History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.992.4

v4.c63.992.4

recovering bets won or the fee) and would be liable to punishment, viz. branding on the head (with dog's foot and the like) and banishment. Nār. XIX. 6 adds that the banished gamblers would have wreaths of dice tied round their necks. Kāt. (941) and Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 386 verse 7) state that a person ignorant of gambling should, if defeated in gambling in private, be released from his liability, but one who is an adept in gambling should not be relieved when defeated; but even an adept in gambling if he has lost the whole of his wealth as a stake should not be made to pay the whole.¹⁰⁰¹ In disputes among gamblers, in deciding on victory or in the matter of gain to the winner, and as regards the question of false dice the keeper of the gaming house, if honest, is the final authority¹⁰⁰² (Kāt. 942). Nār. XIX. 4, Yāj. II. 202, Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 386 verse 6), Kāt. (943) provide that when there is a dispute as to success or defeat the king should appoint gamblers to decide the dispute and gamblers will also be the witnesses in such a dispute (in spite of the rule stated above on p. 335 that gamblers are not competent witnesses), but if the gamblers are alleged to be inimical to the disputants the king may then¹⁰⁰³ himself decide the matter. Yāj. II. 203 extends all the rules about gambling to *samāhvaya*. Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 386 verse 4) notes that the stake is to be paid by the owner of the animal that is defeated.¹⁰⁰⁴ The S. V. (p.