The family judge—The chief judge—Stolen property—Punishment for murder—Adultery—The Court—Native advocates—No oaths administered—Giving the ordeal—Various ordeals—An impartial judge needed—White man as judge—A selection of cases.

It has already been stated in a previous chapter that the mata or head-man of the family dealt with all matters relating to his own family, and against his verdict there was no appeal; and also that the heads of the several families forming a town would meet together and arrange the affairs of their various families; but it sometimes happened that these “heads” disagreed, and there was a need to call in some outsider to settle the case.

In every district there is a chief who is appointed by the towns of the district to act as chief judge in all important matters—at palavers between family and family, and town and town. At the time of his appointment the “heads” of all the families living in the district who desired to come under his jurisdiction cut down his plantain and banana trees. This action gave him a casus belli against all the towns that acknowledged him as a judge. By cutting down his plantains he became the offended party, and as such had the right of aggressive action against the offenders. Now, it was the custom that the people of the offending town must not go to fight the offended town, but must wait for the offended ones to attack them—the offenders. No subsequent quarrel could be taken up until the first was settled. Hence the chief appointed as judge might enrage a town by his decision, and might call on the other towns to help him in enforcing his verdict, yet the said town could not attack the chief judge’s town because of the old-standing and unsettled palaver of cutting down his plantains and bananas. This ensured to the chief judge immunity from quarrels with the people who did not like his decisions, and his immunity from all such quarrels was a guarantee that there would be a certain amount of justice and impartiality in the verdicts given. He was paid to act as judge by those who sought his services, and the fees remunerated him for his temporary loss from his destroyed plantains and bananas.

There is an unwritten code of rough-and-ready laws to guide the head-men and chief judge in deciding cases. Stolen property found on anyone can be claimed by the owner, and the possessor made to pay a fine unless he can prove by witnesses that the article was either given to him or he had bought it. The giver or seller then paid the fine, and in addition returned the money he received of the buyer. The thief, besides returning the stolen article or replacing it, pays, as a fine, an amount equal to the value of the goods stolen, and the robbed person will retain a part of the fine and give the rest to those who helped him to enforce the verdict.

When an article is stolen the owner walks through the town calling out a description of it, and invoking on the thief all the fetish curses that come to his mind. These curses are often so frightful as to intimidate the thief, and frequently the stolen goods are secretly replaced. When it is farm produce that has been purloined, say some cassava, the robbed woman ties a piece of cassava in the cleft end of a stick, and fixes just below it a piece of Euphorbia candelabra, a powerful charm. This she carries through the town, calling out her loss and invoking horrible curses on the thief, and as she shouts she whacks her fetish stick, with another piece of wood, to arouse it to action against the robber.

When something valuable, such as a piece of cloth or a large knife or an axe, is lost, and the owner has a shrewd suspicion that a certain man is the thief, he can accuse that man, and if the man denies the theft his accuser can demand that he shall take the ordeal and thus definitely settle the matter. To refuse to take the ordeal is an admission of guilt. Should the test go against the accused he will have to replace the stolen article, pay a fine, and all the expenses of the ordeal drinking. But should the test establish his innocence, the accuser then has to compensate the accused and pay the fees of those who administer the ordeal. As a rule, there are not many accusations brought on mere suspicion; they prefer to discover the stolen property on the thief, or trace it back to him through those who have received it or bought it of him.

If a slave kills a slave, the owner of the murdered slave can demand two and even three slaves in place of the one killed; and he can then slay them all in revenge or retain them as his own slaves, just as he likes. For the murder of a free man the blood of a free man, or men, has to be shed. There is no distinction between premeditated and accidental homicide. Life has been taken, and it is regarded and dealt with as murder. Drunkenness and madness are no excuse for committing crimes.

