DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52452#0191
XI, 39- TRESPASSING CATTLE. 163
their keeper, have entered a field, no punishment
shall be inflicted on the owner of the cows ; the
herdsman (alone) is punishable (for the damage
done by them).
* 36. When (a herdsman) has been seized by the
king or (devoured) by an alligator, or struck by
Indra’s thunderbolt, or bitten by a serpent, or fallen
from a tree,
*37. Or killed by a tiger or other (ferocious
animal), or smitten by a disease of any sort, no
offence can be imputed either to the herdsman or to
the owner of the cattle.
* 38. When a man claims damages for grain con-
sumed by cattle (grazing in his field), that quantity
of grain must be restored to him (by the owner of
the cattle), which has been consumed in the field in
the estimation of the neighbours.
* 39. The cows shall be given up to their owner,
and the grain to the husbandman. In the same way
a fine shall be imposed on the herdsman when grain
has been trodden down (by cows).
36. ‘ Seized by the king,’ employed in the king’s business. See
Colebrooke’s Digest, III, 4, 52.
37. This paragraph is omitted in the Nepalese MS.
38. Gautama XII, 26; Manu VIII, 241; Ya^avalkya II, 161.
The Nepalese MS. inserts a spurious verse here, the first half of
which is identical with Manu IX, 37, and the second half identical
with Narada XI, 22.
39. The meaning of the injunction to give up the cows seems
to be this, that the owner of the cows shall not at once recover
them, when they have been seized by the proprietor of the field,
after doing damage in the field. The VivadaZ’intamarai has a
different reading of this clause: gavatram gomina deyam. This is
explained as meaning that 1 blades of corn must be made good by
the owner of cattle.’ Similar readings are found in other com-
mentaries as well. Apastamba II, 11, 28, 5.
M 2
their keeper, have entered a field, no punishment
shall be inflicted on the owner of the cows ; the
herdsman (alone) is punishable (for the damage
done by them).
* 36. When (a herdsman) has been seized by the
king or (devoured) by an alligator, or struck by
Indra’s thunderbolt, or bitten by a serpent, or fallen
from a tree,
*37. Or killed by a tiger or other (ferocious
animal), or smitten by a disease of any sort, no
offence can be imputed either to the herdsman or to
the owner of the cattle.
* 38. When a man claims damages for grain con-
sumed by cattle (grazing in his field), that quantity
of grain must be restored to him (by the owner of
the cattle), which has been consumed in the field in
the estimation of the neighbours.
* 39. The cows shall be given up to their owner,
and the grain to the husbandman. In the same way
a fine shall be imposed on the herdsman when grain
has been trodden down (by cows).
36. ‘ Seized by the king,’ employed in the king’s business. See
Colebrooke’s Digest, III, 4, 52.
37. This paragraph is omitted in the Nepalese MS.
38. Gautama XII, 26; Manu VIII, 241; Ya^avalkya II, 161.
The Nepalese MS. inserts a spurious verse here, the first half of
which is identical with Manu IX, 37, and the second half identical
with Narada XI, 22.
39. The meaning of the injunction to give up the cows seems
to be this, that the owner of the cows shall not at once recover
them, when they have been seized by the proprietor of the field,
after doing damage in the field. The VivadaZ’intamarai has a
different reading of this clause: gavatram gomina deyam. This is
explained as meaning that 1 blades of corn must be made good by
the owner of cattle.’ Similar readings are found in other com-
mentaries as well. Apastamba II, 11, 28, 5.
M 2