104
injured one is somewhat younger or inferior in rank, he must spring quickly forward to meet the penitent so as to appear to take the initiative.
In cases of manslaughter the diët is seldom accepted, more substantial vengeance being sought for. The guilty party in such cases usually flies from the highlands to the lowlands or vice versâ, and enjoys the protection of the gampōng whose hospitality he invokes[1]. The ulèëbalang whose subject the deceased was, after having ascertained the facts, proclaims that the offender may be slain by anyone into whose hands he falls.
Where the bloodguilty party dies either a violent or a natural death, the affair is regarded as settled.
It was understood that persons guilty of manslaughter could save themselves by flying to the Dalam, but they were then regarded as chattels of the raja.
Theft.A thief is according to Achehnese law punishable with death, even if not caught red-handed[2]. In addition to the great divergence from the law of Islam in regard to the severity of the penalty, we find a further conflict with that law in the estimation of the punishment as an act of private vengeance, which only the victim of the theft or his representative has the right to exact.
If he whose goods are stolen has caught the thief red-handed and slain him, he must in accordance with the rules of evidence required by the adat, prove that the deceased has actually committed theft, as otherwise he would become involved in a blood-feud. Where the thief is not at once captured, the fact must in like manner be "proved", so as to give the aggrieved party the right to slay him without being exposed to the vengeance of his kindred.
- ↑ Even Teungku Tandòh Abèë, the learned kali of the XXII Mukims, alluded to above has for years past harboured a bila gòb (a man guilty of homicide, literally "blood-sacrifice of others"), who has meantime become under his guidance a diligent student of the kitabs.
- ↑ According to Mohammedan law, as we know, the thief should be deprived of his right hand, for a second offence of his left foot, for a third of the left hand and finally of the right foot. But theft as defined by that law is exceedingly difficult to prove according to Mohammedan rules of evidence. As we shall see presently, the infliction of these punishments was among the prerogatives of the Sultan. Nevertheless even in recent years this right was usurped by the chief of the sagi of the XXII Mukims, who most probably paid no heed in dealing with such cases to the strict requirements of the Mohammedan law of evidence in the matter of theft. No other chiefs of sagis or ulèëbalangs have ever assumed this privilege.
