By a legal decision we understand a “judgment” pronounced by some judicial authority upon a case submitted. It is not easy to say whether the Babylonians had a separate name for this sort of transaction; but it had some peculiarities by which it can be easily recognized. It usually opens with the words, duppu ana, “tablet on,” followed by the statement of the object in dispute. This is very often abbreviated to a simple ana, “on,” or aŠŠum = ana Šum, “concerning,” or eli with the same sense.

These usages explain the curious tablet172 where we have a long series of sections each containing names associated with other names by the word aŠŠum. Thus we read:173

It is not clear whether Shamash-ellatsu was the adversary of NishÎnishu, or the subject of her suit. But we clearly have here a “trial list” of seventeen cases. Whether they were all decided in one day, month, or year, or whether they were reserved for the royal audience, we have no means of telling. It is merely a list. The object in dispute, “two SAR of land,” is occasionally given; or the court is named “the temple of Shamash,” or “at the gate of Shamash.” The whole text is too fragmentary to be translated, but we may [pg 101] note that some lady or other is always a party to the suit. If we could find the tablets referring to the decisions intended and they should turn out to be of different years, this list might prove of value for chronology.

Legal decisions relate to all manner of subjects and consequently are difficult to arrange. Dr. Meissner adopted the excellent plan of appending them to the groups concerned with the class of property dealt with under them. Thus a legal decision concerned with the sale of a house would be grouped with the house sales. But this does not suit all cases, and both in formula and subject the legal decisions are really distinct. Most legal decisions add nothing to our knowledge of the law, merely recording that “A sued B and lost the day and is now bound over not to renew the litigation.” A large number go only a little further, thus:174

Here it is not stated what was the ground on which the parties disagreed, nor that they laid claim to more than one-half GAN of land. They lost the case. That is all we know in many other cases. Often we do not know the object in dispute. Other cases are quite full and often very instructive. Thus:175

This was a bad case of desertion. The husband, Sin-nÂ?ir, deserted his wife for twenty years, but on her death came back and claimed her property. This he was not allowed to do, by the Code.176 In his absence, ?ulaltum had cared for AiatÎa, either as his real, or only adopted, daughter. In either case, AiatÎa had left ?ulaltum a slave-girl, Adkallim, whom Sin-nÂ?ir now claimed. His claim was disallowed.

The decisions which we now possess give little further information as to the legal procedure, but a series of abstracts will illustrate the legal points which they raise.

In the above cases there is no explicit mention of judges. The next group are cases before judges where fact of suit, subject and result are given, but not the pleas presented.

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

Here it seems that on the deposition of Rim-Sin by ?ammurabi, Sin-mubali?, excluded by his bond from disputing IlubÂnÎ's title, sold his claim to MÂr-Martu, who attempted to enter into possession. Possibly it was thought that the new rulers would reverse the old decision.

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.

[pg 106]

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

ShÛmi-er?itim sues for right to a sheep and some corn, the naptÁnu of a god. Judges grant him half share. ?ammurabi 9.209

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

Amat-Shamash claims to be the adopted daughter of Shamash-gÂmil 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-ass, 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

BabilÎtum sued Erish-Saggil, Ubar-Nabium, and Marduk-nÂ?ir for a share of her family possessions, bÎt abiŠa. The judges assigned 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 title. N. D.214

MÂr-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 document by which Erib-Sin, on the suit of MÂr-er?itim, had granted Dami?tum to Mazabatum and Ibni-Shamash. The judges return Dami?tum to Mazabatum. ?ammurabi (?).215

Legal practice of Assyrian times

In Assyrian times we have comparatively few legal decisions. The judges who appear are the sartÊnu, or chief-justice; the ?azÂnu, the chief civil magistrate of a city, the parallel of the ancient rabiÂnu; the sukallu, or chamberlain; and one or two others, besides the simple daiÂnu, or judge. Some of these are not judicial officers, but act in that capacity.

[pg 107]

Usually the judge is said to lay the blame on the guilty party, arnam eli A emÊdu; or to lay the penalty upon one, sartu eli A emÊdu. 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 NabÛ-zÊr-kÊnish-lÎshir, the deputy ?azÂnu of Nineveh. Restitution, 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 BÊlit.” Dated the 10th of Adar, b.c. 678. Eleven witnesses.

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

Damages for loss by agent

The decision of the chief-justice, which he laid on ?anÎ. 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. ?anÎ, 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 Šaknu, his rab ki?ir, or any representative of his, shall pay for three hundred sheep and the fines for the shepherds and then ?anÎ 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 [pg 108] of lambs. But, evidently in the disorders which arose on the death of Sennacherib, ?anÎ 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, ?anÎ 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.

Additional cases

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.

Later Babylonian decisions

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 documents. 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 illustration.

Method of procedure

The judges acted as a college and not separately. There might be present at a case a chief judge and several judges assisting. Other cases were decided before a single judge. The ŠibÛtu 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.

[pg 109]

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.

The possible complications

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.

