1770 Jephta van de Caab
In this letter, the landdrost of Stellenbosch reported a fight with a tragic ending on a farm in the Wagenmakersvallei and asked the Council of Justice how to proceed in this unusual case. The incident is of note for several reasons. The fight, involving slaves and a Khoi worker, broke out over disputed ownership of bamboo canes that were growing in garden plots assigned to individual slaves, and the court seems here to have recognised their claims to its produce.1 Moreover, the case unusually shows an elderly slave and his adult son on the same farm, and gives a rare insight into family relationships amongst slaves.2
Jephta’s attempt to defend his father led to his accidental killing of the old man. The fiscal was uncertain how to proceed with such strongly mitigating circumstances and although the court could not definitively say what had happened, it did not see fit to punish any of the participants.3
Footnotes
-
In some transatlantic plantations producing non-food crops, it was common for slaves to be given their own plots of ground on which they could grow food in their spare time, both for their own consumption and for sale (Genovese 1970: 535-40). Although this practice was not widespread on Cape farms, where grain and meat were the main produce, slave garden-plots were found in some cases (Kolb 1777, vol. II: 306; Mentzel 1944: iii, 110; Worden 1985: 91-2; and Mason 1994: 76-83). ↩
-
For other examples of slave families, see the references in 1749 Reijnier van Madagascar, n. 1. ↩
-
The case came before the court on 12 April 1770 and was held over while the documentation (which included the testimonies of Pandek van Maccasser and Anna Maria Bruijning, the interrogations of Dirk and Jephta and a surgeon’s report, CJ 397, ff. 172-99) was circulated among its members. On 10 May 1770 it was agreed that Caesar’s death appeared to have been accidental (‘een casus fortuitus’), but that the slaves Jephta and Pandek should be returned to their owner with the order that they should not be sold without first informing the court, and that the Khoi Dirk be retained in case he could shed any further light on the matter, CJ 52, ff. 32-3 and 45-8. ↩
CJ 397 Criminele Process Stukken, 1770, ff. 172-81v.
To the honourable Jan Willem Cloppenburg, president, as well as the honourable Council of Justice of this government.
Honourable lord and lords!
Upon receiving the news from the widow of the late burgher Roelof van der Burg, that one of her slaves, by the name of Caesar, had been beaten to death on her farm, situated in the Wagenmakers valley, the undersigned landdrost had the corpse inspected and did the necessary enquiries, for which reason he has the honour to present, in accordance with the tenor of this information, with all respect: That at nine o’clock, at a guess, on the morning of the 20th of the past month September, when the slave jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. Pandek van Maccasser, or the testifier in [the document marked with] the letter A, was on his way to labour in the vineyard on the farm of his mistress, and his fellow slaves Caesar and Jephta, along with the Hottentot Dirk, were going along the same way leading past the gardens of the slaves, in order to plant onions there, the slave Jephta not only cleaned, but also tried to appropriate for himself, the bamboo growing there and planted by Pandek himself in his own garden; wherefore the said Jephta was prevented from doing this by Pandek and was at the same time informed that he, Pandek, had planted this bamboo himself in his garden and that it therefore belonged to him alone; about which there then developed between them both an altercation, with the aforementioned Jephta several times challenging Pandek to fight, to which Pandek was in no ways inclined but carried on with his work in the vineyard.
Upon seeing that the Hottentot Dirk also started to quarrel over the bamboo and then came to blows with the said Jephta, and also that the slave Caesar picked up a piece of wood and proceeded with it towards the fighting parties, Pandek likewise went thither in order to prevent this quarrel and, since the said Caesar, at the very moment of his arrival, raised up high the piece of wood he held in his hands in order to beat the Hottentot Dirk with it, Pandek, while saying to Caesar: “What are you going to do? You mustn’t hit!”, tried to separate the fighting men from each other, which was to no effect. That the said Caesar cast that piece of wood from him, but grabbed the aforesaid Pandek by the front of his hair, while Pandek did the same to the said Caesar, so that in this way they both started struggling with each other.