Adultery is a personal injury, for the offender has used something that does not belong to him without the consent of the owner. The fine for adultery is from 100 to 300 brass rods—from three to nine months’ ordinary wages—according to the position of the husband and the offending party. I have never heard of mutilation as a punishment for adultery among the Boloki. I have seen it stated that an ear is cut off as a punishment for this offence. I travelled constantly among them for fifteen years, and only occasionally saw either a part or the whole of an ear cut off, but I was always told on inquiry that that was a punishment for repeated thefts, and those thus mutilated were slaves. Free men were fined for thefts and adultery, not mutilated. I have known men to be financially ruined through having to pay fines for repeated acts of adultery; but if the ear-cutting were the punishment there would not be a single man with both ears, for there is not a morally pure one among them.

The family avenges all cases of assault on any of its members, no matter whether it is physical violence, abduction, rape, adultery, theft, or anything else; and no one has a right to pardon the offender except the injured person or family. Retaliation in kind, when possible, is the essence of justice among the natives—an eye for an eye, a cut for a cut, a bump for a bump, and a life for a life. When retaliation is impossible, compensation by fines is enforced. I have seen a lad carefully measure a cut that he might inflict one of a like size on his enemy.

Guardians can use the women left to their wards as their own wives, and may trade with their ward’s goods without paying any interest; but when the ward reaches his majority he can demand the right number of women from his guardian, and the exact amount of goods left in his charge. If the guardian dies in the meantime, then his heir will take the privileges and obligations of the guardianship, and reserve out of his inherited estate the amount due to the ward. Uncles and heads of families will act as guardians for minors left with property, and they will have to render a proper account of the amount received when the minor becomes old enough to look after his own affairs. If a minor inherits a “palaver” from his father, the guardian cannot “talk” it, but the case has to wait until the minor is old enough to conduct the affair himself. I have known cases to be postponed for this reason for fifteen and twenty years.

Some years before we went to live at Monsembe, a free man and head of his family was accused of witchcraft. He agreed to take the ordeal, but as all the members of his family were absent from the town, he wished the trial to be postponed until their return. This the accuser would not sanction, and pressed and taunted him so that at last he took the ordeal and died from its effects. The deceased’s family returned, and were astonished to learn of the death of their “head.” They threatened to kill the accuser, as they contended that their “father” had not had a fair trial, and that he had a right to demand the postponement of the ordeal until their return. It resulted in a big palaver being talked, and the accuser and his family were compelled to promise fifteen slaves to the family of the murdered man as compensation. The last of the slaves was paid some eighteen years after the affair occurred, and I saw him taken by my house in 1904 to be handed over in completion of the imposed fine.

The court is generally held beneath the shade of a spreading wild fig tree. The head-men who act as jury sit at the top of the square; the plaintiff, his witnesses and followers sit on one side; the defendant, his witnesses and followers sit on the opposite side; and the bottom of the square is left open for neutrals, onlookers, and for those coming and going.

Before the proceedings begin the plaintiff and defendant will each take their party of followers on one side, but in different parts of the town, and state tersely their case to them, and then distribute from 200 to 600 brass rods among them according to the importance of the case. It is their duty to clap their hands and applaud every point made by the one who hires them, and to laugh ironically at the arguments of the other side. These followers will be gathered from any of the men belonging to the neighbouring towns who happen to be drawn together to hear a “big palaver” and pick up a few brass rods. They are in honour bound to applaud their own side, and to remain as long as the case lasts that day. If the case goes into the second and third days, then “refreshers” have to be given to the crowd of followers each day. Some who have urgent business cannot attend the second day, but there are others to take their places who were not able to be present on the first day. I have seen from 150 to 200 followers on each side, most of whom had no interest in the case beyond the three or four rods they received for shouting on one side or the other. There was a fiction that they were genuinely interested supporters of the side they took; but I have often been present when the rods were divided among them, and know for a fact that the majority did not care which side won. They always made sure of their rods before they shouted and clapped.

If the man who has a case is not a good speaker he can engage an advocate (ntendeko = go-between) to speak on his behalf for a fee of from 200 to 300 brass rods a day. Such men are natural orators, and it is a pleasure to hear them speak and see their graceful actions.

