व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

20 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ B I 39-I 3.1
[ M p 14 l. 30-p. 15 l. 19
The relation of suretyship of creditor and debtor and of being a wit-
ness is not allowed by the smṛtis among brothers between husband and
wife ¹and between father and son so long as they are undivided
Kātyāyana declares (the consequences) if there be no surety
If there is no surety for a party who is able to meet the judgment (i e
pay the decretal amount and fine) then he (that party) should be kept
under guard and at the end of the day he should pay the wages of the
servant (who guarded him)
The same author says
A person of the regenerate classes unable to furnish a surety should be
guarded by those (servants of the king) who are outside (the court),
but (the king) should put in chains śūdras and the like who cannot
furnish a surety
Nārada (p 29 v 24) describes the characteristics of a losing party²
That man who abandoning his former statement (or ground of claim),
has recourse to another should be regarded as a losing party on account of
his wandering from one plea (to another)
*Yājñavalkya (2 13 15) describes a person who (whose testimony) is vitiat-
ed (and is therefore unacceptable in court)
He, who moves from one position to another (i e who is restless when
giving evidence) who licks his lips, whose forehead perspires whose face
changes colour who utters his words with stammer and with a dry tongue
who speaks much and incoherently who does not heed the speech or eye (i e
who does not reply straight to the judge's question nor fix his eye on the
judge) who contorts his lips who exhibits change from his ordinary (natural)
state in mind, speech and bodily actions, he is declared to be a vitiated
person as regards a complaint or being a witness
'Sṛkkiṇī' means the corners of the lips
Now (begins) the exposition of the means of proof
Yājñavalkya (II 22) says
Documents possession and witnesses are declared to be means of proof
In the absence of (even) one of these one of the super-natural (modes of
proof) is prescribed
Kātyāyana also (says)
If one (litigant) puts forward human means of proof and the other
(his opponent) relies on divine (means of proof) the king should in such
1 Vide notes to V M. p 42 as to separation between husband and wife Āpastamba
(Dh. S II. 6. 14 16) declares that there can be no division between husband and wife, but
the Mit. explains that the words apply to religious rites and not to wealth.
2 Vide p. 18 above for the same verse
P 21 (text)