That the aforementioned Jephta then let the Hottentot Dirk go free in order to go and help his father, the aforementioned Caesar, and picked up a bamboo stick lying close by at an oak tree, intending, or so it seemed to the said Pandek from the movements made by Jephta, to give Pandek a blow with it, but that this blow missed him – both through the sudden storming forward of the aforementioned Jephta, and through the movement which Pandek and the said Caesar were making with their heads during their struggle – and instead of hitting him, Pandek, it hit Caesar, or the father of the said Jephta, as a result of which the same remained lying on the ground as if suffering from heavy dizziness, whereupon he was taken to the house of his mistress and passed away that very day as a result of this wound.
And here, honourable lord and your honourables, you have the case presented to you in accordance with the story of the aforementioned Pandek. Hence, when the aforementioned slave Jephta, in consequence of the above narration of his fellow slave Pandek, and then the Hottentot Dirk, as a result of the accusation made by the said Jephta, were taken into custody, the undersigned spared no trouble in order to shed greater light on this case, but since nobody else other than the aforementioned slaves Pandek and Jephta, as also the said Hottentot Dirk, were present at the event in question, the undersigned could not find even the least bit of elucidation and, accordingly, interrogated Dirk and Jephta before the honourable delegates from this illustrious Court of Justice, in which [interrogation] Dirk agrees with the principal tenor of the above statement given by Pandek, with the exception that Dirk answered on the ninth question, namely: “If the prisoner started quarrelling with Jephta, and over what did this originate?”, answer: Not to have had any quarrel with Jeptha, but that when Pandek and Jephta were fighting over the bamboo, he had helped them apart and that Jeptha then threw him down and bit him on his thumb, denying also: that the older slave had had a bamboo stick in his hands, that the said Pandek, at the moment when the said Caesar had already raised the bamboo and wanted to hit the said Dirk with it, had prevented this blow, and that he had said to the aforementioned Caesar: “What are you doing? You mustn’t hit!” The said Jephta denied everything in his interrogation, saying that Pandek was the auctor rixae1 and had challenged him, Jephta, with a knife when he was busy weeding the bamboo on the order of his father, Caesar; see the answers to articles 5 and 7; as also that when Pandek had finally left him, the Hottentot Dirk, who has always ganged up with Pandek, then quarrelled with him over the whip-sticks, or the aforementioned bamboo, without him wanting to know anything about his father, Caesar, coming to help with a bamboo stick or a piece of wood; as can be seen in the answers to articles 8 and following; saying moreover that when Pandek was fighting with his father, Caesar, he had put his knee on the chest of his father, who had fallen backwards between two grapevines, and then took him by the hair and thus got to wrestle together, upon which sight Jephta came to help his father; without him wanting to know anything about having taken a bamboo stick and dealing his father a blow with it; saying, on the contrary, that the Hottentot Dirk had taken the bamboo stick, which was standing behind an oak tree and was being used in a shelter, and wanted to deal him, Jephta, a blow with it, but that he had managed to dodge this blow, as a result of which his father was hit, with him even calling at that moment: “O God! Father! Dirk hit you!”; in which manner he, Jephta, is trying to excuse himself wholly.
It is indeed true that the slave Pandek had been the first to start the quarrel or disagreement with the aforementioned Jephta, and so can be taken for the auctor rixae, yet when one considers that Jephta was trying to appropriate that which belonged to the aforementioned Pandek and was planted by himself, probably for his own use, and wanted to exercise power over it, so it is certain that the said Jephta occasioned it and was thus the prime cause of it; this having been established, that the aforementioned Jephta, after Pandek had gone from him, got involved in an altercation with the Hottentot Dirk because Dirk had pulled the aforementioned Pandek from him, and the said Caesar, or the person who got hit, thinking that Dirk was fighting with his said son Jephta, therefore came to help him, as also that Pandek, since the said Caesar, according to what he [Pandek] says, had a piece of wood in his hand and was of the intention to hit the aforementioned Dirk with it, tried to separate the two fighters from each other, and to this end pulled the old jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. from Dirk, when the said Caesar in his turn then took on Pandek, the natural love of the slave Jephta had such an effect that he assisted his old and decrepit father, who was far too weak to fight against Pandek, and thus, thinking to give the said Pandek a blow with a bamboo stick which stood behind an oak tree, in order to release his father, in an accidental manner hit his own father.