When all is ready the parties take up their positions opposite each other, and the plaintiff will open the proceedings by stating his case, and calling on witnesses, if he has any, to confirm his statements. The speaker holds in his hand a small bunch of palm-frond leaves, and as each point is rounded off he lays a leaflet on the ground in front of him. When he makes a telling point against his opponent his followers clap their hands, shout, laugh, and snap their fingers at each other, and the wits of the party hurl quips, jokes, gibes, and proverbs at the opposite side, and try to look as though it were impossible to lose such a strong case so lucidly stated. These breaks give the speaker a breathing time in which to collect his thoughts and gain strength for the next point. So the speaker will go on stating point after point until there are twelve or fifteen leaflets on the ground, all lying in the order of his arguments. Before sitting down he will briefly state the argument that each leaflet represents, and it is rarely that he makes a mistake in the order, and if he does those sitting close by will instantly correct him.

If not too late in the day the defendant states his case, combating his opponent’s arguments, calls his witnesses, puts down his leaflets one by one, and rests while his followers indulge in bantering the other side. Interruptions are frequent, noisy, and often come to the verge of violence. At a biting sarcasm, or a bitter retort, spears and knives will shake (for all the men present are well armed), and more than once I have been sent for to intervene at a critical moment and to stop bloodshed or a general mêlée. Many a time has an old chief come to my door and said: “White man, they are fighting; come and stop them.” And my wife has often thought I was badly wounded in the scuffle, for in pushing my way among them the red camwood powder would be transferred from their bodies to my coat, and would show up like blood on my white garment.

The jury of head-men, after the defendant has finished, withdraw to go over the evidence pro and con, and to consider their verdict; and on their return a couple of men with fine wood-ashes, or powdered camwood on leaves, take up positions—one near the plaintiff and the other near the defendant. The appointed chief judge will sum up the case and give the verdict, say, in favour of the defendant, and instantly the man sitting near him will rub, with more vigour than gentleness, the wood-ashes or camwood powder over the face of the winner as a sign to all that he is acquitted of the charge brought against him. He will leave the mess on his face for days as a proof, to all and sundry, of his acquittal. The loser of the case refunds the winner all his expenses, pays the judge and jury of chiefs, and is a poorer if not sadder and wiser man.

There appears to be no cross-examination of witnesses, no guarantee of truthfulness, and no punishment for perjury. Each side starts away in the far-distant past, and drags in as much irrelevant matter as possible, and thus fogs, confuses and entangles the case to the best of his abilities. The ordeal is at times resorted to in order to decide involved cases, and from the results of the ordeal there is no appeal. Sometimes, after one or two days’ hearing, the jury is not able (or is afraid) to decide a case satisfactorily in favour of either side, and then it is dismissed—each side bearing its own expenses.

There is nothing resembling an oath administered to witnesses, and there are no modes of punishing perjury, hence witnesses are seldom called upon to give evidence in a case, and when they are put forward no one on the opposite side and no judge accepts their statements as true. In ordinary cases the judge and jury of head-men decide the case on their own knowledge of the affair (and the arguments of the plaintiffs and defendants), for they are fully in touch with all local matters, and only local cases are laid before them. In complicated palavers they resort to the ordeals, which are as follows: (1) Nka (Lower Congo nkasa), which among the Boloki was the outer reddish skin of the rootlet of a certain tree carefully scraped off.

A few years ago I had the opportunity of witnessing a rather complicated discussion and cross-accusation settled, to the satisfaction of all the natives present, by the parties concerned drinking, or rather eating, the ordeal. The trial took place on neutral ground, i.e. in a section of the town midway between the sections in which lived the parties who were concerned. The court-house was a wide-spreading wild fig tree that threw a shade over the whole of the gathered crowd, which formed an oblong figure. The plaintiff stood at one end with his supporters, the defendant at the other with his, and the two sides were occupied by neutral spectators and sympathizers.

