264 



municated by Lord Teignmouth to the Asiatic Society, which 

 throw further light on their manners and customs. 



In 1791, Soodishter Mier, a brahmin, ihe farmer of land 

 paying revenue, and tenant of tax free land, in the province of 

 Benares, was summoned to appear before a native officer, the 

 deputy collector of the district where he resided. He positively 

 refused to obey the summons, which was repealed without effect; 

 and after some time several people were deputed to enforce the 

 process by compelling his attendance. On their approaching the 

 house he cut off the head of his deceased son's widow, and threw it 

 out. His first intention was to destroy his own wife ; but it was 

 proved in evidence, that, upon his indication of it, his son's widow 

 requested him to decapitate her, which he instantly did. In this 

 case the process against Soodishter was regular, his disobedience 

 contemptuous; his situation in life entitled him to no particular 

 exemption, he had nothing to apprehend from obeying the requi- 

 sition, and he was certain of redress if injury or injustice were prac- 

 tised upon him. 



Another brahmin, named Baloo Paundeii, in 1793, was con- 

 victed of the murder of his daughter. His own account of the 

 transaction will best explain it, and his motives; I give it in ab- 

 stract. That about twelve years before the period of the murder, 

 he, Baloo, and another man were joint tenants and cultivators of 

 a spot of ground, when his partner Baloo relinquished his share. 

 In 1793 this partner again brought forward a claim to a share in 

 the ground: the claim was referred to arbitration, and a decision 

 was pronounced in favour of Baloo. He consequently repaired 



