and the majority is equivalent, in effect, to the whole-. It is other-
wife where all the four boundaries are mentioned, and there happens-
to be a miftake with refpecl to one of the four, for in this cafe the
claim is falfified : in oppofition to the cafe where a definition of one of
them is omitted, as that does not induce a falfification of the claim.—
(It is to be obferved that, in the fame manner as a definition of the.
boundaries is requifite in a claim regarding immoveable property, fo is
it alfo requifite in giving evidence.)— With refpeft to what was before ,
advanced, that the plaintiff muft fay “ that land h in the pofejfwn o f
the defendant, &c.” this is indifpenfibly requifite ; becaufe the defendant
is not liable to the fuit, unlefs he be poffelfed of the land. As,
however, the affertion of the plaintiff and the verification of the defendant
is not alone fufficient to prové this, it is requifite that the
plaintiff prove the poffeffion of the défendant hy the evidence of wit-
neffes, or that the Kdzee be himfelf acquainted with the circumftance.
This is approved ; becaufe in the affertion of the plaintiff and the verification
of the defendant there is ropm for fufpicion, fince it is flill
poffible that the land may be in the poffeffion of another, and that they
may have agreed in its being in the poffeffion of the defendant, to induce
the Kdzee to pafs a decree.— It is otherwife with refpeft to move-
able property, becaufe the feizin of the poffeffor heing, in that cafe,
determinable by fight, there is no neceffity for proof by means o f
witneffes.—With refpeâ fo the plaintiff's faying “ I claim it from
“ the defendant,” this is alfa indifpenfibly requifite ; becaufe to demand
it is his right, and the demand, muff therefore be made; and
alfo, bêcaufe it is poffible that the land may be in the poffeffion of the
defendant in virtue of pawnage,— or detention after a file of it, to
anfwer the price,— and this apprehenfion 'is removed by thé claim of
it.__Lawyers have obferved that becaufé Of the above poffibility, it is
requifite, in a cafe of moveable property, that the plaintiff declare that
the thing is wnjuftly in the poffeffion Of the defendant.
If
If the claim relate to debt, it is fufficient for the plaintiff to fay
S J cia;m jt-j For as the perfon on whom the obligation refts is
himfelf prefent, there remains only the claim of it; and this it is incumbent
on the plaintiff to make, becaufe ft is his right, and alfo,
becaufe, until he himfelf claim it, the Kdzee can take no notice of it.
It is, however, neceffary that he explain whether it confift of dirms
or deendrs, and whether it be gold or filver, as fuch explanation defines
the debt.
W hat has now been mentioned is an explanation or the validity
o f claims._It is to be obferved that where the claim of a plaintiff is
valid, the Kdzee muft interrogate the defendant, and afk him “ whe-
“ ther the plea be true or not ?” I f he acknowledge the truth of it,
then the Kdzee muft pafs a decree, founded upon his acknowlegment,
becaufe acknowledgment does in itfelf produce the effect: the Kdzee
muft, therefore, order the defendant to giye up the poffeffion of the
article concerning which he has made the acknowledgment, and to
deliver it to the plaintiff.— If, on the other hand, the defendant deny
the truth of the allegation, the Kdzee muft require the plaintiff to produce
evidence, becaufe the prophet, in a cafe where a defendant objected
to the allegation, laid firft to the plaintiff “ have you evidence? ”
and on his .anfwering in the negative, he then faid f‘ it belongs to
“ you to demand an oath from the defendant.” Now it appears from
this tradition, that the right of demanding an oath from the defendant,
refts upon the defect of evidence, on, the part of the plaintiff;
and hence it is requifite firft to demand the evidence of the plaintiff^
and on his making known his inability to produce it, to demand an
oath from the defendant.— If, therefore, the plaintiff'produce evidence
in atteftation of his claim, the Kdzee muft pafs a decree in his
favour., as in that cafe there cannot be any fufpicion of fallity.— If,
on the other hand, he be unable to . produce evidence, and demand
the defendant to be put to his oath, in that cafe the Kazee (becaufe
K 2 of
A claim for
debt requires
only the
claim.
and adefcrip-
tion o f the
fpecies and
amount.
Procefs to be
obferved by
the Kdz.ee.