What is the ruling when a detainee claims imprisonment was over the price of a dog or the value of wine they prepared for a non-Muslim?

Primary text

If the detainee claims imprisonment stems from an imposed fine for the price of a dog or the value of intoxicants they prepared for a Dhimmi, and the claimant confirms this, one opinion is that the judge should release the detainee, as payment for these items is not legally obligatory. A second view dictates that the current judge must uphold the previous judge's ruling, as one judge cannot overturn another's decision based on independent reasoning. A third opinion suggests the judge should pause and seek a settlement between the parties, as neither of the preceding solutions is fully applicable.