The accused had apparently been well educated, and whilst he was in the witness-box it was difficult to conceive how a man of his stamp could possibly be connected with a cannibal society; on the other hand, it was undisputed that he had permitted himself to be elected Mahawa (paramount chief) of one of the chiefdoms in the Protectorate, and had acted in that capacity from 1899 to 1905, which connotes much; and he stated that he only ceased to be Mahawa after his trial upon a charge of cannibal murder which took place before a judge and jury in Bonthe in 1905.
The case for the prosecution depended chiefly upon the evidence of two informers. Upon the depositions their testimony was corroborated by the evidence of two witnesses, one of whom was a petty trader and the other a teacher in another branch of the United Brethren in Christ Mission, but, as these witnesses when before the Special Commission Court swore that their previous statements were false, the case for the prosecution was left to depend almost solely upon the evidence of the two informers.
These two informers stated that towards the last quarter of 1909 (cutting-rice time) a meeting of the Human Leopard Society was called near Yandehun for the purpose of arranging for a certain newly appointed Mahawuru (sub-chief) to provide a victim to celebrate his appointment. At that meeting a number of important persons were present, and it was settled that the Mahawuru should give a girl to whom he stood in loco parentis, and that the murder should take place on the evening of the fourth day from that.
A SELF-CONFESSED CANNIBAL.
On the evening arranged the two informers and many others arrived at the appointed place, the Mahawuru enticed the girl to the spot, and he and his Lavari set upon her and killed her. Her body was divided up and one of the informers was despatched with a portion of the girl’s flesh to the accused and another member who had not attended the meeting. He handed over this flesh to this other member and asked him to give the accused his portion.
The next morning the informer went to the town of Victoria and saw the accused at the French Company’s Factory, and informed him that he had been sent to ask him whether he had received a share of the “meat” that was sent for him, to which the accused replied that he had received it. The informer stated that the accused then said, “All right, I am now going. I only came for that purpose,” and that the accused then took the road leading in the direction of Mobundo (New London), which is situated farther down the river and is one of the starting-places when going by water to Bonthe.
If that story was true, there could be no doubt that the “meat” was a portion of the body of the murdered girl, and an admission by the accused to a member of the Human Leopard Society that he had received such “meat” would have been conclusive proof that he was a member of that Society.
Both the informers also stated that they saw one of the witnesses, a petty trader, at the French Company’s Factory on that particular occasion, and also the school-teacher referred to. That was practically all, apart from proof of the girl’s disappearance at the time in question, that the prosecution could prove at the trial.
Upon the depositions, however, the case was much stronger. At the preliminary investigation in the District Commissioner’s Court the previous September the petty trader referred to stated that about two and a half years before September, 1912, early one morning he saw one of the informers and the accused coming out of the French Company’s Store. He further said that he got the school-teacher referred to to write a letter to a person at Moyamba, but he did not actually connect this letter with the day on which he saw the informer and the accused together. He admitted that the school-teacher had written a letter for him, that he took this letter to a person at Moyamba, and that just before he started for Moyamba with that letter he went to the French Company’s Store to get some provisions; but he denied, when before the Special Commission Court, having seen either the informer or the accused there.