[97] ‘Listen, my friend, to the enumeration, in order, of the number of relatives that a man destroys when he lies in testifying: [98] he destroys five by lying about livestock, and he destroys ten by lying about cows; he destroys a hundred by lying about horses, and a thousand by lying about men. [99] He kills the born and the unborn by lying in a matter that concerns gold, and he kills everything by lying about land; therefore you certainly should not lie about land. [100] And they say that (lying) about water, about sexual union and the carnal enjoyment of women, about all jewels that are born in water or are made of stone, is like (lying about) land. [101] Taking into consideration all of these faults that result from telling lies, you should tell everything straight-forwardly, just as you heard it and just as you saw it.’ [102] (The king) should treat like servants priests who tend cattle, who are merchants, workmen, travelling bards, menial servants, and usurers.
[103] A man who testifies in a concern for justice even though he knows that (the facts) in the case are other than what he says does not fall from the world of heaven; they call that the speech of the gods. [104] In a case where telling the truth would cause the death of a servant, commoner, ruler, or priest, one should tell a lie, for that is better than the truth. [105] Those who wish to make the supreme redemption for the guilt of that lie should sacrifice to Sarasvatī with consecrated pots of porridge dedicated to the goddess of speech. [106] Or he should make an oblation of clarified butter into the fire in accordance with the rules, reciting the pumpkin verses, or the ṛg Vedic verse to Varuṇa that begins, ‘Untie, Varuṇa, the uppermost rope,’ or the three verses to the waters. [107] If a man who is not ill does not give evidence about a debt and so forth within three fortnights (after he is summoned), he incurs the entire debt and (must pay as a fine) a tenth part of the whole. [108] If a witness who has testifed is seen to experience sickness, a fire, or a death in the family within seven days, he must pay the debt and a fine.
[109] But if (the king) cannot find the truth about the facts when two men are disputing matters in which there are no witnesses, he may also get it by means of an oath. [110] Even the great sages and the gods swore oaths to decide cases, and Vasistha even swore an oath before (Sudās) the son of Pījavana. [111] An intelligent man should not swear an oath falsely even in a trifling matter, for a man who swears an oath falsely is destroyed after death and here on earth. [112] But there is no crime in a (false) oath about women whom one desires, marriages, fodder for cows, fuel, and helping a priest. [113] (The king) should have a priest swear by truth, a ruler by his horse and chariot and his weapons, a commoner by his cows, seed, and gold, and a servant by all the crimes. [114] Or he should have him carry fire, or have him plunge under water, or even touch the heads of his wives and children individually. [115] If the blazing fire does not burn him, and the waters do not buoy him up, and he meets with no disaster quickly, he should be recognized as unpolluted in his oath. [116] For long ago, when Vatsa was accused by his younger brother, the fire that is the spy of the universe did not burn even one of the hairs of his body, because of his truth.
[117] If false evidence has been given in any dispute, (the king) should re-try the case, and whatever has been done should be undone. [118] Evidence given through greed, confusion, fear, friendship, lust, anger, ignorance, or naivety is said to be invalid. [119] I will explain, in order, the particular punishments for anyone who lies in testifying in each of these circumstances: [120] (for giving false evidence) through greed, he should be fined a thousand pennies, and (for giving false evidence) through confusion, (he should be fined) at the first level; if through fear, he should be fined two of the middle level, and through friendship, four of the first level; [121] if through lust, ten of the first level; if through anger, three of the highest level; if through ignorance, two full hundreds, and if through naivety, just one hundred. [122] They say that wise men proclaimed these fines for false evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to restrain injustice. [123] A just king should fine and banish the (lower) three classes if they give false evidence, but he should merely banish a priest.
