Among Congo cannibals

by John H. Weeks

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.