stantially stronger at its administration the next day. 
Partiality in procedure is further illustrated by the 
method of dealing with cases in which no individual had 
been directly accused, a situation which usually arose 
from suspicion of witchcraft throughout a village. The 
people stood in a ring while a witch detective walked 
about, feeling the hands of each. Dressed in the full 
ceremonial regalia of his calling, this person chanted in- 
cantations and mystic imprecations until, after touching 
the hands of one person, he would jump back in horror 
and scream condemnations denouncing that person as the 
offender. If the tribe’s affliction had been ascribed to 
sorcery, the medicine man would then go to a spot in the 
village, mutter several spells while standing there, and 
dig up the person’s horns (which had been previously 
buried by the chief witch doctor). Since this piece of 
evidence was considered incontrovertible proof of guilt, 
an ordeal was scheduled immediately. 
Detection in this manner was sometimes unnecessary, 
for it was often felt that a particular person, because of 
his actions or past record, was a likely suspect. This in- 
dividual would usually be informed of this suspicion and 
would publicly request the ordeal to vindicate himself. 
In his situation, there was a chance of survival. But if 
he had been singled out by the witch detective in the 
ceremony of the hands, a liaison between the detective 
and the poison mixer resulted in an especially heavy dose 
of poison. This procedure was inevitable, for if the per- 
son lived it would have implied that the witch doctor had 
been mistaken. (Duff, 1906) 
The poison’s administration took place at the chief's 
hut or the center of the village, and was directed by the 
head man or, in civil cases, by an intermediate whom 
both parties had agreed upon. The poison was swallowed 
raw and rinsed down with water from asmall bowl. The 
[ 288 ] 