In spite of all the attempts that the undersigned had endeavoured to bring the aforesaid Jephta to confess, he was unable to succeed with this because, although he often and repeatedly impressed upon him that, by coming to the aid of his father, he had after all only done that which love for his father inspired him to do, since the bonds of nature could not tolerate that his aged father be beaten by another, therefore coming to the aid of his father can in no ways be considered an unreasonable matter, and that therefore the blow he dealt his said father, as appears from the course of all the particulars of the disagreement in question, could certainly only have been done by accident; so that it would be best if he confesses the whole matter, since one, as said before, can comprehend clearly from the circumstances that he had, if not animo doloso,2 nonetheless done it; but this was all in vain, since he absolutely continued to deny having dealt the blow with the bamboo stick, alleging in his answer to the 17th question of his interrogation: That the Hottentot Dirk had tried to deal him, Jephta, a blow with the bamboo stick standing behind the oak tree, while Pandek and his father were busy fighting, yet that he had dodged this blow, which is when his father, the aforementioned Caesar, was hit, and that he had even called: “O God, Father! Dirk is hitting you!”, as also, to the 20th article, that after the incident he had run to the house and told his mistress that they were beating his father to death, which is confirmed by the wife of the burgher Hendrik Groothuijs, who had been with his mistress at this time, in her statement added hereto under the letter D, which statement, however, the undersigned had left unverified since the deponent, who lives elsewhere in the rural areas, did not have anything else to state regarding this case. Now, as regards the abovementioned by Jephta concerning the announcement he made to his mistress, namely: That they are beating his father to death, the undersigned has to put forward that this cannot, according to the undersigned’s argument, profit Jephta in the least as regards dealing the blow in question, since it is possible that he – after having dealt this blow and seeing that instead of the slave Pandek, he had hit his aged father, and in such a way that, as a result of this, he remained lying as if suffering from heavy dizziness – could have acted, in order to give his mistress the impression that he had not done it, in this way and made a huge scene as if his father had really been beaten by another.
The undersigned further investigated the accusation made by the said Jeptha concerning the Hottentot Dirk, namely that when Pandek started wrestling with his father, the Hottentot Dirk (surely because Dirk did not want to allow the said Jephta to go and help his father) took the bamboo stick, standing behind an oak tree and being used in a shelter, and wanted to hit Jephta with it, yet that the said Jephta dodged this blow and it thus hit his father; see articles 15 and 16 of his interrogation. This seems not to be devoid of all possibility, even more so when one reflects upon the answer given by the said Jephta to the 10th question of his interrogation, where he says: “Dirk quarrelled with me over the whip-stick (or bamboo stick) since, note well, Pandek and Dirk always ganged up”, through which he probably wants to indicate that they have always been good friends and supported each other, so that one could suppose that Dirk tried to hit the aforementioned Jephta, not only because he came to aid his father, but also because he, according to article 9 of the questions he answered, had thrown him down and bit him on his thumb, which Dirk, however, vigorously denies in article 17 of his questions: that when Pandek and Caesar were fighting, he, in order to prevent any accidents, cast away all the stones and vines from the way, yes even that the said Jephta, when he dealt the blow to Caesar, also touched Dirk since he was in the path of the blow; so that the case, as there were no other witnesses present, remains very complicated and obscure, yet if one believes the testimony of the slave Pandek, which the undersigned thinks squares the best with the case, then the slave Jephta would have come to aid his father out of love, and certainly must have perpetrated the manslaughter beyond his will and expectation, and certainly not with evil and cunning. According to the statement of the district’s surgeon, Georg Carel Lodewijk Geering, the blow to the left side of the head penetrated through the skull to the dura and pia mater,3 whereupon apoplexy and death must have followed. Since the undersigned, on the one hand, is uncertain, due to the mutually produced accusations of the Hottentot Dirk and the slave Jephta, about which one of the two he should act against as guilty in the case of accidentally perpetrated manslaughter, and since, on the other hand, from the circumstances of this case, it seems as if there are no means remaining to the exhibiter for further investigation via one or the other legal avenue, he is having recourse to your honours, humbly requesting that your honours please judge this in such a way as you would deem fitting in accordance with your great wisdom.
