. Yet, even matters that existed or had occurred in the past could be lost through litigation, whether wholly denied, affirmed, or partially established. The king was to ensure payment for all reported matters, but not for those unreported. When tradition and reason conflicted, reason prevailed in legal matters. Proof was established through documentary evidence, possession, and witnesses. If none of these were available, an ordeal was prescribed. In all disputes, the reply carried greater force. In cases of deposit, acceptance, or purchase, the youth of the matter—how recently it occurred—was stronger. For land, loss of claim occurred after twenty years, even if the land was seen or declared. For property enjoyed by another for ten years, the claim was lost, except for pledged, boundary, deposited, or immovable property. Deposits belonging to the king, women, or Brahmins, and wealth of pledged property or similar items, if misused, required the offender to pay the owner. One who was punishable would pay the king an amount equal to what was taken, or as much as was possible. If there was additional gain without prior possession, that too must be given. Even with evidence, it was not strong if there was no possession, however slight. Only with pure evidence did enjoyment attain validity. Enjoyment based on impure evidence lacked authority, but if someone had made the evidence and was involved, he must restore it. In such cases, neither the son nor the grandson had a greater right; but if another was involved and deceased, his share should be restored from his property. Enjoyment established without evidence was not valid; transactions arising from force or coercion were annulled. Likewise, transactions made by women, at night, in private chambers, outside, by enemies, or by those intoxicated, insane, afflicted, children, or out of fear, were not valid. Transactions made without proper connection were void. If a pledge was lost, the king would pay the creditor the value of the pledge. If the value could not be determined by signs, the king would give an equivalent. Property stolen by thieves was to be restored by the king to the people of the country. Interest rates were carefully prescribed. With a guarantor, the monthly interest was one-eightieth; otherwise, according to caste order, it was one, two, three, four, or five per hundred. For cattle, it was seventy; for women, the highest was eight times; for liquids, four, three, or twice as much for cloth, grain, and gold. For another village, ten; for overseas, even twenty. All parties were to pay the interest agreed upon, in all cases and for all types. A king who enforced a claim was not to be blamed, but one compelled to enforce it against the king was punishable and must pay that money. Agni spoke: The debtor who received money must repay the lender in proper order. If he first gave it to a Brahmin, then to the king after that. If the debtor was compelled by the king, he must pay ten percent of what was recovered; if the amount was fully obtained, the best debtor must pay five percent per hundred. A person of lower caste who was impoverished could be made to work off the debt, but a Brahmin who was impoverished should pay gradually as he was able. If the debtor did not accept payment when offered, and it was deposited with a mediator, it would remain there and not accrue further interest. One who received inheritance must pay the debt, and so must the one who took possession. The son who possessed property must pay the debt of a father who had no other son. A wife was not liable for debts incurred by her husband or son, nor was a father liable for debts incurred by his son; except for household purposes, a husband was not liable for debts incurred by his wife. However, the husband should pay debts of women who were cowherds, strongmen, performers, washerwomen, hunters, or prostitutes, because their livelihood depended on him. Any debt incurred by a woman, either jointly with her husband or alone, must be paid by her or her husband; no other woman was obliged to pay such a debt. If the father was absent, deceased, or afflicted by misfortune, the debt should be paid by his sons or grandsons, provided it was substantiated by witnesses. Debts arising from drinking, gambling, fines, taxes, or what remained after such expenses, as well as gifts made without purpose, should not be paid by the sons. Among brothers, spouses, fathers, and sons, a debt that was guaranteed was to be accepted by those who were undivided, as remembered in tradition. In cases of appearance, guarantee, or payment, responsibility was prescribed; but if a pledge was false, even the sons of the one who made the false pledge must pay. Thus, justice was maintained, and the laws of debt, evidence, and rightful claim were upheld with wisdom and care, so that harmony prevailed in society and righteousness guided all dealings.