It is permissible, because it is established as a liability through the contract based on this description, so it resembles a debt. It differs from the object for which one testifies, as there is no need for that in its case; for testimony regarding it is not established except after the claim. Moreover, because the person testified against is established by description and identification, the object testified about is the same. According to this view, he shall dispatch the entity sealed; if it is a slave or a bondwoman, he shall seal [it] upon their neck and send them to the judge who wrote the letter, so that the two witnesses may testify to its identity. If they testify to its identity, it shall be surrendered to the person in whose favor judgment was made. If they do not testify to its identity, or [the defendant] says, "The object testified about is not this one," the taker must return it to its owner, and its legal status shall be that of a usurped object regarding its liability, and the liability for its depreciation and its benefit. Therefore, he is obligated to pay its hire if it has a hire value from the day he took it until it reaches its owner, because he took it from its owner by force without right.

Section: Whenever one recovers a right from the person judged against, and he says to the judge presiding over him, "Write for me a record of what has taken place, so that my adversary does not encounter me in another place and demand it of me again," there are two views. The first is that he is obligated to fulfill his request so that he may be secure from the harm he fears. The second is that he is not obligated, because the judge only writes what is established before him or what he has judged. As for initiating something new, calling for witnesses is sufficient for that, so he [the judge] should demand that he [the person who paid] testify to his own receipt of the right, because the right was established against him through testimony. The first [view] is more correct, because he has judged against him regarding this right, and he fears harm without the record, so it resembles what he judged upon initially. If the person in whose favor judgment was made demands the delivery of the document by which the right was established, [the judge] is not obligated to deliver it to him, because it is his [the judge's] property, so he is not obligated to give it to someone else. Likewise, anyone who has a document for a debt and collects it, or real estate and sells it, is not obligated to surrender the document, because it is his property; and because it is possible that what he received may turn out to be someone else's rightful claim, and thus it would revert to his [the judge's or the holder's] estate.

Section: The letter is accepted from a judge of a city to a judge of [another] city, to the judge of a village, from a judge of a village to a judge of a village, and to a judge of a city. It is also accepted from a judge to his deputy, and from his deputy to him, because it is...