The case was as follows: The plaintiff had two slaves run away, and after some days he heard that these slaves had escaped in a canoe belonging to the defendant, so he accused the latter of aiding and abetting their escape, and wanted him to pay the price of the slaves. The defendant, on the other hand, desired the plaintiff to pay him back a canoe, or the price of it, as he said it had been stolen by the plaintiff’s slaves. For three hours they discussed the matter and tried to arrange an amicable compromise; this, however, was impossible, as each wished to get the best of the bargain. From the very nature of the case it was impossible to call witnesses, although many persons spoke on either side. At last it was decided that the parties should take the ordeal (nka). Each was so confident of the righteousness of his claims that he was willing and eager to eat his portion of the poisonous drug to support them. The plaintiff was a short, thick-set young man troubled with elephantiasis, and from that and his apparent nervousness he was greatly handicapped in the trial. The defendant was a tall, thin, wiry man about fifty years of age, who had, I think, often taken the nka before, and was inured to it.

The ordeal drug used was the outer skin of the rootlets of a tree that was to be found up the Lulanga River—a tributary that enters the Congo River on the south some forty miles below the Monsembe district. When scraped off the rootlets it is very fluffy and of a deep scarlet colour. Two “medicine men” prepared equal portions of the nka. There was about a tablespoonful in each portion. The accused had first choice, after which each “medicine man” with a portion of the nka in the palm of his hand took up his position by the side of his client, and at a given signal the portions of the ordeal were simultaneously held to the mouth of the two opponents, and at the same moment they began to chew the drug. After chewing for a few moments each washed it down with gulps of sugar-cane wine.

After taking the ordeal the men were not allowed to sit down, nor to lean against anything, nor even to touch anything with their hands. The ordeal given in the above quantity blurs the vision, distorting and enlarging all objects, makes the legs tremble, the head giddy, and gives a choking sensation in the throat and chest. In fact, it gives all the symptoms of intoxication, and a few more besides. The one who first becomes intoxicated and falls down loses his case, and the one who resists the effects of the drug and controls himself the longest wins.

About five minutes after they had taken the ordeal one of the “medicine men” stepped into the centre with a plantain stalk in his hand, about 2 feet 6 inches long and from 3 to 4 inches in diameter. He flourished the stalk about a little and then placed it in front of the plaintiff for him to step over. The plaintiff went forward boldly, stepped over the stalk, and returned to his place. This he repeated six times without his feet once touching the stalk. The defendant had then to go through the same test, which he did laughingly, throwing his legs and arms about in all directions. This was done occasionally for the next thirty minutes, and by that time the plaintiff began to show signs of intoxication. His steps faltered, his eyes brightened and glared, and it was with difficulty that he raised his feet over the stalk. Then the “medicine man” began to mock him by pretending to put the stalk close to his feet and tantalizingly drawing it back. Forty minutes after taking the nka the climax came. The “medicine man” threw the stalk to the defendant, who caught it in his hands and carried it to the centre of the crowd, where, firmly fixing his feet on the ground, he carefully stooped forward and placed the stalk with both hands in a straight line, then slowly raising himself he returned to his place. The plaintiff then went to pick up the stalk, but no sooner did he lean forward than a spasm of pain seemed to seize him, and he would have fallen in a heap on the ground had not a man who for the last twenty minutes had followed him closely caught him in his arms and quickly carried him to his house.

No sooner did the crowd of neutrals see the fall of one of the opponents than with a bound they jumped to their feet, and with spears and knives raised in the air they danced, shouted, and sang around the winner. Some rubbed dirt, others ashes, and others red camwood powder on the fellow’s face—a sign that he had won the case. They hoisted him on the back of a friend and accompanied him to his hut, and there he distributed 400 brass rods among the throng of his admirers who swore they had helped him to win his cause. He sat outside his house all the rest of the day with his face smeared, so that all could see that he had won, and could congratulate him. The plaintiff had to pay him two slaves and a canoe as damages.

The next day both the plaintiff and the defendant were walking about the town, and seemed none the worse for swallowing so powerful and dangerous a drug. They apparently had no enmity towards each other, but chatted freely and laughingly over the events of the previous day.^[20]

When one remembers the amount of corruption and bribery among these people—that the most familiar words on their lips are “lie” and “liar,” and the most frequent question is, “Is it true?” and the answer, “It is true, or cut my throat”—the wonder is that they can settle a palaver in any way.

