577
of the king” (ni““arri zakàru[in one instance, n. “. qabû]) by one party
as a preliminary means of challenging the opponent’s claims or
actions.^40 From these records we learn that the party who took the
oath appears as defendant in the subsequent trial initiated by the
party whose claims had been challenged with the oath. The judicial
procedures that then take place do not differ from those of other
Nuzi trials. It may be noted, however, that all those who took the
oath of the king, for one reason or other, eventually lost their cases.3.8 Appeals
3.8.1 As a rule, the judges’ decision at first instance brought the
dispute to an end. We have, however, some occurrences of appeals
resulting in a second trial; the technical word is dìna “anû(lit., “to
seek a trial a second time”).^41 To judge from the explicit evidence
provided by AASOR 16 71, the bench that dealt with the appeal
was different from that at first instance. It is impossible to know
whether this was a customary rule for all hearings on appeal.3.8.2 Appeals were never successful,^42 and previous decisions were
always confirmed. The court records provide little if any informa-
tion about the new trials and, in most cases, simply state that the
appellant lost the case “because he had sought a trial a second time.”
Be that as it may, in addition to any orders made at first instance,
a standard penalty was imposed on the appellant: the payment of a
female slave to the winner. In AASOR 16 71, and perhaps also in
the fragmentary record EN 9/1 448, the appellant was condemned
in addition to give one ox to each of the judges who had partici-
pated in the former trial. Again, we do not know whether this was
general practice.(^40) See, e.g., JEN 324 (cf. Hayden, Court Procedure.. ., 101–5; JEN 333 (cf.
Jankovska, N.B., JESHO 12 [1969], 256–58); JEN 362; EN 9/1 498 (cf. Hayden,
Court Procedure.. ., 150–52). Cf. Liebesny, “The Oath of the King...”
(^41) See, e.g., JEN 330, 368; AASOR 16 71; EN 9/1 432, 448, 426. Cf. Hayden,
Court Procedure.. ., 52–61.
(^42) EN 9/1 426 is a different case; cf. Hayden, Court Procedure..., 59–61.
WESTBROOK_f14–564-617 8/27/03 12:28 PM Page 577