From the moment of occupation, then, till the abandonment of the site the occupant is the sole lawful owner of the land and has full rights to proprietorship of all that it produces. When he abandons the land he still retains the ownership of such crops or plants as may be growing on it. Hence betel-nut palms, betel plants, bananas, and other plants, belong, to him and to his descendants after him. Even such fugitive crops as camotes are his until they die off or are destroyed by wild boars.
Fruit trees, such as durian, jack-fruit, and others growing in the forest, are, in theory, the collective property of a clan or of a family, but in practice anyone may help himself. However, the finder becomes sole and exclusive owner of a bee's nest as soon as he sets up an indication of his ownership in the form of a split stick with a small crosspiece, and announces his possessive rights on his return to the settlement. The parted trunk has a form and significance similar to that which it has in connection with the selection of a new site. As far as I know a bee's nest once located by one individual is seldom appropriated by another, but the theft of palm wine is common enough, especially if the palm tree be at a considerable distance from the owner's settlement.
All other property that is the result of one's own labor, or that has been acquired by purchase or in any other customary way, belongs to the individual, unless he is a slave. Even slaves, captured during war raids, become the property of their captors, unless stipulation to the contrary has been made before the raid. In one expedition that took place in 1907 a certain warrior chief was delegated to punish a Mañgguáñgan. As an advance payment he received a few bolos and lances, but it was expressly agreed that after the attack he and his party were to receive all the slaves captured.
With regard to the loss of, or damage to, property belonging to another, the customary law is rigid; the damage or the loss must be made good, no matter how unfortunate may have been the circumstances of the loss. This will explain the great care that carriers exercise in transporting the property of others through the mountains, for if by any mischance the things were to get lost or wet or broken, or damaged in any other way, they would be required to make good the loss. This custom, as applied in some cases, may seem somewhat harsh, but it must be remembered that Manóboland is a land where the law of vengeance prevails, and that no opportunity to wreak vengeance must be given. Such opportunities would occur if anyone were permitted to attribute a loss or other accident to involuntary causes.
This rigid law will explain also the peculiar liability under which one is sometimes placed for an absolutely unintentional and unforeseen act. Thus, on a certain occasion, one of my carriers died a few days after my arrival in a settlement. Shortly after the occurrence of the death I was confronted by a band of the relatives of the deceased in full panoply and requested to pay the commercial equivalent of a slave.
On another occasion I ran after a child in play. The child out of fright rushed into the forest and hid. The same afternoon it was taken with a violent fever to which it succumbed a few days later. I was not in the settlement at the time of the death, and was not sorry, for it was reported to me that the father of the deceased child had said that he would have killed me. On my return to his settlement a few days later I visited the father for the purpose of having the case arbitrated. He broached the subject and demanded three slaves, or their equivalent, in payment for the death of his child, which was due, he firmly believed and asseverated, to the scare that I had given it.
Many instances might be adduced to illustrate the peculiar liability which one undergoes in dealing with these primitive men who follow out in practice the old fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
LAWS OF CONTRACT
The conception of contract is as universal as the conception of property rights, but a certain amount of leniency seems to be expected in such details as fulfilling the terms of the contract on the specified date, unless it has been expressly and formally agreed that no leniency is to be looked for. In case of a failure to fulfill the contract at the stated time it is customary to offer either what is called an "excuse,"4 in the form of extra hospitality or a free gift of some article, not so valuable as to constitute a debt, or to make many explanations, very frequently fictitious. These remarks apply only to cases in which the creditor has undergone the hardship of a reasonably long trip or of other necessary expenditures. Thus, to illustrate the point, A owes B a pig deliverable, according to agreement, after the lapse of so many days, there being no express provisions for any penalty in case of nonfulfillment of the agreement. B goes to A's house and is treated to a special meal with an accompaniment of drink when obtainable. Toward the termination of the meal, he is informed by A of the latter's inability to pay, for numerous real, or more numerous fictitious, reasons. B accepts this excuse but before leaving asks for some little thing that he may take a fancy to. It is always given as an "excuse." Another day for the payment is agreed upon. This leniency may be displayed on one or more occasions till the delay in paying exasperates B or renders him liable to loss. Ill feeling arises all the more readily if B feels that A has not been as assiduous as he should have been. Then a stringent contract is entered upon, the nonperformance of which will render A liable to interest or to a fine, as may be stipulated.