evidence of judgment by default. Some systems attest to a “seizure”
of one party by another (or mutually) prior to their appearing before
the judges, which may have represented a formal claim initiating
proceedings.3.2.2 There is little information on the course of a trial, which may
not have followed set rules of procedure. The parties were normally
responsible for marshaling their own case and bringing witnesses and
other evidence. The court, however, also had inquisitorial powers:
it could interrogate parties and witnesses, and could summon wit-
nesses on its own initiative. In cases of serious public interest, the
proceeding was in the nature of a judicial investigation.3.2.3 Besides awarding damages, courts adjudicating private dis-
putes could make a wide variety of orders. They could order the
restoration or division of property, recognition of free or slave status,
and enslavement for debt, and even forbid a man to consort with
a named woman.3.2.4 A party dissatisfied with a local court’s ruling could seek a
re-hearing by a differently constituted bench. A New Kingdom party
litigated four times over compensation for the same dead donkey
(O. Gardner 53). The losing party was often obliged to draft a doc-
ument conceding the case and undertaking not to litigate again.
Appeal of a judgment was by way of petition to a higher official
and, ultimately, to the king. Whereas hearings at first instance were
essentially oral, a petition could be oral (in person or through the
mouth of an official) or in writing.3.2.5 Evidence
The law of evidence knew no standard of proof such as “beyond
reasonable doubt” because if conventional evidence failed to reveal
the truth, it could be ascertained by supra-rational methods. For the
same reason, and given the inquisitorial powers of the court, it is
difficult to speak of a burden of proof as in modern law. Nonetheless,
use was made of evidentiary presumptions, where evidence of a prov-
able state of affairs gave rise to the presumption that a second state
of affairs existed. The forms of conventional evidence were witnesses,
documents, and physical evidence. The supra-rational methods were
the oath, the ordeal, and the oracle. The latter were generally admin-
istered by the priests.32
WESTBROOK_F2_1-90 8/27/03 1:39 PM Page 32