After the murder of Yel-lo-way by Wat-te-wall his widow Noo-roo-ing being obliged, according to the custom of her country, to avenge her husband’s death on some of the relations of the murderer, meeting with a little girl named Go-nang-goo-lie, who was some way related to Wat-te-wal, walked with her and two other girls to a retired place, where with a club and a pointed stone they beat her so cruelly, that she was brought into the town almost dead.  In the head were six or seven deep incisions, and one ear was divided to the bone, which, from the nature of the instrument with which they beat her, was much injured.  This poor child was in a very dangerous way, and died in a few days afterwards.  The natives to whom this circumstance was mentioned expressed little or no concern at it, but seemed to think it right, necessary, and inevitable; and we understood that whenever women have occasion for this sanguinary revenge, they never exercise it but on their own sex, not daring to strike a male.  Noo-roo-ing, perceiving that her treatment of Go-nang-goo-lie did not meet our approbation, denied having beaten her, and said it was the other girls; but such men as we conversed with on the subject assured us it was Noo-roo-ing, and added, that she had done no more than what custom obliged her to.  The little victim of her revenge was, from her quiet tractable manners, much beloved in the town; and what is a singular trait of the inhumanity of this proceeding, she had every day since Yel-loway’s death requested that Noo-roo-ing might be fed at the officer’s hut, where she herself resided.  Savage indeed must be the custom and the feelings which could arm the hand against this child’s life!  Her death was not avenged, perhaps because they considered it as an expiatory sacrifice.

Wat-te-wal, who committed the crime for which this little girl suffered so cruelly, escaped unhurt from the spears of Bennillong, Cole-be, and several other natives, and was afterwards received by them as usual, and actually lived with this very woman for some time, till he was killed in the night by Cole-be, as before related.

This Wat-te-wal was in great union with Bennillong, who twice denied his having committed offences which he knew would forfeit our favour.  In this last instance Bennillong betrayed more duplicity than we had given him credit for.  On asking him with some earnestness if Wat-te-wal had killed Yel-loway, he assured us with much confidence that it was not Wat-te-wal who had killed him, but We-re-mur-rah.  Little did we suspect that our friend had availed himself of a circumstance which he knew we were unacquainted with, that Wat-te-wal had more than one name.  By giving us the second, he saved his friend, and knew that he could at all times boldly maintain that he had not concealed his name from us, We-re-murrah being as much his name as Wat-te-wal, though we had never known him by it.  On apprising him some time afterwards, that we had discovered his artifice, and that it was a meanness we did not expect from him, he only laughed and went away.