TEXT: In the Glorious Name, the Ever-Seeing, the Ever-Commanding, the Ever-l4ighty:
  The God-Emperor of Victory
  HIRKANE HiTLAKOTANi
  Beyond A11 Cornpare, the Preceptor of the Gods upon Tekumel, the Master of Life
  and Death, the Repository of Universal Wisdon and Majesty, Let A11 Do Obeisance unto
  His Omnipotent Nane !
  I, Firu Ba Yeker, of the House of the Ultimate Secret, Master of Scribes and
  Chief unto the Ends of the Realm, do hereby set down and record the actions taken
  by the Appellate Court of the Palace of the Realm of the Glorious and Ever-living
  God-King, Master of the Many Universes, the Ernperor of A11" To which is appended
  the deliberations of the Second Appellate Court, as prescribed in the Book of Golden
  Signs of the refulgent, iri.rissant, and sagacious l.4ikotlangrne of purdanirn, Court
  Scribe and Jurist of Excellence, who did serve the Priest-Kings of Engsvan hla
  Ganga of old, and whose overflowing wisdom still continues as the basls of our
  lega1 systen unto this day and onward.
  To establish the facts:
  It is a11eged, stated, and uncontested that one Baluri hiThanu of the Sword of
  Fire Clan did possess a steel sword of Engsvanyali manufacture. This weapon he did
  bear with him into an adventure beneath the City of Jakal1a, into catacornbs and
  tombs, for the purpose of gathering relics.
  It is alleged, stated, and uncontested that this Baluri hiThanu was slain during
  this enterprise by the action of one Rasirn hiVara of the Broken Reed Clan. The
  body and possessions of the slain Baluri hiThanu were then transported back to the
  surface of the world by his comrades: Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi of the Standing Stone
  C1an, the said Rasim hiVara of the Broken Reed C1an, Chaideshu hiSsannirin of the
  revered Clan of the Sea Blue, and one Tazhim, a clanless person, plus unnarned bearers
  and others. A11 of this did transpire upon the l2th day of Halir of the Year of the
  Seal Emperor, 2358" Thus it is inscribed.
  It is alleged, stated, and uncontested that the said Kanni),el hijtashlatoi did
  then rerrove the said Balurits sword from amongst his possessions and did convey it
  unto the Temple of Vimuhla. There he did sell it for the sum of Io7v0 Kaitars" This
  sum, he now alleges and states, was meant to contribute to the costs of purchasing
  a spell of Revivification for the deceased Baluri, in order that he might once more
  walk upon Tekunel and complete his Skein cf Destiny. The Deposition of Baluri hiThanu
  does not contest the motive of Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi: the deposition of the lower
  court does, however, contain these words: fr ".. Baluri became furious and suggested
  that Kanmiyel had sold it lthe sword] for his own gain, thinking that revivification
  would not be possible.'r Neither party uses these words in his deposition, however"
  It is alleged, stated, and uncontested that the clan and imrnediate farnily of
  the said Baluri hiThanu did at this time come forward and themselves pay for the
  costs of a spe1l of Revivification in order that their beloved clan-brother might
  once more stride this wor1d. At this point, the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi did
  welcome his cornrade with love and affection and did proffer the 1, /0u Kaitars unto
  hin with explanations of their provenance. Thus it is inscribed"
  
  -L-
  It is alleged, stated, and uncontested that the said Baluri hiThanu did
  thereupon wax wroth and demand the return of his sword, 'Ihis proved impossible
  at that time, since the Temple of Viinuhla had since inspected it and determined
  that its value was greater than the 1,700 Kaitars they had paid for it" 
  Out of
  t'goodwillr" as stated by Kannriyel hiBashlatoi, the said Kanrniyel offered Baluri
  hiThanu a further sum of 1,u00 Kaitars, which the said Baluri accepted, with the
  proviso 1in his own Deposition) that I'I accepted without prejudice to further
  1egal action.tt This statenent does not appear in the Deposition of Kanmiyel
  hiBashlatoi, nor in the deliberations of the lower court. It rnay thus be contested"
  It is alleged, stated, and uncontested that the said Baluri hiThanu did later
  regain his sword from the Temple by paying a higher surn for it. 
