XVII.
Here follow eight more cases, viz.
1. Cupíta sábda permána, where one of four persons engaged in a law-suit, being deputed to act for the others, it appears, on examination of the witnesses, that the affair cannot be settled with this one person.
2. Hanúk meng tan wíring wísa, where a witness, on re-examination, gives a different account from that which he gave when previously examined by the Jáksa. In such case the Jáksa must endeavour to discover which is the most plausible account of the two.
3. Kawílut tára, where opposition takes place between the witnesses, or between those whose cause it is, and others who have been eye-witnesses of what is the subject of litigation.
4. Bháning hanámpuh tóya, where a person is assisted by one who is in the administration of justice.
5. Ng'ádang tárka, where, on a trial taking place, the deposition of a party differs from the account previously taken down by the Jáksa. In this case, such party should be cast.
6. Ng'áling'ga pandáya, when one takes for witnesses worthless persons who cannot be depended on or believed.
7. Eluádi, where a person changes, tears, or makes an erasure in any paper.
8. Kahústi sábda parláya, where a person shamelessly makes free with what belongs to another, who is neither a friend nor relation.
XVIII.
Of cases where a Law-Suit cannot be instituted.
These are five in number, viz. 1. Where the evidence is not clear; 2. Where an article which has been lost by one person is found in the possession of another, who cannot tell whence he got it; 3. Where the evidence of the witnesses produced by any party varies from that of the parties themselves; 4. Where no evidence exists. In this case, the party who can give the most plausible story will obtain a decision in his favour; 5. Where the agent of another in any law-suit is cast.