To drink the ordeal and be either right or wrong according to its action settles the affair once for all, ends all possible deadly feuds and bloodshed, and saves many a man from what is worse than death, viz. an ever-present, anxious fear of what his enemy or enemies will do to him. If a man accuses another of giving him a disease, or of causing the death of his wife by witchcraft, how can the accused disprove such a charge? Not by talking, no matter how much he may swear that he is innocent. If he calls the head-men together, he knows the verdict will be given in favour of the one who pays the most; if he runs away he will soon be captured by some other town and probably sold to furnish a cannibal feast; if he runs to a friendly town he will lose caste, he will be treated with contempt as a coward, and his life rendered miserable. So he boldly steps forth and takes the ordeal and the affair is settled. Is the ordeal in his favour? Then he claims and receives heavy damages. Does the ordeal go against him? Then he pays the damages, if wealthy enough, or, if poor, he sells himself, or if he is already a slave then his master pays for him; but whatever be the result, that palaver is decided once for all. No stigma attaches to the man who is proved guilty by the ordeal, for “one can have witchcraft without knowing it.” Moreover, no one lightly brings a charge of witchcraft against another, for, if the ordeal test goes against the accuser, the damages for compensation are so very heavy as to deter frivolous accusations.

The administration of the nka is reserved for very complicated civil cases and for serious charges of witchcraft; but there are other ordeals used for minor charges of witchcraft and for various other offences. They are as follows:

Epomi and mokungu are both trees. The juice from the bark of these trees is pressed out and dropped into the eye of the accused, and if the sight is destroyed the accused is guilty. The epomi juice is more powerful than the mokungu. The nka and epomi are for witchcraft and serious charges of theft and adultery, but the mokungu is used only in the more trivial charges. In each case the accused can refuse to submit to the ordeal unless the accuser takes it with him, hence the juices of these trees are rarely employed. When a “medicine man” charges a person with being a witch, the accused cannot demand that the “medicine man” shall take the ordeal with him.

Another test is as follows: Three boys are accused of thieving, which charge they indignantly repudiate; three young plantains are then cut—one to represent each boy—and the juice of the mokungu bark is pressed into the centre of each plantain stump left in the ground. Now it is usual that when a plantain is cut it will, in a few hours, send up from its centre the beginnings of a fresh growth; but if one of the three plantain stumps does not begin to sprout afresh by the next morning, the lad represented by that plantain is the guilty one; if two do not sprout, then there are two thieves, and if none sprout, then all the three lads are regarded as guilty. On the other hand, if all three sprout as usual, then the lads are proved to be innocent of the accusation. The mokungu juice destroys the eye, so in mercy the “eyes” of the plantain are used as substitutes for the eyes of the lads, and it is probable that the juice when well pressed in retards for a short time the sprouting of the plantain.

Lingola is a word denoting the giving of the ordeal to a medium (moyengwa), and after a certain time, when the ordeal begins to work, the name of a man who is supposed to be the witch is called out, and if the medium stumbles over the plantain stalk put in his path while this name is “on the card” the owner of the name is regarded as guilty; but if the medium does not stumble the man is innocent, and another name is called, and the process is repeated until the witch is found or the effects of the drug have passed away from the medium.

Mai ma mungunga = water of the bell. This is used by the “medicine man of the bell.” A person is very ill and charges some members of his family with bewitching him. They deny the accusation, and he thereupon challenges them to drink water that has been dipped up in the “medicine man’s” bell, which will not hurt them if they are innocent, but will kill them if they are guilty of the charge. Anyone who refuses to drink from the bell is regarded as guilty. What constitutes guilt in such cases? Simply a strong desire that a person might die; and how often in their uncontrollable anger have they wished for one another’s death; hence occasionally an over-sensitive person will refuse to drink out of the bell for fear of the consequences.

By frequently drinking the ordeal drug one becomes immune from its effects, and I have noticed that old people who have taken it many times never feel intoxicated by it; but young people, who were not used to it, fell quickly from its narcotic effects on their system. I have no doubt that the administrators of the various ordeals were open to bribery and other influences, and could, and would, dilute the ordeal for one in whom they were interested.