[124] Manu the son of the Self-existent has proclaimed ten places on which the three (lower) classes may be punished, but a priest should depart uninjured: [125] the genitals, stomach, tongue, two hands, and two feet as the fifth, and the eye, nose, two ears, property, and the body. [126] When the king has accurately ascertained the motive and the time and place, and has considered the strength (of the criminal to endure punishment) and the offence itself, he should have punishment brought down upon those who should be punished. [127] Unjust punishment injures the reputation and destroys the fame (of the king) in this world, and keeps him from heaven in the next world; therefore he should avoid it entirely. [128] A king who punishes those who should not be punished and does not punish those who should be punished gets a very bad reputation and then goes to hell. [129] First he should punish with (normal) speech, and right after that with exclamations of reproof; but the third punishment is (confiscation) of property, and after that comes the last, corporal or capital punishment. [130] But when he cannot repress them even by corporal or capital punishment, then he should use even this entire quartet on them.
[131] I will explain, leaving nothing out, the names of (the weights of) copper, silver, and gold that people normally use to do business on earth.
[132] The tiny speck of dust that is seen when the sun shines through a lattice window is said to be the first measurement and is called a ‘quivering atom’. [133] Eight ‘quivering atoms’ are considered equal in measurement to one ‘louse-egg’; three of these (‘louse-eggs’) equal one ‘black mustard-seed’, and three of these (‘black mustard-seeds’) equal one ‘white mustard-seed’. [134] Six (white) ‘mustard-seeds’ equal one medium-sized ‘barley-corn’, and three ‘barley-corns’ make one ‘berry’; five ‘berries’ make a ‘bean’, sixteen ‘beans’ a ‘gold-piece’. [135] Four ‘gold-pieces’ equal a ‘straw’, ten ‘straws’ make a ‘support’; two ‘berries’ (of silver), weighed together, equal one silver ‘small bean’. [136] Sixteen of these (‘small beans’) make a silver ‘support’ or an ‘old coin’; but a penny of copper weighing as much as a ‘scratch’ is known as a ‘scratch-penny’. [137] Ten ‘supports’ (of silver) should be known as a silver ‘hundred-weight’; and four ‘gold-pieces’ are one ‘gold ornament’.
[138] Two hundred and fifty pennies is traditionally regarded as the lowest level (of fine), five (hundred) is regarded as the middle level, and a thousand is the highest.
[139] If it has been acknowledged that a debt must be paid, (the debtor) deserves to pay five per cent (as a fine); if it has been denied (and proved), the fine is double that; this is Manu’s instruction. [140] A money-lender may use an interest rate to increase his capital as Vasistha decreed, and take one and a quarter per cent every month. [141] Or, if he bears in mind the laws of good men, he may take two per cent, for a man who takes two per cent commits no offence for profit. [142] He may take as monthly interest two, three, four, or five per cent, in order of class.
[143] But he may not collect interest on the loan of a pledge that has been pawned with him to use freely, nor can he discard or sell that pledge after he has kept it for a long time. [144] A pledge must not be made use of by force, and the man who uses it must give up the interest; he must satisfy (the owner) by paying its original price, or else he would be a pledge-thief. [145] Neither a pledge nor something loaned for personal use should be lost through time, for both of them may be taken back (even) when they have been kept for a long time. [146] Things that are used with good will are never lost – a cow, a camel, a carriage horse, or (an animal) that is being broken in. [147] But if an owner watches in silence for ten years while something (of his) is used by others in his presence, he does not deserve to get it back. [148] If something that belongs to a man who is neither an idiot nor immature is used while he is within range, it is legally lost; the one who uses it deserves to have it. [149] A pledge
, a boundary, the property of a child, a deposit, something loaned for personal use, women, the possessions of a king, and the possessions of a priest who knows his Veda by heart, are not lost as a result of being used (by someone else). [150] Anyone who is so stupid as to use a pledge without the permission of its owner must give up half the interest as redemption for its use.
[151] Interest from money-lending paid at one time should not exceed double (the principal), but on grain, produce, fleece, or draught animals it should not exceed five times (the principal). [152] Excessive interest above the customary rate is not legal, and they call this the path of money-lending; a man has a right to five per cent. [153] He should not take interest that extends for more than a year or that is not recognized, nor compound interest, periodical interest, forced interest, or corporal interest. [154] If a man is unable to pay a debt and wishes to make a new contract, he may pay the interest that is due and turn around the legal instrument. [155] If he cannot produce the gold, he should turn it around into that very (agreement), but he must (eventually) pay as much interest as has accrued.