  This is, of course,
  irrelevant. What is indeed contested and lies here before the learned jurists of
  the Court, is this: the said Baluri hiThanu now places an action before the Palace
  of the Realrn demanding Shamtla" Ihe Deposition of the said Baluri hiThanu states
  that he contends that Kanniyel hiBashlatoi acted wrongfully in depriving hin of his
  propeaty, even though he was at that time deceased, and did act wrongfully in selling
  his sword to the Temple of Lord Vimuhla, and did thus commit an act which night
  technically require punishment, repayrnent, or other considerations unstated" The
  Deliberations of the lower court state simply that trBaluri made a 1egal claim for
  shamtla in consideration of his lost property.'r It is further contested by Kanmiyel
  hiBashtatoi that this action by the said Baluri hiThanu constitutes a slander under
  the 1aw and deserves reparations under the statutes governing Shamtla: rrBalurirs
  action in attributing ignobility and incompetence to myself, even indirectly, is an
  inexcusable slander and [is] deserving of recompense"rr Thus it is inscribed.
  Various and several points of Law and Custom are raised by these actions.
  The learned jurists of the Appellate Court and of the Second Appellate Court have
  considered and have rnade deliberation and herewith state:
  Know: it is lega1 and proper for a party of persons embarking upon a perilous
  enterprise to devise, write, and seal an agreement between their several selves
  before their departure. In this, the parties must state the disposition of their
  properties and chattels, slaves, 1ands, and other belongings, should they become
  deceased or otherwise so incapacitated that they can no longer utilise said properties"
  This is ancient custom, supported by Engsvanyali law and precedent. The case of
  one Gigersa Jaika against the Palace of Ontelu and the person of Digruya Dai during
  the Reign of the Sun-Lord, Ssirandar XIVth is instructive here" Thus it is inscribed"
  Know: it is not stated but apparent from the depositions and fron the delibera-
  tions of the lower court that none of the parties to the present dispute had executed
  a wil1, a conttact, or other instrument as depicted in the preceding paragraph.
  The disposition of the properties of deceased members of this expedition was thus
  moot, depending upon further 1aw and precedent stated hereimrnder"
  Know: When there is no testament or contract, it is normal and proper for
  surviving rnembers of an expedition, a shipfs crew, a party journeying abroad, etc"
  to secure the property of a deceased comrade and to return it unto that personrs
  known relatives, family, clan, or other 1ega1ly inheriting body" Should there be
  no such living survivor with said knowledge and ability, then the property in use
  and custom does devolve upon the finder(s) of it"
  
  -J-
  Know: the Engsvanyali Law of the Present Hand is thus established and applies.
  This good and wondrous Law states that should there be no ttpresent hand'r to execute
  the return of a deceasedfs property unto his/her/its legal heirs, then the finder
  may, without prejudice except that of the Will of the God-Emperor, retain and hold
  said property with legality and tranquility" 
  Hence, the artifacts discovered in the
  rednalljan tomb discovered by the current expedition are 1egally the property of
  their finderls), save as the God-Enperor should demand and so order. The tonb of
  this Lord Valik is unknown; his heirs cannot be determined; his chattels are thus
  free to whomsoever seizes upon them" This is the principle upon which the treasures
  of the several Temples are held to be the property of the said Tenples, refuting
  thereby the said Kanmiyelrs question in his deposition. the Ternples retain the
  rights to ancient treasures discovered within areas not owned by other temples or
  specifically so designated as Imperial property on this precept: else were we all
  to suffer nany 1egal cases and injudir;ious accusations. It is sometimes alleged
  that the Concordat of the Tenples should hold with regard to the disposition of
  artifacts specifically dedicated to one or another of the Temples, to the Gods, etco
  This issue here is not relevant"
  Know: that the legal death of a being ends his current ownership of all properties
  Thus, when the Spirit-Soul is deemed by responsible persons to have departed the
  body, that personts articles then corne viithin the purview of any testament, will, or
  contract, as stated above. The said Baluri hiThanu was admittedly deceased; his
  chattels were thus no longer his to dispose" The Law of the Present Hand did then
  apply: his comrades knew of his clan and family, and they knew of his religion and
  temple" Being physically and otherwise coinpetent to return the body of the said
  Baluri hiThanu, together with his possessions, to one of these organisations, they
  should have lega11y and properly done so" 0n1y if a contract were then in force,
  issued by the said Baluri hiThanu, stating otherwise, should there have been any
  different action" The question of revivification -- whether possible or not -- is
  irrelevant to this issue.
  Know: that the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi did indeed cornnit an offence by
  remouing the said Baluri hiThanuts sword fron his corpse and possessions and then
  selling it. 
  rhis is true no matter what the said Kanrniyelrs purpose or motive.