[signed] L.S. Faber.
Exhibit in court, 12 April 1770.
Footnotes
-
Legal Latin for ‘the instigator of the dispute’. ↩
-
Latin for ‘with a deceitful spirit’, probably here used as the equivalent of ‘with malice aforethought’. ↩
-
Underneath the skull there are three membranes (meninges) which further protect the brain, the outer one of which is called the dura mater and the innermost one the pia mater (Solomon 1992: 102-3). ↩
Aan den edelagtbaare heer Jan Willem Cloppenburg, praesident, beneevens den edelagtbaare Raad van Justitie deeses gouvernements.
Edelagtbaare heer en heeren!
Op bekoomen berigt van de weeduwe wijlen den burger Roelof van der Burg, dat een haarer slaven, in naame Caesar, op derselver, in de Wagenmakers Valleij geleegene, plaats doodgeslagen was, heeft den ondergetekende landdrost het cadaver laaten besigtigen en van dat geval de nodige enquesten doen inwinnen; weshalven dan, ingevolge den teneur van dien, de eer heeft u edelagtbaarens in alle eerbied voor te draagen, dat:
Wanneer den slave jongen Pandek van Maccasser, ofte den relatant onder littera A, op den 20e der gepasseerde maand September, ’s voordemiddags, naar gissing de klocke neegen uuren, naar den, ter sijner lijfvrouws plaats sijnden, wijngaard om te arbeijden, en de meede slaven Caesar en Jephta, alsmeede den Hottentot Dirk, langs den derwaards leijdenden weg voorbij de thuijnen der slaven, om uijen te planten, gegaan waaren, den slaaf Jephta, een door hem Pandek in sijn thuijn selfs geplante en aldaar opgroeijende bamboes, niet alleen schoon gemaakt, maar ook getragt had sig toe te eijgenen; weshalven gemelde Jephta door hem Pandek daarin belet en teffens te gemoed gevoerd was dat hij, Pandek dien bamboes in sijn thuijn selfs geplant hebbende, gevolgelijk hem alleen toebehoorde, waarover tusschen hun beijden eenigen woordenstrijd ontstaan sijnde, had meergemelde Jephta hem Pandek te meermaalen om te backeleijen uijtgeëijscht, waartoe hij Pandek geensints geneegen geweest, maar naar den wijngaard aan sijn werk gegaan was.
Dat voormelde Pandek op het gesigt dat den Hottentot Dirk almeede over den bamboes met geciteerde Jephta in rusie en vervolgens handgemeen geraakt was, mitsgaders den slaaf Caesar een stuk hout quam op te neemen, en sig daarmeede naar de strijdende parthijen begaf om die rusie te stuijten, dierhalven insgelijx naar derwaards gegaan was; dan nademaal gerepte Caesar juijst op het moment van desselfs aankomst het, in handen hebbende, stuk hout omhoog geheeven had, ten eijnde den Hottentot Dirk daarmeede te slaan, had hij Pandek, onder het seggen tot hem Caesar: Wat wilt gij doen? Gij moet niet slaan!, de strijdende tragten van den anderen te scheijden, hetgeen van dat effect geweest was, dat gedagte Caesar dat stuk hout van sig geworpen, dog voorseijde Pandek daarop voor in het hair gevat en hij Pandek sulx meede aan gemelde Caesar gedaan had, invoegen sij beijden dus aan ’t worstelen geraakt waaren.
Dat meergemelde Jephta alsdoen den Hottentot Dirk losgelaaten en, ten eijnde sijn vader, voormelde Caesar te hulp te koomen, een daar digtbij een eijken boom leggende bamboes opgenoomen hebbende, met voorneemen, soo als het gemelde Pandek uijt de door hem Jephta gemaakte beweeging toescheen, om hem Pandek daarmeede een slag toe te brengen, dien slag egter, soo door het schielijk toeloopen van meergesegde Jephta, als de beweeging die hij Pandek en gedagte Caesar onder het worstelen met hunne hoofden maakten, gemist en gevolgelijk niet hem Pandek, maar eevengedagte Caesar, ofte de vader van gerepete Jephta getroffen had, waardoor denselven eeven als in swaare duijseling op de aarde blijvende leggen, vervolgens naar sijn lijfvrouws wooning gebragt en dus dien eijgensten dag aan de wonde overleeden was.
