Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/20

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: This page does not provide {{Header}} information. If you'd like to help, add a comment, or edit the page and replace "{{no header}}" with the following and fill in at least the title and author fields:
{{header
 | title      = 
 | author     = 
 | translator = 
 | section    = 
 | previous   = 
 | next       = 
 | notes      = 
}}

Paragraph 1- If one was found liable in court and brings witnesses or a proof to benefit him and void the ruling, we would void the ruling even though the case was already concluded and even if he paid already. If the judges told him you must bring any additional proof within 30 days and he brings a proof after 30 days, we would still void the ruling because what should he have done if he did not find a proof within 30 days but founds it after 30 days? If, however, they told him to bring witnesses or a proof and he said I don’t have one, if he later produces one, the proof is worthless. We certainly do not have to point out that if they asked him, do you have witnesses, and he responded, I do not have witnesses, and they asked him do you have a proof, and he said I do not have a proof, and they judged him and found him liable and now that he sees he is liable he calls two individuals to testify for him or he pulls a proof out of his shirt, that it is meaningless. We do not concern ourselves with him or his proof. If, however, he does not say I don’t have a proof, but was silent until he was found liable and he then asked for the witnesses to come forward and testify, we would void the ruling. This is all true where he had access to the proof or the witnesses were with him in the same country. If, however, he said I don’t have witnesses or a proof and witnesses later come from overseas or a sack of his father’s document were deposited by a third party and some say the same applies if they were his documents and the guardian comes and produces his proof, he may void the ruling because he can say this that I said I don’t have witnesses or a proof is because they were not accessible to me. This only applies where the witnesses that came were the same ones that were in the deposited documents. Any situation where he can say I had such and such reason for saying I did not have witnesses or a proof and there is substance to his argument, he is not closed off from making the claim and he may void the ruling. Therefore, if he says I have no witnesses at all, not here and not overseas, and no proofs at all, not in my possession and not in the possession of others, he cannot void the ruling. This is all with respect to an adult. With respect to an inheritor that was a minor when his relative died, however, who comes with claims after he becomes an adult, and says I have no witnesses and proofs, and then after he is found liable and leaves court and others tell him that we know your father has testimony that will void this ruling, or someone told him your relative deposited a proof, he may bring it and void the ruling because a minor inheritor does not know all the proofs of his relative. This is all true by default. If, however, an adult brings a proof or witnesses that he never knew of these witnesses or if witnesses say that the minor was aware that his father’s document were in his possession and he knew that when he came to court, we follow the witnesses.