VYAVASTAA-DARPANA 69 | And in a case where the heirs of a person deceased refused payment of a bond contracted by his widow (also dead, )and in which it was proved that part of the amount was expendcd in payment of her husband’s debts, it was held that the heirs were liable for so much of the amount, as had been so laid out, but that the widow could not saddle the estate or the heirs with any unnecessary burthen Maen. II. L. Vol. I p. 125 = لا ޓެ ބޯޓް In recapitulating the causes of incapacity, JAGNYAvaLKYA observes : “A contract made by a person intoxicated, insane, diseased, grievously disordered or disabled, by an infant, or a man agitated ty fear or the like, or (in the name of another) by a person without authority, is utterly null.” Upon the above passage Jaganna’tka thus comments : “singly the gift of wages by a man possessing his senses is valid ; joined with madness or the like, the intentional payment of wages during a lucid interval Inay also be valid ; but singly a gift by a man assected by insanity or the like is void.” From this comment the principle may be deduced, that the act of a lunatic inay be effectual, if the contract be onerous and the agreement rational, on the presumption of the act having been done during a lucid interval; but that, where it may be prejudicial to him and unattended with any benefit, it should be held to be ifso sac/o void. Moid. Pp. 125, 126. So also the validity of a deed executed by a man in his last illness should be upheld, if it be proved that he was of sound mind at the time of its execution ; but otherwise, if it appear that his mind was not in its natural state. Ibid. p. ટ0. @ See Radha mani Debi cersaw Sham Chandka and Rudra Chandra. S. D. A. Vol. 1. р. 85. - 1m/e, p. ll. 鸭 The liquidation of debts is rigorously enjoined : “The sons must pay the debts of their father, when proved, as if it, were their own, ( or with interest; ) the son’s son must pay the debt of his grandfather, but without interest ; and his son, or the great-grandson, shall not be compel led to discharge it, unless he be heir and have assets.” Prihaspati. Coleb. Dig. Vol. 1. pp. 274. Sir William Jones however was of opinion that where there are no assets, the son and 隱 grandson are under a moral and religious, but not a civil, obligation to pay the debts, if they can : but assets may be followed in the hands of any representative. (See note I/id. p. 27.1.) "I'm is opinion is followed in practice by the courts of justice. In all cases, however, the liability oxt “nds onlỳ to just and reasonable debts. '. Ilindu gifts are not binding on representatives : and in a case where a person contracted to pay do another a sum of money in consideration of that person’s giving his daughter in marriage to the son of the contracting party, it was held that the contract was not binding after his death ; the law, not permitting money to be given for a bride, 鷺 consideration consequently not being’?, legal out: : and it should be observed, that in all sub- cases the turpitude is considered to box on the side of the receiver, the giver not being deemed to have seriously intended to give. Maen. 11. L. vol. I. p. 128. It would pe superfluous to enter into further disquisition relative to the law of contract, builments, or other matters connected with judicial proceedings, as at present, the greater part of those laws are not applied in practice. The rules connected with the law of evidence too are not given in this book because they are not followed in the existing courts of justice. Those rules are few and simple. Various deseriptions of incompetent witnesses are enumerated, and much is left to the discretion of the Judge with respect to the credit, which should be attached to testimony. In the last resort discovery may he had by compelling a defendant to make oath or by ordeal. They who are desirous of further information on these heads, should consult the Mitaokshara and Jaganna tha's Digest translated by Mr. Colebrooke. END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