Sie daar, edelagtbaare heer en edele heeren, naarvolgens het verhaal van meergeciteerde Pandek het geval voor oogen gelegt. Veelgemelde slaaf Jephta dierhalven, ingevolge het bovengemelde verhaal van den meede slaaf Pandek en vervolgens den Hottentot Dirk, op de gedaane beschuldiging van eevengemelde Jephta, in apprehensie genoomen sijnde, is door den ondergetekende alle moeijte aangewend om nader ligt in deese saak te bekoomen, dog vermits niemand anders als de hier voor genoemde slaven Pandek en Jephta, mitsgaders den gerepten Hottentot Dirk, bij het geval in quaestie praesent geweest sijn, heeft den ondergetekende geen de minste nadere elucidatie kunnen bekoomen, en dienvolgens, hem Dirk en Jephta voor heeren gecommitteerdens uijt deese illustre vierschaar op interrogatoriën gehoord; waarbij hij Dirk in de principaale saak met het bovengemelde, door Pandek gegeeven relaas, harmonieert, excepto dat hij Dirk op de 9e vraag, dicteerende: Of hij gevangen niet met Jephta rusie bekoomen heeft, en waarover deselve ontstaan is? Antwoord: Met Jephta geen rusie gehad te hebben, maar dat hij Pandek en Jephta, wanneer over den bamboes backeleijden, van malkanderen geholpen en hij Jephta hem Dirk alsdoen ondergegooijt en in desselfs duijm gebeeten had, negeerende meede dat den ouder slaaf een bamboes in handen gehad hebbende, gemelde Pandek op het moment dat gemelde Caesar den bamboes reets had opgeheeven en gemelde Dirk daarmeede hadde willen slaan, dien slag afgekeert en tot meergemelde Caesar gesegt hebben soude: Wat doet gij? Gij moet niet slaan!, dan geciteerde Jephta in sijne interrogatoriën alles koomende te ontkennen, segt: Dat Pandek den auctor rixae geweest is, en hem Jephta, wanneer ter ordre van sijn vader Caesar den bamboes had schoon gemaakt met een mes uijtgeëijsht had; vide het antwoord op articuls 5 en 7, mitsgaders dat Pandek eijndelijk van hem weggegaan sijnde, daarop den Hottentot Dirk, dewelke altijd met Pandek had tesamen gedaan, teegens denselven over den sweepstok ofte bovengemelde bamboes rusie gemaakt had, sonder dat hij weeten wil dat sijn vader Caesar met een bamboes ofte een stuk hout hem te hulp gekoomen was, soo als uijt de antwoorden sub articuls 8 et seqq. kan beoogt worden, seggende wijders dat Pandek, met sijn vader Caesar bakkeleijende, desselfs knie op de borst van gemelde sijn vader, die tusschen twee wijngaardstokken agterover gevallen was, geset en vervolgens in ’t hair gevat had, mitsgaders dus tesamen aan ’t worstelen geraakt waaren, op welk gesigt hij Jephta sijn vader te hulp gekoomen was; sonder dat egter weeten wil, een bamboes genoomen en sijn vader daarmeede een slag toegebragt te hebben, seggende ter contrarie: Dat den Hottentot Dirk den bamboes, die agter een eijkenboom stond, en tot een scherm gebruijkt wierd, had genoomen, en hem Jephta daarmeede een slag willen toebrengen, dog dat hij dien slag ontweeken sijnde, daardoor sijn vader getroffen was; hebbende hij Jephta alsdoen nog geroepen: O God! Vader! Dirk slaat u!, invoegen hij Jephta sig tragt ten eenemaal te verontschuldigen.
