Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/297

Paragraph 1- If one deposits with another without witnesses, the watchman is believed to say the deposit never occurred, even if the watchman is not profiled as someone who would have such an item and the owner provides an identifying mark. Even if he deposited with witnesses, if the witnesses do not now see the item in his possession, the watchman is believed to say he returned it or that the owner gave it to him as a gift. Even if the owner claims he deposited wheat and the watchman claims he returned it, and the owner responds that the amount deposited was such and such amount and it was placed in such and such barrel, and his statements turn out to be accurate, the watchman is still believed to say he returned it and these are others, even if it was deposited with witnesses. If witnesses testify that this specific item was deposited and they currently see it in the watchman’s possession, however, the watchman would not be believed to say he returned and subsequently purchased it from the owner or the owner gave it to him has a gift. Certainly if the watchman was alive we would remove the item from him, but even in a case where he is deceased, we would remove the item from the inheritors, even without an oath. If the owner says he deposited such and such item with witnesses, which item had such and such identifying marks, and we see this item in the orphans’ possession, they must show the item to the witnesses. If the witnesses testify that this is the same item they must return it. If the orphans said their father told them it belonged to him, they would be believed with an oath. Moreover, if one comes and says he gave a deposit to their father and he provides high-quality identifying marks, and they find the deposit as he described it, and the judge is aware that the deceased was not someone of the status who would have such an item, the judge should give the deposit to this person that gave the identifying mark, so long as the owner was not someone who would frequently enter the property of the deceased. If the owner did frequent the deceased, however, the item may belong to someone else and he just was familiar with the identifying marks. If the witnesses came and testified to the judge that the deceased was not of the status of someone who would have this item, we would not remove the item on the basis of this testimony because that is not a clear proof and their analysis may not be the same as judge and the judge can only rule on his own personal judgement. Once there was an increase in improper courts, and even those whose actions were proper were not learned and wise enough, most Jewish courts agreed that we would not remove an item on the judgement of the judge. If a deposit was returned on the basis of the court’s ruling and they learned of an error, the watchman would be exempt.