  Were there no frpresent handrtt of course, the said Kanmiyel would have as much right
  to the said Balurits possessions as any other finder, in the absence of any contract
  or testament. The Appellate Courts do thus both, individually and severally, find
  against the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi for the taking and selling of the sword.
  Know: This aforesaid offence does not amount co theft, since the said Kanmiyel
  hiBashlatoi did iirunediately offer the sum gained to the said Baluri hiThanu upon the
  latterrs revivification. 
  This in itself was a further inpropriety in the view of
  several of the Court: the fanily and clan of the said Baluri hiThanu had paid for
  his revivification directly; the 1,700 Kaitars should have been offered to them
  first; 
  if they graciously refused, then and only then should it have been offered to
  the said Baluri hiThanu" The greater lender or supplier of monies or considerations
  must be repaid first, according to Imperi-al law at present.
  Know: the further sum of 11000 Kaitars proffered by the said Kanmiyel hiBashla-
  toi as I'goodwilltr is truly irrelevant. However, the fact that Baluri hiThanu accepted
  not only the 11700 Kaitars but also this further 11000 Kaitars was seen by several of
  the Court as no settlement. Baluri hiThanu states and deposes that this sum was
  accepted without prejudice to further legal action; the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi
  does not mention this issue; and the lower court mentions only that it was done as
  rrgoodwill.rt It thus cannot be counted either as Shantla or as paynent for the
  lost sword"
  
  Know: the action of the said Baluri hiThanu against the said Kanmiyel
  hiBashlatoi was seen by both Courts as having no merit. The action of the said
  Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi in selling the sword was rash and improper; the said Baluri,
  however, was deceased at the time of this action and hence has no grounds to sue a
  living person. The said Balurirs clan may wish to institute lega1 action, however,
  since the Law of the Present Hand would make thern at least the presumed heirs to
  Balurits property. The Ternple of Vimuhla might wish to oppose this point, should
  it be proved that the said Baluri were indeed more 1oya1 and devoted to his Temple
  than to his c1an, This natter is imelevant here" In any case, one cannot sue
  another for rtincornpetencerr ielse nany of us indeed would be bound over for punishment ! ) 
  The said Baluri hiThanu is thus deemed the loser of his suit for Shamtla from Kanniyel
  hiSashlatoi.
  Know: the suit of galuri hithanu against Kanrniyel hiBashlatoi for Shamtla
  might possess merit, were it to be proved by witnesses or by such sorcerous means as
  a Mind-Bar that the said Kanmiyel did indeed sell the sword not out of love for his
  deceased cornrade but for personal gain" This would constitute a form of theft, if
  proved, and it would be the business of the clan of the said Balurj- hiThanu to bring
  action of this nature against the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi" The said Baluri being
  deceased at the time of the said offence, this signifies that the said Baluri himself
  cannot be a party to this action" See the paragraph preceding.
  Know: the cost of the sword, the payment rendered by the Tenrple of Virnuhla,
  the price of the sword that one might obtain in the illarketplace -- all are irrelevant
  to these actions" What is at stake here is (a) the propriety of the said Kanmiyel
  hiBashlatoirs action in taking and selling the sword; (b) the action taken by
  the said Baluri hiThanu in dernanding Shamtla for this action; and (c) the counter
  action taken by Kaniniyel hiBashlatoi in alleging slander uttered by the said Baluri
  hiThanu against himself.
  Know: the Appellate Courts did both find for the said Kanrniyel hiBashlatoi in
  the matter of (c), abovel to wit: the action taken by the said Baluri hiThanu in
  laying suit against the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi was improper and did implicitly
  inipugn the said Kanmiyelrs motives and actions" The said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi did
  indeed commit an impropriety and even perhaps an illegality in taking and selling
  the sword; this nuch is correct. He should not be further slandered by the said
  Baluri hiThanu, however, unless witnesses or t"lind-Bars prove that the said Kanmiyel
  hiBashlatoirs motives were ignoble" The utterance of statements of this sort do
  amount to slander against the said Kanrniyel hiBashlatoi. A11 of the jurists of the
  two Appellate Courts thus ruled that the said Kanniyel was entitled to Shamtla for
  his counter-suit"
  It is ruled: (1) that the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi has correctly disbursed
  the 1,700 Kaitars he obtained for the sale of the sword. This 1,700 Kaitars should
  have been offered to the said Baluri hiThanurs clan, but that is a matter for the
  clan to take up with the said Baluri hiThanu. (2) the first Appellate Court found
  against Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi for acting improperly in the selling of the said Baluri
  hiThanurs sword against the Law of the Present Hand; the first Court thus awarded
  the sum of 11000 Kaitars as damages to the said Baluri hiThanu or to his c1an, as
  to be later deterrnined. It is noted here that the second Appellate Court did find
  Kanniyel hiBashlatoi rrrash but innocentrr of wrongdoing in this matter; the second
  Court thus assessed no payment, fine, or punishment" tSJ Both Appellate Courts
  found the action of Baluri hiThanu to be without nerit against the said Kanmiyel
  
  -5-
  hiBashlatoi in the matter of the forrnerrs demand for shamtla, if indeed this
  denand is based upon an allegation of Kanmiyel hiBashlatoirs il1 motives and
  personal greed. Though ihis is stated as such in the deliberations of the Lower
  Court, it is not rnentioned in this form by Baluri hiThanu himself, nor are there
  witnesses available to the Appelrate courts to prove or disprove it. 