Dispute for the possession of a sum of money

Another case is where two parties dispute as to the possession of a sum which is actually in the hands of a banker. The banker accordingly undertakes to produce the sum and its interest in court, and to pay it over to the successful party in the suit. The decision was written down and the notary of the court gave a copy to the plaintiff, if not also to the defendant, and kept one copy for the archives. The plaintiff thus obtained a guarantee against the defendant. But how it was enforced we have no evidence.

Suit regarding loan on mortgage

The kind of points in dispute and decided are, as before, exceedingly varied. The decisions for the most part illustrate other subjects rather than the processes in court; but a few examples may be of interest: A made an advance of forty-four shekels to B, who pledged a house for it. This state of affairs continued until both were dead. Their sons inherited. A's son demanded forty-four shekels of B's son who refused to pay. Both came before the judges. B's son, pleaded that the money was never loaned or else repaid long ago. The judges demanded evidence. Either the contract or a receipt must be produced. The claimant was able to present the contract, but no receipt was produced. So the [pg 110] judges assigned the claimant a plot of land belonging to the defendant as satisfaction for the proved debt. Here we have the tablet witnessed by the chief judge, the judges, and the notary.219 What is curious is that the claimant was not content to keep the pledge. But it is probable that the debt was secured on a house which the creditor did not take into his possession. It is also surprising that the judges did not order the house to be handed over to the claimant. That may have been avoided, because of the family rights over the house. The debtor might thus have been rendered houseless, or have lost “his father's house.” The widow may still have been an inmate. A great part of the document is taken up with the specification of the land handed over to the claimant. Hence a complete translation is not given.

Regarding possession of a slave

A common type of case was a vindication of right to some sort of property. Thus220 A had sold B a slave, but C came forward and said: “He is my slave who fled from me,” and took an oath by BÊl and NabÛ, that he knew where that slave was living with A. The judges decide that C shall go where the slave is, and when he has proved that he is with A, the slave shall return to C.

Acknowledgment of a debt

We have an acknowledgment before the court and a promise to pay the debt. This promise was usually made on oath, or guarantees were given. Here is an involved case. A is father of B's mother. B's father is long dead. The property of A, his grandfather, has now come into B's hands. He finds an old bond for an advance from A to C and D. The latter D is also dead but had a son E, who inherited. Hence B now sues C and E for the money. The bond is shown to C, who remembers and acknowledges the debt and he now undertakes to bring his fellow-debtor E and discharge the debt.

[pg 111]

Settlement out of court

Men did not always stand their trial, but sometimes settled the case by an agreement out of court.221 A and his wife sued B for some slaves, people of their house. B dreads the trial and does not appear. The wife was B's mother, evidently remarried. B brings the slaves whom he still has and offers four minas as payment for one who has died in his house. The offer is accepted and parties agree to be quit.

A private settlement

The decision of a dispute was not always referred to professional judges. A very interesting example occurs,222 when the eldest member of the family and kinatti apliŠu, “the family of his son,” act as judges. The plaintiff is an old lady, who had been married, and had a daughter married. These facts are not rehearsed in the tablet itself, which concerns a division of property, but are collected from a number of tablets, spread over some sixty years. The way in which information is thus collected is an instructive example of the manner in which the different documents illustrate and explain one another.223

Agreements to appear in court

Connected with legal decisions are the undertakings to appear before the court, of which we have several examples. Thus,224 A undertakes to bring B to Babylon and answer the complaint of C. Or again, a certain gardener spoke to A before an official of the mÂr banÛtu. This official was subpoenaed, as we should say, and swore by BÊl, NabÛ, and Darius, that on the 8th of Sebat, two days hence, he would come and take up the case.225

Production of witnesses

The production of witnesses is the subject of not a few undertakings. Thus,226 by a fixed date, five days hence, A shall bring B to be questioned about some asses belonging to the royal household. Again,227 N swears to come, six days hence, and bring another, on account of the witness about A. He further undertakes to establish the partnership. [pg 112] What was the exact cause of quarrel was not stated. These agreements to abide by the testimony of a named witness may have been entered into without reference to judges, but the oath may have been administered before the court. Thus,228 two parties agree to waive their dispute and abide by witness produced. This they do before the atÛ official of the gate of the temple. Again,229 A is to bring witnesses on the second of Ab, to the door of the tikkalu's house, and prove when and to whom he gave certain garments. If this be proved, that B had received them, B will restore the said garments to A; if not, B is free. Further, if B does not appear on that day, he shall be bound to restore the garments. Several other examples illustrate the point.230

Production of bond

A common method was, as has already been shown, to produce the bond or other document, establishing the claim. If, for some reason, the document was not producible, the oath of the scribe who wrote it might be admitted.231 The witnesses whose names appear on the document do not seem to have been summoned. But in one case,232 when two Persians had sold two slave-girls, also Persians, to a Babylonian; a third Persian, who had been witness to the sale, was called on to swear, “I know that the money was paid,” and he sealed the document.