The natives were dissatisfied with the way their “palavers” were settled. Their cost, the long time it took to talk them, and the unfair favouritism of the head-men made them wish for some better mode of dealing with their affairs. About 1897 and 1898 they frequently asked me to act as judge, as they felt that I should be absolutely impartial in my verdicts, but I objected to do so, because I had no power to compel a man to appear before me; and, again, I had no soldiers to enforce any verdict I might give, and thus I should waste my time in listening and trying to settle their palavers.

After some time it was arranged that the two persons wishing me to arbitrate on their case should each bring me a fowl as a token that they desired me to settle their dispute, and were willing to abide by my decision. This giving of a fowl weeded out the trivial cases that would have wasted my time, and yet was not prohibitive, for whereas a fowl cost only from 10 to 20 brass rods each, the payments under the old method ran into 500 rods or more. Moreover, I gave them to understand that directly I heard that a verdict had been defied, not another case would I judge until the said verdict had been honoured. I must in all fairness say that although I judged many scores of cases not a single verdict was disregarded.

The court-house was the verandah of my house, about 8 feet wide and 50 feet long. Neither knives nor spears were allowed on it or near it. I generally sat on a chair in the middle of the verandah—on either side were the opposing factions, and many onlookers were on the ground below. There was generally sitting near by a man with some wood-ashes or red camwood powder in a leaf, ready to rub it on the face of the winner.

Only one was allowed to speak at a time, and the talking was confined to the points at issue. A few questions well put would often throw such a light on the matter under consideration that the plaintiff himself would feel that his claim was preposterous. As a result of this plan very few cases took more than half an hour. When cases were talked in the town everybody was permitted to speak, and often they spoke all together. A thousand extraneous things were dragged in to the hiding and confusing of the real point, and sometimes they would be all day over a very small matter, and then not settle it. I have known them to fight over the irritating gibes they threw at each other, and I often had to separate the combatants—a little stern authority and a few jokes have quieted them down; but it was much easier and better to act as arbitrator and settle the palaver than to have frequent quarrels and rows.

I kept a record of many cases, and I herewith transcribe a few for the benefit of my readers, as they throw considerable light on the native life and mode of thought.

Case I. The plaintiff said that many years ago his brother was very ill, and went to the defendant’s father’s town for medicine. When he was dying the sick man took a long flat pod and struck his friend, the “medicine man,” across the ankle. For this the “doctor” demanded from the family of his deceased patient a slave, three pots of sugar-cane wine, two spears, and some brass rods. The plaintiff paid the goods at the time, but now he wished to have them returned on the ground that: (1) No medicine was made and given to his brother, i.e. the patient died before he could be treated; and (2) That since white people had come he could see that it was stupid to follow such customs.

The defendant acknowledged the debt on behalf of his father (the “doctor”), who was dead. He admitted that the above statement was correct, and that the custom was quite general in this part of Congo, and was recognized by all. It seemed to be one way of making a codicil to a will, or a mode of leaving property to an outsider who legally did not inherit anything, but who, on account of his technical assault, had a legal claim for compensation to be paid out of the deceased’s estate.

I told them that I could not interfere with palavers that had happened so long ago; but in future when a man was dying and wanted to leave an outsider any of his property, he was to call some of his family and direct them to give So-and-so certain goods after his death. Only such a bequest would be recognized. Their own custom was a good one, viz.: A token was given in the presence of witnesses, and the article or articles named. The eldest son was then informed of the token, the person to whom it was given, and the nature of the goods bequeathed. After the testator’s death the token was taken to the eldest son, and the property handed over in the presence of witnesses.

Case II. A man of about 45 years of age complained that a young fellow, then present, had a woman belonging to him and would not give her up. By a series of questions the following facts were elicited: The plaintiff’s mother was living in a bush town; goods were being continually stolen from her house, until at last she went and consulted a “witch-doctor” who resided in a river-side town. She desired to take the ordeal (nka) to discover whether she had unwittingly stolen and hidden her own property, or someone else had been the thief.

