and thus he is liable, just as if he had delivered a deposit to someone other than its owner, when he strongly believed he was the owner. As for when he delivers it by the order of a judge, its owner has no right to demand it from the one who delivered it, because it was taken from him by force; thus he is not liable, just as if an usurper had seized it. Whenever the one who described it is held liable, he has no recourse against anyone because the aggression was from him and the loss occurred in his possession. If the one who delivered it is held liable, he has recourse against the one who described it, because he was the cause of his being fined, unless the finder (multaqit) had acknowledged to the one who described it that he was indeed the owner and rightful claimant, in which case he has no recourse against him, because he acknowledged that he was its owner and rightful recipient, and that the owner of the evidence wronged him by holding him liable, so he has no recourse against someone who wronged him. If the lost item had perished while in the possession of the finder, and he was held liable for it, he may have recourse against the one who described it for what he paid as a fine. The owner of the lost item does not have the right to hold the one who described it liable, because what he received was the property of the finder, not the property of the owner of the lost item, unlike the case where the actual item was handed over. As for when a person describes it and takes it, then another comes and describes it and claims it, he is not entitled to anything; because the first person became entitled to it by his description and the absence of any other claimant, and his possession of it was established, and nothing was found to necessitate seizing it from him, so it must be left for him, like the rest of his wealth.

Section: If a claimant for a lost item comes but does not describe it, and does not produce evidence that it is his, it is not permissible to deliver it to him, regardless of whether he strongly believes he is telling the truth or lying, because it is a trust; therefore, it is not permissible to deliver it to anyone who does not prove that he is the owner, just like a deposit. If he does deliver it, and another person comes and describes it, or produces evidence, the one who described it must pay the indemnity for it to him, because he caused it to be lost for its owner through his negligence. He has the right of recourse against the claimant, because he took the property of someone else. Its owner has the right to hold the one who took it liable, and once he holds him liable, he has no recourse against anyone else. If no one comes to claim it, the finder has the right to demand it from the one who took it, because he is not secure from the owner coming to claim it, thus making him pay for it, and because it is a trust in his possession; therefore, he has the right to take it from the one who usurped it, just like a deposit.