Het is nu wel waar, dat den slaaf Pandek de eerste geweest is die met eevengemelde Jephta de rusie of twist aangevangen heeft, en dus als de auctor rixae aangemerkt werden kan; dog, wanneer men considereert dat voorseijde Jephta datgeene hetwelk meergemelde Pandek toebehoorde en door hemselfs, denkelijk tot sijn eijgen gebruijkt, geplant was, sig tragte toe te eijgenen en het dominium daarover exerceerde, soo is het seeker, dat gerepte Jephta daartoe aanleijding gegeeven en dus de eerste oorsaak daarvan is geweest; dit vast gesteld sijnde, dat meergemelde Jephta, naar dat Pandek van hem weggegaan was, ter saake den Hottentot Dirk voormelde Pandek van hem afgetrokken had, met hem Dirk in woordenstrijd sal geraakt sijn, en gesegde Caesar, ofte den needergeslagenen, in gedagten dat hij Dirk met gemelde sijn soon Jephta bakkeleijde, denselven oversulx te hulp gekoomen is, mitsgaders dat Pandek, vermits eevengedagte Caesar, volgens sijn seggen, een stuk hout in handen hadde, en g’intentioneert was, voormelde Dirk daarmeede te slaan, getragt heeft die strijdende van den anderen te scheijden en, dienvolgens, den ouden jongen van hem Dirk heeft afgetrokken, sulx gemelde Caesar hem Pandek meede op sijn beurt aangevat hebbende, de natuurlijke liefde in den slaaf Jephta soodanigen uijtwerking gedaan had, dat hij sijnen ouden en afgeleefden vader, dewelke teegens hem Pandek veels te swak was om te bakkeleijen, gesecundeert en dus, denkende geciteerde Pandek met een, agter een eijkenboom gestaan hebbenden, bamboes, ter loslating van sijn vader, een slag toe te brengen, ongelukkigerwijse sijn eijgen vader geraakt heeft.
Ongeagt egter van alle de poginge die den ondergetekende gewent heeft om voorseijde Jephta tot bekentenis te brengen, heeft denselven daaromtrent niet kunnen reüsseeren want, alhoewel dikwils gemelde Jephta reïterativelijk te gemoed gevoerd is, dat hij door het te hulp koomen van sijn vader immers maar gedaan had datgeene wat de liefde tot sijn vader hem inboesemde, terwijl de banden der natuur niet konden toelaten, dat sijn ouden vader van een ander geslagen wierd; gevolgelijk het te hulp koomen van sijn vader geensins een onredelijke saak quam te sijn ende dus aan gesegde sijn vader toegebragte slag, blijkens het beloop van de geheelen toedragt des verschils in quaestie, seekerlijk eenelijk bij ongeluk geschied sij, invoegen het beste was, dat hij die saak maar quam te belijden, gemerkt men, soo als voorsegt tog uijt de omstandigheijd klaar bevroeden konde, dat hij sulx, ofschoon niet animo doloso, nogtans gedaan had; soo is hetselve egter tevergeefs geweest, overmits denselven absolutelijk bleef negeeren den slag met de bamboes toegebragt te hebben, allegueerende in het antwoord op de 17e vraag sijner interrogatoriën: Dat den Hottentot Dirk met den, agter een eijken boom staanden bamboes, hem Jephta, middelerwijl Pandek en sijn vader met backeleijen beesig waaren, een slag had soeken toe te brengen, dog dat hij den slag ontweeken sijnde, alsdoen sijn vader, voormelde Caesar, was geraakt; en dat hij nog geroepen had: O God Vader! Dirk slaat u!, gelijk meede op het 20e articul, dat hij Jephta naar het voorgevallene naar huijs geloopen en tot sijne lijfvrouw gesegt had: Dat se sijn vader dood sloegen!, hetgeen dan door de, te dier tijd bij sijne lijfvrouw geweest sijnde, huijsvrouw van den burger Hendrik Groothuijs in haare, onder littera D bijgevoegde, verklaring bevestigt word; welke verklaring den ondergetekende egter, vermits de haar, elders ten plattenlande bevindende, deposante niets anders met relatie tot dat geval te melden weet, maar ongerecolleert gelaaten heeft. Wat nu betreft het bovengemelde door hem, Jephta ten opsigte der gedaane bekentmaaking aan sijne lijfvrouw, te weeten: Dat se sijn vader dood sloegen!, soo moet den ondergetekende daar omtrent advanceeren dat sulx, volgens des ondergetekendes sustenue, hem Jephta, weegens den gegeeven slag in quaestie niet het minste baten kan, dewijl hij mogelijk, naar het volbrengen van dien slag, op het gesigt dat hij, in plaats van den slaaf Pandek, sijnen ouden vader, en dat wel dusdanig dat daardoor in swaare duijseling bleef leggen, geraakt had, om sijn lijfvrouw in het denkbeeld te brengen dat hij sulx niet hadde gedaan, dienvolgens sig soodanig kan aangesteld en een misbaar gemaakt hebben alsof sijn vader weesentlijk door een ander geslagen was.
