A certain merchant, in need of paddy, called upon a clutivator, who offered to sell the same, and asked for a sample. The Vendor accordingly brought a Kuruni (11/2 markals = 3 Madras measures) of paddy in a small basket. The merchant on seeing it asked if the vendor had any other paddy to which the latter replied that he had not, and that he could give him no other paddy whether he bought for a single pagoda or for 10 pagodas.
The merchant (concluding that all the paddy the vendor had was of the sort exhibited, advanced the vendor 10 pagodas, and proceeding to his house with his pack-bullock, required him to measure out his money's worth of paddy. The vendor offered him the same small basketful of paddy he had shown as a sample, and upon the merchant asking whether that was all he would give for 10 pagodas, and relied on his former statement, before the money was advanced, to the effect that he had no other paddy, whether the purchase was to be for a single pagoda or for 10 pagodas.
The merchant, finding him obstinately unyielding, complained to Mariada Ramanna, and the latter after questioning the parties, resolved to teach the Defendant a lesson in reason and common sense. He declared that it would take a month to pronounce a decision in the case, and that in the meantime, both Plaintiff and Defendant were to eat at one house, and at the former's expense. He bade the Plaintiff, after each meal, to give the Defendant half the cooked rise.
He also sent for him in private, and advised him to take care that, while he himself had a full meal, the Defendant got no more than the half of a single grain of boiled rice, and was thus practically kept without bite or sup, until he should turn more amenable to reason. The Plaintiff having scrupulously conformed to Mariada Ramanna's private advice, the Defendant who was having a very uncomfortable time of it, soon found himself in such case, that fearing a slow process of being starved to death, he complained to Mariada Ramanna. Questioned about it the Plaintiff declared that, in strict accordance with Mariada Ramanna's infuncitons, he was giving Defendant half the rice that was cooked, but that the latter would not eat it, while the Defendant urged that what was offered was only the half of a single grain of boiled rice, and demanded to know how one was to live on it. The Plaintiff having retorted that he who could offer a small sample of paddy as 10 pagoda’s worth, could not consistently complain if he was served with a half for a meal. Mariada Ramanna thereupon, decreed that the Defendant should either give the Plaintiff reasonable quid pro guo for his money at market rates, or live upon such food as the latter chose to give him for the space of a month.
The alternative proved such a "facer," that the Defendant was fain to climb down, sing small, and agree to give the merchant full value for his money. In this tale, was verified the saying, that what would not yield to the suaviter in modus could be overcome by the fortiter in rem or, in homelier language, that those who will not listen, will have to feel.
