Ali?u and Sumu-rame sue Shak.u.matim about a house they sold him.

Nonsuited. N. D.(194)

Shamash-bel-ili repudiates a sale of land to the Lady Mannashi. He is nonsuited. ?ammurabi 15.(195)

Family of Ardi-rabish against Erib-Sin on account of property left them by Ardi-rabish. Nonsuited. Sin-mubalit 20.(196)

?amaziru sues Manutum for house and property but is nonsuited.

Sumu-la-ilu.(197)

Kasha-Upi bought a house of Itti-itishu and his sons, Belshunu and Ilushu-bani. Amel-Ninshuna, son of Belshunu, brought a suit about the house. Judges condemn him to be branded on the forehead and confirm Kasha-Upi's t.i.tle. Sin-mubalit.(198)

Nishinishu sues Ana-erishti-Malkat for three _SAR_ of land before the king's judges. Nonsuited. Samsu-iluna 2.(199)

Malkat-kuzub-matim sues Ani-talime for rest.i.tution of a field, before the judges of Babylon and Sippara. The witnesses sustain her claim, which is granted. Samsu-iluna 3.(200)

The family of Izidaria sue the family of Azalia about the property of Izidaria deceased. Their t.i.tle is confirmed. Zab.u.m 12.(201)

Shamash-bel-ili sues Nidnusha concerning a house bought by him of her. The judges grant him two shekels of silver. ?ammurabi 1.(202)

Shi-lamazi sues her brothers for a field and wins her case.(203)

Before Lushtamar, _nagiru_ of Babylon, Adadi-idinnam and Ibku-Ishtar, judges, Zariku was put to the oath and replied to Erib-Sin. He was told that as his domicile was at Sippara, he must not make his appeal to the judges of Babylon. So his case was dismissed. ?ammurabi 28.(204) The record is defective.

Cases before judges where the plea and its result can be made out with some certainty are as follows:

Ardi-Sin, son of E?iru, sued the sons of Shamash-na?ir who had sold a plot of land, two and a half _GAN_ in area, to Ibni-Adadi the merchant. He claimed the land as ancestral domain, _bit abiu_, and denied that he had ever alienated it. The sons of Ibni-Adadi, now in possession, produced the deed of sale, _duppu imati_, which E?iru and Sin-nadin-shumi, his brother, had executed to Shamash-na?ir and his son. The judges a.s.signed a small portion of the land, about a sixth, to Ardi-Sin, but make up the rest, apparently, from another quarter. Ammizaduga (?).(205)

Mar-Martu bought the garden of Sin-magir. Ilubani disputed the legality, _?imdattu_, of the sale. Before the judges at the gate of Nin-marki he deposed that he was the adopted son of Sin-magir, which adoption had never been revoked. In the time of Rim-Sin the house and garden had been awarded to Ilubani and then Sin-mubali?

had brought a suit against Ilubani, which was regularly heard before judges and witnesses from Nin-marki. They had awarded the house and garden to Ilubani. Sin-mubali? was now bound over to dispute the t.i.tle no more. ?ammurabi.(206)

Here it seems that on the deposition of Rim-Sin by ?ammurabi, Sin-mubali?, excluded by his bond from disputing Ilubani's t.i.tle, sold his claim to Mar-Martu, who attempted to enter into possession. Possibly it was thought that the new rulers would reverse the old decision.

(M293)

The sons of Namiatum sue their mother, Iashu?atum, about her share of their father's property. She appears before the judges of Babylon and puts in an inventory to show that she has taken nothing from the family possessions. Then the sons of Namiatum renounce further claim on the ground of family possession to the property of Idin-Adadi, Iashu?atum and their descendants.

Samsu-iluna 2.(207)

It seems that, after the death of Namiatum, Iashu?atum married again. The children of the first marriage bring an action to secure judgment that she shall not take with her any property of their father's. She had, as we know, a right to take with her her marriage-portion, but not her husband's gifts to her.

Amel-Ninsa? sues Garudu for the rent of a field. The debtor not paying was ejected. Apil-Sin.(208)

Shumi-er?itim sues for right to a sheep and some corn, the _naptanu_ of a G.o.d. Judges grant him half share. ?ammurabi 9.(209)

Judges summon Ibik-iltum before Elali-bani to account for corn. He purges himself on oath. N. D.(210)

Amat-Shamash claims to be the adopted daughter of Shamash-gamil and his wife Ummi-Ara?tum. Her witnesses proving unsatisfactory, her claim was disallowed on the oath of Ummi-Ara?tum that they had never adopted her. ?ammurabi (?).(211)

Ilushu-abushu hired a pack-a.s.s, _imer bilti_, of Ardi-Sin and ?illi-Ishtar and lost it. The judges awarded them sixteen shekels of silver as compensation. Apil-Sin 5.(212)

Babilitum sued Erish-Saggil, Ubar-Nabium, and Marduk-na?ir for a share of her family possessions, _bit abia_. The judges a.s.signed her a share. Samsu-iluna 5.(213)

Nidnusha and Shamash-abilu sue the daughter of Sin-eribam about property which she claimed to have inherited. They charge her with having forged the will of Amti-Shamash in her favor. The judges went to Gagim, where the property was, and examined witnesses who proved that Amti-Shamash had left the property to the daughter of Sin-eribam. The judges therefore confirmed her t.i.tle. N. D.(214)

Mar-er?itim left a female slave Dami?tum to Erib-Sin. His wife Mazabatum and his brother Ibni-Shamash dispute this legacy. The judges inspect a doc.u.ment by which Erib-Sin, on the suit of Mar-er?itim, had granted Dami?tum to Mazabatum and Ibni-Shamash.