Den ondergetekende wijders ter ondersoek treedende van de, door gemelde Jephta omtrent den Hottentot Dirk gedaane, inculpatie, namentlijk dat, wanneer Pandek met zijn vader aan het worstelen geraakt was, den Hottentot Dirk (seekerlijk uijt hoofde dat hij Dirk niet gedoogen wilde dat gerepte Jephta sijn vader te hulp koomen soude) een, agter een eijkeboom staande en tot een scherm gebruijkt werdende, bamboes had genoomen, en hem Jephta daarmeede willen slaan, dog dat voormelde Jephta dien slag ontweeken sijnde, dus sijn vader geraakt had; vide articuls 15 en 16 sijner interrogatoriën, soo schijnt het wel niet van alle mogelijkheijd ontbloot te sijn, te meer wanneer men reflexie slaat op het door eevengemelde Jephta op de 10e vraag sijner interrogatoriën gegeeven antwoord, alwaar segt: Dirk heeft teegens mij rusie gemaakt over de sweepstock (of bamboes), hebbende, N.B., Pandek en Dirk altijd tesaamen gedaan, waardoor hij seekerlijk wil te kennen geeven dat sij altijd goede vrienden geweest sijn en malkanderen bijgestaan hebben; invoegen men soude supponeeren dat hij Dirk voormelde Jephta niet alleen weegens het te hulp koomen van sijn vader, maar ook om reedenen dat hij hem, volgens articul 9 sijner beantwoorde vraagpoincten, ondergegooijt en in sijn duijm gebeeten had, heeft tragten te slaan, hetgeen hij Dirk egter wel degelijk negeert, voorgeevende op de 17e articul sijner vraagpoincten, dat hij, om alle ongelukken voor te koomen, wanneer Pandek en Caesar backeleijden, alle de daar leggende steenen en wijngaard stokken uijt de weg had geworpen, ja selfs dat gemelde Jephta met den aan Caesar gegeevenen slag, hem Dirk vermits onder den slag was, meede nog geraakt had. Des de saak, vermits geene andere getuijgen daarbij praesent geweest sijn, seer intricaat en duijster blijft; dog soo wanneer men aan het relaas van den slaaf Pandek sal geloof slaan, hetgeen den ondergetekende het best dunkt met het geval te quadreeren, soo soude den slaaf Jephta sijn vader uijt liefde te hulp gekoomen weesende, seekerlijk den manslag buijten sijn wil en verwagting, en dus niet met erg of list geperpetreert moeten hebben, sijnde volgens de verklaring van den ’s colonies chirurgijn, Georg Carel Lodewijk Geering, de slag van het slinkerdeel des hoofds door het cranium de dura et piamater gepenetreert, waarop een apoplexia en gevolgelijk de dood heeft moeten volgen; overmits den ondergetekende dan eens, deels door de over en weeder voortgebragte beschuldigingen van den Hottentot Dirk en den slaaf Jephta, in het onseekere gesteld is, wien van beijden hij als schuldig aan den casu fortuito begaane manslag actioneeren sal en, aan den andere kant, uijt den te samenhang des gevals, den vertoonder geene middelen overig schijnen te sijn om langs den een of anderen regtelijken weg verdere naspeuring te doen, soo neemt denselven den toevlugt tot u edelagtbaarens met eerbiedige versoek dat u edelagtbaarens deese saak aangaande soodanig gelieven te jugeeren, als naar derselver hooge wijsheid sullen vinden te behooren.
[get.] L.S. Faber.
Exhibitum in judicio, den 12e April 1770.