When the “witch-doctor” was about to administer the nka the woman was dissuaded by her friends from taking it. The “witch-doctor” thereupon went to the woman’s husband and demanded a slave on the ground that he had prepared the ordeal which the wife had not taken, and by her refusal to take it she was bringing contempt on his fetish. The husband acknowledged the justice of the claim and paid a female slave as compensation. The plaintiff now wanted that slave or another returned.

The defendant admitted the facts as stated, but said it all happened long before he was born. The plaintiff said it took place before they had ever heard of white people, and when he was a little boy (or about 1868). I dismissed the case with costs—one fowl from each party.

Case III. Lokangi was a lad of about 14 years. He went one day in a canoe with some young men to take the monthly tax to Diboko (Nouvelles Anvers). While on the way a crocodile attacked the canoe, which was upset, and the whole party of six paddlers was thrown into the river. The crocodile caught Lokangi, and he was seen no more.

Lokangi’s family, the plaintiffs in this case, accused the leader of the canoe party of bewitching the crocodile to take Lokangi and leave all the others; they argued that he must have bewitched the crocodile to do so, for why were none of the others seized? The defendant admitted that Lokangi had been killed in the manner stated, but strenuously denied having bewitched the beast to take the lad.

I went carefully and patiently into the whole palaver of such superstitions, and at the close gave the verdict in favour of the defendant.

Case IV. Plaintiff said the defendant owed him one woman, some spears, and 3000 brass rods. The defendant denied the debt. On examination it was proved that the defendant’s father owed the above-stated amount to the plaintiff, but the father was dead, and the defendant (an only son) had inherited his father’s goods.

I laid it down as a principle that the inheritor should pay the debts owing by the person whose estate he inherited, and if the amount of the debts exceeded the sum inherited he should not be responsible for the whole of the debts, but should divide the property received among the creditors; but if the property exceeded the debts, he should pay the debts and keep the surplus for himself. The case was thus settled, in favour of the plaintiff, to everybody’s satisfaction.

Case V. Plaintiff said he owed the defendant 1000 brass rods, but as he did not pay up quickly the defendant lay in wait and caught his two wives who had gone together to fish among the islands; that by right of custom he should have taken only one and let the other go.

Defendant admitted the statement made as correct, but said that he had gone so often to the plaintiff’s town to collect his debt, and had been put off with such unreasonable excuses, that he was angry and took the two women instead of one.

I pointed out: (1) That the price of a woman was 2500 rods, but the debt was only 1000, and the expenses (fees to the men who helped him) only 500, making in all 1500, and the value of one woman more than covered this amount. (2) In tying up two women he had greatly exceeded the debt, and had thus put himself in the wrong.

Verdict for the plaintiff. One woman to be returned at once, and the other to be delivered up on payment by the plaintiff of 1800 rods; the defendant to lose thus 200 rods for tying up two women when one well covered the debt and expenses.

Case VI. Motuli, the plaintiff, said he owed the defendant a woman, and in payment of the debt he handed over a woman large with child, of which he, Motuli, was the father. The child was now two years old, and he wanted the child to be handed over to him.

The defendant allowed that all the above was true, but said that as the child was born after the woman came into his possession, the child was his.

I pointed out to Motuli: (1) That he was wrong to give his wife, by whom he was expecting a child, in payment of a debt. (2) He should have made an agreement at the time with his creditor respecting the ownership of the child. (3) That if the woman had died in child-birth he would have refused to pay another in her place, so as the creditor took her and the risks with her the child should remain with its mother. Motuli thus lost the case and was very angry.

Case VII. Bodia, the plaintiff, said he bought a wife of the defendant and had one child by her, which was now three years old; that when his wife had a second child she died in delivery, and now the mother and second child were dead. He wanted either the money returned, or that the defendant should pay him another woman.

Defendant admitted that all the statements were true, but said that Bodia had had the woman a long time and he could not see that he was responsible for her death.

I explained to Bodia: (1) That every woman who had a child had it at some risk to her life. (2) That he had owned the woman for four years, and she had farmed, cooked, and borne him one child; and as he had brought her into the position that caused her death, he himself must accept the loss. (3) His first child was properly born and grown up healthy, so there was no malformation of the womb. Verdict for the defendant.