[156] If a man has imposed compound interest (on a debtor) and has stipulated the time and place (of payment), he should not reap the fruit of it if he lets the time and place go by. [157] When men who are expert in ocean transportation, and can calculate the time, place, and goods, establish an interest rate, that is the rate for the payment of that particular transaction. [158] If a man stands as a guarantor for the appearance (of a debtor) and does not produce him here, he must pay the debt out of his own property. [159] A son does not have to pay (his father’s debts contracted) through acting as a guarantor or by making useless gifts, nor gambling debts, bar bills, or the unpaid remainder of a fine or a tax. [160] The rule set forth above should apply to a guarantor for the appearance (of a debtor), but if a man who stands as a guarantor for payment dies, (the king) may even make his heirs pay the debt. [161] For what reason, then, may a man who has lent money try to recover the debt after the death of a guarantor who did not pay and whose disposition (in this matter) was well known? [162] If the guarantor had received money and had enough, then (his heir) who receives it (in turn) should pay the debt out of his own money; this is a fixed rule.
[163] A contract is not valid when it is made by an unauthorized person or by someone drunk, crazy, in pain, or totally dependent, or a child, or an old man. [164] A verbal agreement does not become binding, even when it is well supported, if what is said is outside the bounds of justice and outside of customary business practices. [165] (The king) should make entirely void anything pledged or sold by fraud, anything given or received by fraud, or (any transaction) in which he detects circumvention. [166] If a debtor dies and the money was spent for the benefit of his immediate family, his relatives should pay the debt from their own property, even if they are (now) dispersed. [167] If even someone totally dependent makes a contract for the benefit of his immediate family, his superior should not rescind it, whether he is living at home or travelling away from home. [168] What is given by force, enjoyed by force, and also what is written by force, indeed all matters that are done by force Manu has declared to be undone.
[169] Three suffer for the sake of someone else: the witnesses, the guarantor, and the family; and four amass a pile (of money at the expense of someone else): a priest, a rich man, a merchant, and a king. [170] A king, even if he is insolvent, should not take what should not be taken, nor, even if he is rich, should he reject even a tiny thing that should be accepted. [171] As a result of taking what should not be taken, and rejecting what should be accepted, a king gets a reputation for weakness and is destroyed here on earth and after death. [172] But as a result of taking what is his and protecting the weak from the confusion of castes, the king’s power springs forth and he thrives here on earth and after death. [173] Therefore the ruler should disregard his own likes and dislikes, just like Yama, and he should behave like Yama, conquering his anger and his sensory powers. [174] His enemies soon get control over the evil-hearted king who is so deluded as to try legal cases unjustly. [175] But if he restrains his desire and anger and tries legal cases justly, his subjects run after him as rivers run to the ocean.
[176] If a man accuses a creditor before the king of recovering his debt in a manner of his own choosing, the king should make him pay the money to (the creditor) and fine him a quarter of the debt. [177] A debtor, if he is of the same class or of a lower class than his creditor, may pay off his debt to him even by physical labour; but if he is of a higher class, he should pay it off gradually. [178] The king should make an equitable decision according to these rules between men disputing legal cases that are proven by witnesses and evidence.
[179] An intelligent man will make a deposit with an Aryan of good family and good conduct, who understands the law and speaks the truth, has a large following, and is wealthy. [180] A man should take back his deposit in the same condition in which he deposited it in the other man’s hands; as the giving, so the receiving. [181] If a man does not give back a deposit when it is requested by the depositor, the interrogating judge may ask him for it in the depositor’s absence. [182] If there is no witness, (the judge) himself should actually make a deposit of gold with the man, under some pretext and through the mediation of secret agents of the right age and appearance, [183] and if he returns it in the same manner and form that it had when it was deposited, then nothing for which others have brought proceedings against him is found in him. [184] But if he does not give that gold back to them in accordance with the rules, then he should be forced to pay back both (deposits); this is an established rule of justice.
