The foregoing system of the adat, or customs of the country, being digested chiefly for the use of the natives, or of persons well acquainted with their manners in general, and being designed, not for an illustration of the customs, but simply as a standard of right, the fewest and concisest terms possible have been made use of, and many parts must necessarily be obscure to the bulk of readers.  I shall therefore revert to those particulars that may require explanation, and endeavour to throw a light upon the spirit and operation of such of their laws especially as seem most to clash with our ideas of distributive justice.  This comment is the more requisite as it appears that some of their regulations, which were judged to be inconsistent with the prosperity of the people, were altered and amended through the more enlightened reason of the persons who acted as the representatives of the English company; and it may be proper to recall the idea of the original institutions.

MODE OF PLEADING.

The plaintiff and defendant usually plead their own cause, but if circumstances render them unequal to it they are allowed to pinjam mulut (borrow a mouth).  Their advocate may be a proattin, or other person indifferently; nor is there any stated compensation for the assistance, though if the cause be gained a gratuity is generally given, and too apt to be rapaciously exacted by these chiefs from their clients, when their conduct is not attentively watched.  The proattin also, who is security for the damages, receives privately some consideration; but none is openly allowed of.  A refusal on his part to become security for his dependant or client is held to justify the latter in renouncing his civil dependence and choosing another patron.

EVIDENCE.

Evidence is used among these people in a manner very different from the forms of our courts of justice.  They rarely admit it on both sides of the question; nor does the witness first make a general oath to speak the truth, and nothing but the truth.  When a fact is to be established, either on the part of the plaintiff or of the defendant, he is asked if he can produce any evidence to the truth of what he asserts.  On answering in the affirmative he is directed to mention the person.  This witness must not be a relation, a party concerned, nor even belong to the same dusun.  He must be a responsible man, having a family, and a determinate place of residence.  Thus qualified, his evidence may be admitted.  They have a settled rule in respect to the party that is to produce evidence.  For instance; A. sues B. for a debt:  B. denies the debt:  A. is now to bring evidence to the debt, or, on failure thereof, it remains with B. to clear himself of the debt by swearing himself not indebted.  Had B. acknowledged that such a debt had formerly subsisted but was since paid, it would be incumbent on B. to prove the payment by evidence, or on failure it would rest with A. to confirm the debt’s being still due, by his oath.  This is an invariable mode, observed in all cases of property.