ed and enjoyed
by him at the first, but the king bought it of him and granted it to
me--or--Another got the field and gave it to me; in that case, as the
proofs of him who has the older title are of no consequence, and thus
he is disposed of, the witnesses of the other claimant are to be
examined. It is incorrect [to read the sloka as asserting] that, where
there is a denial [of a claim] the witnesses of the plaintiff shall be
examined, and where a former judgment or something as a ground of
defence is set up, in [either of] which cases the original claim is
met, then the witnesses of the defendant shall be heard; inasmuch as
all this is included in the rule,--(here the Commentator quotes the
7th sloka of the text). This view is clearly supported by Narada,
_viz._ On a denial, proof is upon the plaintiff; where some ground of
defence is stated, upon the defendant; upon an allegation of prior
decree, the decree shall be the proof.--After this Narada
proceeds:--When there are two claimants, if there be witnesses, the
witnesses of the prior claimant shall be [first examined]--So we
perceive, this [description of] law-suit is distinguished from all
others." These quotations favor the supposition, that the science of
special-pleading is not of European origin, and is traceable to a
remote antiquity.]

[Footnote 60: Supra sl. 11.]

[Footnote 61: _e.g._ that the defendant has got possession of gold and
silver and apparel, &c. (_M._)]

[Footnote 62: Supra, sl. 6. The Commentator excludes from the
operation of the harsh rule in this 20th sloka, an heir, who is
supposed to deny his ancestor's debt or liability through ignorance;
but he attempts to justify the rule itself by experience of human
conduct.]

[Footnote 63: This Sastra teaches a system or science of ethics
such as moralists now-a-days designate as Machiavellian or jesuitical;
in which right or wrong have a relative but little intrinsic meaning.

The Artha Sastra is to be found in the writings of Usanas, of
Brihaspati and others.]

[Footnote 64: A special-pleading signification is given to this dogma
by the Commentator: _viz._

"In questions of debt, &c., though the prior act have been proved, yet
a second act may be more important; _e.g._ if one prove that another
by borrowing has incurred debt, and the other prove that the money
borrowed has been repaid." (_M._)]

[Footnote 65: The word in the original is, acceptance: but this is
evidently used as the conc