[185] Neither a deposit nor something loaned for personal use should ever be returned to the nearest relative (of the depositor), for if a calamity occurs (to that relative), both (deposit and loan) are lost, though if there is no calamity they are not lost. [186] But if (the depositary) of his own will returns (the deposit) to the nearest relative of the (depositor) after his death, neither the king nor the depositor’s relatives should bring proceedings against him. [187] And he should try to get the object not by a trick but in a friendly and pleasant manner, or else he should investigate the (depositary’s) conduct and achieve his purposes by gentle persuasion. [188] This rule applies to the attempt to get back all those deposits; but nothing should be held against (the depositary of) a sealed deposit, if he has not taken anything out of it. [189] (The depositary) need not give back a deposit that has been stolen by thieves, washed away by water, or burnt by fire, if he has not taken anything out of it.
[190] If a man takes away a deposit or is not a depositor (and claims the deposit), (the king) should investigate him by all (sorts of means) and by Vedic oaths. [191] Both a man who does not return a deposit and one who asks for it when he has not deposited it should be punished like thieves or made to pay a fine equal (to the value of the deposit). [192] If a man takes away a deposit or keeps something loaned for personal use, the king should make him pay a fine equal (to the value of the deposit), without distinction. [193] Any man who takes away another man’s property through circumvention should be publicly struck down by various sorts of corporal or capital punishments, together with his accomplices. [194] If someone makes a deposit of a certain measurement and value in the presence of the family, it should be recognized as being of that measurement and value, and anyone who says otherwise deserves to be punished. [195] But a deposit that has been privately delivered and received should be privately returned; as the giving, so the receiving. [196] The king should thus make his decision about a deposit of money and something loaned in a friendly way for personal use, without bankrupting the man who holds the deposit.
[197] If anyone sells the property of another man when he is not the owner and has not been given permission by the owner, (the king) should not use him as a witness, for he is a thief even though he may not regard himself as a thief. [198] If he is connected (with the owner), he should be made to pay a fine of six hundred (pennies); if h
e is not connected, and has no excuse, he would be guilty of theft. [199] But if anything is given or sold by someone who does not own it, it should be regarded as if it had not been done, according to the fixed rule in legal proceedings. [200] If a man is seen to be making use of something, but no title at all is to be seen, then the title is the proof (of ownership), not the use; this is a fixed rule. [201] If a man gets any piece of property by a sale in the presence of his family, he gets that property clearly and legally by purchase. [202] If the original (man who sold it but did not own it) cannot be produced, but (the buyer) is cleared by the public sale, he should be released by the king and not punished, but the (true owner) who lost the property should get it back.
[203] One thing mixed with another should not be sold, nor anything that is spoiled, deficient, far away, or concealed. [204] If one girl is shown but another is given to the bridegroom, he may marry both of them for the single bride-price; that is what Manu says. [205] If a girl is crazy or leprous or has lost her virginity, and the man who gives her in marriage announces her flaws ahead of time, he does not deserve to be punished.
[206] If an officiating priest chosen for a sacrifice abandons his own work, those who work with him should give him only a share (of the sacrificial gift) in proportion to the work he has done. [207] But if he abandons his own work after the sacrificial gifts have been given to the officiating priests, he should receive his entire share and have someone else do (the rest of his work). [208] If individual sacrificial gifts have been declared for each part of a ceremony, only he (who carries out that part) should receive them or they should all share (all the gifts). [209] (If each takes his own part,) the sacrificing priest should take the chariot, and the overseer priest who serves at the kindling of the fire (should take) the horse, the priest of the oblation should also take a horse, and the cantor the cart used for the purchase (of Soma). [210] Among them all, the chief priests, who are entitled to a half, should have half (the sacrificial gifts); the next group should have half of that half, the group entitled to a third should have a third, and the group entitled to a fourth should have a quarter. [211] The distribution of shares here among men who, together, do each his own work should be carried out by the application of this rule.
The Laws of Manu Page 26