In a certain country there was a King, it is said. This King's palace
having been dug into by three dexterous thieves, they stole and got
the goods.
Having seized these very three robbers, for the purpose of effecting
their trial they brought them into the presence of the King. When the
King asked these three robbers if they committed the robbery or not,
they said that they committed the robbery. "If you thus committed
the robbery are ye guilty or not guilty persons?" he asked. Thereupon
they gave notice that they were not guilty persons.
When he asked, "How is that?" [they said that], as it was easy for
them to dig into [the wall], because when the mason built the palace
the mortar had been put in loosely, the mason was the guilty person
owing to his doing that matter.
Thereupon the King having summoned the mason, when he asked him
whether, because he put in the mortar loosely, he was guilty or not
guilty, he gave notice that he was not guilty.
When he asked again, "How is that?" the mason said thus, "I had
appointed a labourer to mix the lime. Owing to his inattention when
doing it the mortar had become loose. Because of that, the labourer
is the guilty person," the mason said.
Thereupon having summoned the said labourer, he asked him whether
because he put the mortar in loose (i.e., improperly mixed) he was
guilty or not guilty. Then he gave notice that he was not the guilty
person. How is that? While he was staying mixing the lime, having
seen a beautiful woman going by that road, because his mind became
attached to her the work became neglected. The labourer said that
the woman was the guilty person.
Thereupon having summoned the woman, just as before he asked whether,
regarding the circumstance that having gone by that road she caused
the neglect of the labourer's work, she was guilty or not guilty. She,
too, said that she was not guilty. Why was that? A goldsmith having
promised some of her goods, through her going to fetch them because he
did not give them on the [appointed] day, this fault having occurred
owing to her doing this business, the goldsmith was the guilty person.
Thereupon having summoned the goldsmith, when he asked him just as
before he was not inclined to give any reply. Because of that, the
King, having declared the goldsmith the guilty person, commanded them
to kill the goldsmith by [causing him to be] gored by the tusk of
the festival tusk elephant. He ordered them to kill this goldsmith,
having set him against a large slab of rock, and causing the tusk
elephant to gore him through the middle of the belly.
Well then, when the executioner was taking the goldsmith he began to
weep. When [the King] asked him why that was, the goldsmith said thus,
"Two such shining clean tusks of the King's festival tusk elephant
having bored a hole through my extremely thin body and having struck
against the stone slab, will be broken. Because of sorrow for that
I wept," he gave answer.
"What is proper to be done concerning it?" the King asked.
Then the goldsmith says, "In the street I saw an extremely
great-bellied Tambi. If in the case of that Tambi, indeed, the tusk
elephant gore the belly, no wound will occur to the two tusks,"
the goldsmith said.
Thereupon the King having summoned the great-bellied Tambi, caused
the tusk elephant to gore him through his belly.
The goldsmith and the whole of the aforesaid [persons] went away
in happiness.
Western Province.
In The Indian Antiquary, vol. xx, p. 78, a South-Indian variant was
given by Natesa Sastri. In order to commit robbery, a thief made a hole
through a wall newly built of mud which slipped down on his neck and
killed him. His comrade found the body, and reported that the owner
of the house had murdered him. The owner blamed the cooly who built
the wall; he blamed the cooly who used too much water in mixing the
mud; he attributed it to the potter's making too large a mouth for
the water-pot; he blamed a dancing-girl for passing at the time and
distracting his attention. She in turn laid the blame on a goldsmith
who had not re-set in time a jewel which she gave him; he blamed a
merchant who had not supplied it in time, though often demanded. He
being unintelligent could offer no excuse, and was therefore impaled
for causing the thief's death.