The judges return Dami?tum to Mazabatum. ?ammurabi (?).(215)

(M294) In a.s.syrian times we have comparatively few legal decisions. The judges who appear are the _sartenu_, or chief-justice; the _?azanu_, the chief civil magistrate of a city, the parallel of the ancient _rabianu_; the _sukallu_, or chamberlain; and one or two others, besides the simple _daianu_, or judge. Some of these are not judicial officers, but act in that capacity.

Usually the judge is said to lay the blame on the guilty party, _arnam eli A emedu_; or to lay the penalty upon one, _sartu eli A emedu_. The sentence itself was a _dienu_, or "judgment." As in former times, the legal decisions refer to all manner of cases, and here more than anywhere else a mere translation does not convey much meaning to the reader.

Thus:(216) a scribe A prosecuted a farmer B for the theft of a bull. They came before Nabu-zer-kenish-lishir, the deputy _?azanu_ of Nineveh. Rest.i.tution, bull for bull, was imposed on the defendant, who meantime was held for the fine. "On the day that he shall have made good the value of the bull he shall go free."

Dated the 12th of Elul. Eponymy of Mushallim-Ashur. Twelve witnesses.

Again:(217) A stole four slaves of B, who summoned him before the _sukallu_. The judge laid on him a fine of two hundred and ten minas of copper. B then deposited a pledge with A, either himself, or a slave, to perform work equivalent to the amount of the debt.

If B, or any representative of his, pays the money, the pledge is void. "Whoever shall withdraw from this agreement, Ashur and Shamash shall be his judges, he shall pay ten minas of silver and ten minas of gold, he shall pay it in the treasury of Belit."

Dated the 10th of Adar, B.C. 678. Eleven witnesses.

Here is another case, relating to a breach of trust:(218)

(M295)

The decision of the chief-justice, which he laid on ?ani. Three hundred sheep, with their belongings, property of the king's son were lost, or killed by the shepherds. Each shepherd was condemned to pay two talents of bronze as his fine. ?ani, and his people, and his fields, were taken as security for the payment for the three hundred sheep, and the fines due from the shepherds.

"Whoever shall demand him, his _aknu_, his _rab ki?ir_, or any representative of his, shall pay for three hundred sheep and the fines for the shepherds and then ?ani shall be released." Dated 27th of Sebat, B.C. 679. Four witnesses.

The defendant had been intrusted with three hundred sheep, which he had to return in full, with a proper increase of lambs. But, evidently in the disorders which arose on the death of Sennacherib, ?ani had lost or made away with them. If he had intrusted them to shepherds, either the shepherds had killed them, or, as some take it, ?ani had killed the shepherds. In the former case he owed two talents of bronze as fine from each shepherd, in the latter he had to pay the same amount for each.

Either way, he was held responsible for the value of three hundred sheep and two talents of bronze for each shepherd. He and all he had were seized for the liability. It is interesting to note that his district governor, or the colonel of the regiment to which he belonged, was thought likely to liberate him; but some other representative might do so. The lost property belonged to the king's son. This may have been Esarhaddon, or one of Sennacherib's other sons. But, at any rate, it is clear that Esarhaddon was putting his household in order.

(M296) The other examples known to us do not add to our legal knowledge.

The subjects are chiefly misappropriations of property and there is little variety.

(M297) The later Babylonian tablets throw some light upon legal procedure in Babylon. The greater detail exhibited by them is due largely to the fact that for this period we have so many private doc.u.ments. The greater portion of the material for this part of the subject has been worked over by Professor J. Kohler and Dr. F. E. Peiser, in their valuable treatise _Aus Babylonische Rechtsleben_. Little can be added beyond additional examples and ill.u.s.tration.

(M298) The judges acted as a college and not separately. There might be present at a case a chief judge and several judges a.s.sisting. Other cases were decided before a single judge. The _ibutu_ continue to act as a jury. They were the elders of the city, competent to decide the rights of the case. But the exact form of the organization is not yet quite clear.

The process began with the charge. The plaintiff preferred this himself, or by a messenger. His plea was heard and his proofs considered. Then the court caused the accused to come before them and answer the charge.

(M299) The process admitted of a third person intervening. Thus, A had pledged a plot of land to B for thirty-two shekels. Then he sold the property to C. C, dying, left the property to D, who wished to take possession from B, who continued to hold it in pledge. B goes to the judges and complains against D. A, being yet alive, intervenes and probably has to pay B. But the tablet being defective, we are not able to follow the case further. Only we see the sort of right which each had.