870
3.1.2 The Saqqarah finds have yielded several fragmentary court
records. One fragment is a summary of some three cases, four lines
each. The formula seems to be “PN spoke against PN as follows...
Afterwards, it was given to PN and his colleagues” (TADB8.6). The
other records the court proceedings, “PN 1 was interrogated in light of
the words of PN 2 and he said... .” Two horizontal lines enclose this
statement. There follows the cross-examination: “PN 2 was interrogated
in light of the words of PN 1 and he said...” (TADB8.7; cf. B8.8).3.2 Orders
At the conclusion of the court case, one of the parties, usually the
complainant, drew up a “document of withdrawal” mentioning his
original complaint, the action of the defendant in response, the sat-
isfaction of the plaintiff, and his consequent withdrawal from the
defendant and/or the object of the complaint. The objects in dis-
pute were funds and assorted goods, including a marriage contract
(EPEB30), assorted goods left on deposit (EPEB31), a plot of land
(EPEB24), and an unidentified hyr", probably realty of sorts. This
latter object was involved in an unusual case of suit and counter-
suit and was settled by a five-shekel payment (EPE B35).^43.3 Petition and Appeal
3.3.1 The Elephantine documents have yielded one fragmentary peti-
tion which involved the use of a field held in a seven-year hereditary
lease. The petitioner had been “interrogated before Taru ̇and the
judge” and was now claiming that an “injustice” had been done to
him. In broken context, further reference is made to the Troop
Commander, various officials, and “the judges of the province.” The
petition ends with the plea “Let an injustice not be done to me...”
(TADA5.2).3.3.2 In a formulaic waiver-of-suit clause, the judge sometimes appears
alongside “lord” and regularly alongside sîgan(TADB2.3:13; 3.1:13, 19,
3.12:28; 4.6:14), but it is not clear if there was any hierarchy of appeal.(^4) See Szubin and Porten, “Litigation...”
westbrook_f24_863-881 8/27/03 1:35 PM Page 870