And if the claimant has evidence, the judge shall hear it and pass judgment based on it. The absent party, upon arriving, has the right to impugn the claimant’s evidence and to present evidence testifying to the transfer of ownership to him from the claimant. If he produces evidence that it is his property, is judgment passed based on it? There are two views, based on whether the evidence of the 'possessor' (al-dakhil) or the 'outsider' (al-kharij) is prioritized. If we say: the evidence of the 'outsider' is prioritized, and the absent party produces evidence testifying to his ownership and the breeding [of the animal] or a cause of ownership, is his evidence heard and judgment passed based on it? There are two views. And if the acknowledger has evidence that testifies to it for the absent party, the judge shall hear it but not pass judgment based on it; because the evidence is for the absent party, and the absent party did not claim it, nor did his agent; rather, the judge heard it for the benefit it contains, which is the removal of suspicion from the present party and the dropping of the oath from him if the claimant alleged against him, 'You know that it is mine.' It is derived that judgment may be passed based on it if we hold the view that the evidence of the 'possessor' is prioritized, and that the present party has a right in it; for then it is judged by it, unanimously. And whenever the one who acknowledged it for another returns to claim it for himself, his claim shall not be heard; because he acknowledged that he does not own it, so his retraction of his acknowledgment shall not be heard. The ruling regarding the non-competent person is like the ruling regarding the absent party, according to what we have mentioned.