The decision of the chief-justice, which he laid on Ḥanî. 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. Ḥanî, 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 kiṣir_, or any representative of his, shall pay for three hundred sheep and the fines for the shepherds and then Ḥanî 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 of lambs. But, evidently in the disorders which arose on the death of Sennacherib, Ḥanî 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, Ḥanî 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. (M296) 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. (M297) 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. (M298) 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. 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.