NATIVE LAWS, CRIMES, AND ORDEALS
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]
Footnote 20:
On the Lower Congo the ordeal is given only to the accused, and if he
does not vomit it, then it is fatal, and the man falling is beaten and
stabbed to death as guilty of witchcraft.
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.
[Illustration:
_Photo by_: _Rev. C. J. Dodds_
WHITE ANTS’ NEST
White ants are a constant menace to the woodwork in houses, to stores,
and to books. At one of our stations sufficient clay was procured
from a white ants’ nest to make 250,000 bricks. It is splendid
material for that purpose.
]
_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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------