283 5 
fruit will destroy, whether innocent or guilty. On this ac- 
count, during the ordeal of 1830, a few of the common people 
were always seized upon, and compelled to partake with the 
nobility, and they usually consisted of those who had no rela- 
tives or friends to stand by them, in consequence of which 
two-thirds always died. ins ; 
It seems to be judged essential in every public administra- 
tion of the Tanghin, that some should perish, otherwise the 
judicative virtues of the plant would be considered nugatory. 
The following circumstance is illustrative of this sentiment. 
One of the chief officers, during the trials of 1830, had the 
misfortune to vomit while eating the three spoonsful of rice in 
token of perfect recovery; he was appointed to drink again 
in-a few days, along with the slave who had carried water for 
him, and who, it was pretended, had perhaps bewitched him. 
The officer recovered, but the slave died, such being the 
common mode of saving the reputation of the fruit. 
The uncertainty in the means of judging by the Tanghin 
is sensibly felt by the natives, and affords a better argument 
against its use, than any representations of the folly of a belief 
in sorcery. I may specify the following causes of error in - 
the ordeal. 1. The partiality of the administrators. 2. Their 
ignorance of the proper fruit. 3. What is called rainazy, 
when the fruit, or rather the superintending power, which is 
thought to reside in it, is supposed to act with partiality, irre- 
spectively of actual guilt in the accused. 4. By the criminal 
Possessing a charm against the Tanghin. 5. By the presence 
of some person or charm, obnoxious to the superintending 
power, which provokes the death of the innocent. 6. By the 
innocent individual being azondoza, that is, held by the power 
of evil. 7. By the innocent person doing, either wilfully or 
in ignorance, what the Skid has interdicted, called * manota 
As to the cause of the different operation of the fruit, some- 
times acting as a poison, though generally as an emetic, I am 
unable to assign it with any certainty. t is known that a 
difference, visible even to the naked eye, does exist between 
that which only occasions vomiting, and that which destroys ; 