  {.41 The
  price of the sword itself is irrelevant to the i=s,r", discussed here; should the
  said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi wish to soothe the anguish of the Clan of the Sword of
  Fire, he may wish to make up the difference between the 11700 Kaitars and their
  costs of purchasing a spel1 of Revivification. This is between him and the aforesaid
  clan' The matter of Baluri hiThanu cannot enter into this, since he 1egal1y did not
  own the sword at the time the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi ,oia it. 
  (sJ the suit of
  Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi against the said Baluri hiThanu alleging that the latter did
  utter slander against the for:ner, was seen by both courts to possess merit" The
  said Baruri hirhanu should not i,mpugn the roiilru, of the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi
  without true and proper proof or rrli accuracy. Both Appellate courts therefore
  ruled that the said Baluri hirhanu must pay shamtla of irooo Kaitars unto the person
  of Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi.
  To surn up: (1) the 1,700 Kaitars obtained and given to Baluri hiThanu by
  Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi shall be deemed an end to this iisue" Whatever else is paid
  or demanded for the sword is irrelevant to the actions taken here. Al1 parties are
  advised to discuss an amicable settlenent. (2) One of the Appellate Courts ruled
  Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi blaneless in the action oi selling the swbra to pay for his
  comraders revivification; 
  the other Appellate Court h;1d him respolsible for an
  inproper action and fined hin a Shamtla of 11000 Kaitars. This matter may be settled
  amicably by the parties, or it nay be appealed to the Governorfs Cabinet in Jaka]ta.
  (3) The suit of Baluri hiThanu for Sharntla from Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi is deemed
  without merit, when this suit hinges upon rfincompetencefr or frimproper motive.'
  (4) The suit of Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi against Baluri hiThanu is approved: it is
  ruled that the said Baluri hiThanu has indeed, judging from the depositions of the
  parties and of the Lower court, uttered statements and instituted unwarranted legal
  action against the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi. The said Baluri hiThanu is thus ordered
  to pay shantla of 1,000 Kaitars to the said Kanmiyel hiBashlatoi"
  Both parties are held equally responsible for the costs and fees of convening these
  courts in their joint and several delilerations. The palace of the Realrn thus assesses
  each of the two parties the sum of 500 Kaitars in p"yr"nt of these costs, to which
  suitabre gratifications and pleasantries may be added if wished" This is custom"
  A side issue that occupied the interest of several of the jurists was the responsi-
  bility of Rasim hivara in slaying Baluri hirhanu. No one has tirought of asking shamtla
  from him for Baluri hiThanurs dernise" rn most cases such misadventures are covered by
  the contracts, testaments, etc" that such parties devise amongst themselves before
  departing upon difficult ventures. rn this case no such instiument exists, and the
  said Rasim hiVara, whose clan (that of the Broken Reed) nay not be powerful enough to
  protect him should one of the two parties become vindictivL p" urrgty,eith him,
  should take note of this warning! Misadventures are only such when all parties agrfee"
  Signed and sealed this day in the City of Jakal1a, the protectorate of Kaija,
  the seal Imperium- of Tsolyanu, under the Rir-seeing Omniscience of the Glorious seal
  Emperor, Hirkane hiTlakotani, the 62nd of His rmrnortal Line! And all isinscribed as
  the Almighty Gods decree!
  €)?
  ye
  ,e7\l
  The 18th Day of Dohala, z3|g"
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/Empire of the Petal Throne/Tékumel Supplemental/Baluri-v-Kanmiyel/Baluri-v-Kanmiyel.pdf