The foregoing may be considered as a characteristic specimen of their mode of dealing with grave political offenses.  In common cases there is a greater show of deliberation.  The complainant asks the man against whom he means to lodge his complaint to come with him to the chief.  This is never refused.  When both are in the kotla, the complainant stands up and states the whole case before the chief and the people usually assembled there.  He stands a few seconds after he has done this, to recollect if he has forgotten any thing.  The witnesses to whom he has referred then rise up and tell all they themselves have seen or heard, but not any thing that they have heard from others.  The defendant, after allowing some minutes to elapse so that he may not interrupt any of the opposite party, slowly rises, folds his cloak around him, and, in the most quiet, deliberate way he can assume—­yawning, blowing his nose, etc.—­begins to explain the affair, denying the charge, or admitting it, as the case may be.  Sometimes, when galled by his remarks, the complainant utters a sentence of dissent; the accused turns quietly to him, and says, “Be silent:  I sat still while you were speaking; can’t you do the same?  Do you want to have it all to yourself?” And as the audience acquiesce in this bantering, and enforce silence, he goes on till he has finished all he wishes to say in his defense.  If he has any witnesses to the truth of the facts of his defense, they give their evidence.  No oath is administered; but occasionally, when a statement is questioned, a man will say, “By my father,” or “By the chief, it is so.”  Their truthfulness among each other is quite remarkable; but their system of government is such that Europeans are not in a position to realize it readily.  A poor man will say, in his defense against a rich one, “I am astonished to hear a man so great as he make a false accusation;” as if the offense of falsehood were felt to be one against the society which the individual referred to had the greatest interest in upholding.

If the case is one of no importance, the chief decides it at once; if frivolous, he may give the complainant a scolding, and put a stop to the case in the middle of the complaint, or he may allow it to go on without paying any attention to it whatever.  Family quarrels are often treated in this way, and then a man may be seen stating his case with great fluency, and not a soul listening to him.  But if it is a case between influential men, or brought on by under-chiefs, then the greatest decorum prevails.  If the chief does not see his way clearly to a decision, he remains silent; the elders then rise one by one and give their opinions, often in the way of advice rather than as decisions; and when the chief finds the general sentiment agreeing in one view, he delivers his judgment accordingly.  He alone speaks sitting; all others stand.

No one refuses to acquiesce in the decision of the chief, as he has the power of life and death in his hands, and can enforce the law to that extent if he chooses; but grumbling is allowed, and, when marked favoritism is shown to any relative of the chief, the people generally are not so astonished at the partiality as we would be in England.