of Narada) that the latter refers only to the general object
of the suit, _e.g._, that if his verbal complaint be of a loan of
money, his recorded complaint shall not be of a loan of apparel--but
that this clause, in the ninth sloka, ensures further uniformity in
the description of the grievance and character of the suit, _e.g._,
where one has originally complained of retention of 100 pieces of
money lent, he shall not vary his complaint to a forcible taking of
100 pieces.]

[Footnote 50: These are expressed by one word, _kalaha_: but the
Commentator notes its comprehensive character, as we have translated
it. See the analogous passage in Manu, ch. 8, sl. 6, where an equally
ambiguous word _parushya_ is similarly explained in the text itself.
The term rendered "slander" by Sir Wm. Jones is simply, reviling or
verbal abuse.]

[Footnote 51: _sahasa_, explained by the Commentator, assault by means
of poison, or any instrument destructive of life. The word has another
and more particular signification, as infra sl. 230.]

[Footnote 52: Manu (ch. 8, sl. 59) inflicts a fine of double the debt
upon the mendacious debtor.]

[Footnote 53: _parushya_, explained by the Commentator _kalaha_: see
note [50].]

[Footnote 54: We have followed the Commentator in rendering these
terms, which are very general and indefinite.]

[Footnote 55: _i. e._ restlessly before the Court.]

[Footnote 56: Manu ch. 8, sl. 25, 26.]

[Footnote 57: ibid, sl. 55, 56.]

[Footnote 58: Literally "put down," _i. e._ taken for granted, all
question of it disposed of. See next note.]

[Footnote 59: This sloka is by no means unambiguous: but it is
satisfactorily explained by the Commentator, who says: "What course is
to be adopted where two parties simultaneously present themselves to
the Court and tender proofs? _e.g._ A man acquired a field by gift,
and, having for some time possessed it, departed with his family to
another country: then, another person obtained a gift of the same
field, and, having possessed it awhile, was likewise obliged to go to
another country. Both parties return at the same time, claim the same
field, and resort to a Court of law. Then arises the question,--whose
proofs shall be taken? Yajnavalkya says (ut supra sl. 17); that is to
say, where one sets up an older title, saying--I was possessed of this
field at such a date--his witnesses are the first to be examined; but
should the other party urge--True, the field was acquir