Although an oath, as being an appeal to the superior powers, is supposed to come within their cognizance alone, and that it is contrary to the spirit of the customs of these people to punish a perjury by human means, even if it were clearly detected; yet, so far prevalent is the opinion of their interposition in human affairs that it is very seldom any man of substance, or who has a family that he fears may suffer by it, will venture to forswear himself; nor are there wanting apparent examples to confirm them in this notion.  Any accident that happens to a man who has been known to take a false oath, or to his children or grandchildren, is carefully recorded in memory, and attributed to this sole cause.  The dupati of Gunong Selong and his family have afforded an instance that is often quoted among the Rejangs, and has evidently had great weight.  It was notorious that he had, about the year 1770, taken in the most solemn manner a false oath.  He had at that time five sons grown up to manhood.  One of them, soon after, in a scuffle with some bugis (country soldiers) was wounded and died.  The dupati the next year lost his life in the issue of a disturbance he had raised in the district.  Two of the sons died afterwards, within a week of each other.  Mas Kaddah, the fourth, is blind; and Treman, the fifth, lame.  All this is attributed to, and firmly believed to be the consequence of, the father’s perjury.

COLLATERAL OATHS.

In administering an oath, if the matter litigated respects the property of the grandfather, all the collateral branches of the family descended from him are understood to be included in its operation:  if the father’s effects only are concerned, or the transaction happened in his lifetime, his descendants are included:  if the affair regards only the present parties and originated with them, they and their immediate descendants only are comprehended in the consequences of the oath; and if any single one of these descendants refuses to join in the oath it vitiates the whole; that is, it has the same effect as if the party himself refused to swear; a case that not unfrequently occurs.  It may be observed that the spirit of this custom tends to the requiring a weight of evidence and an increase of the importance of the oath in proportion as the distance of time renders the fact to be established less capable of proof in the ordinary way.

Sometimes the difficulty of the case alone will induce the court to insist on administering the oath to the relations of the parties, although they are nowise concerned in the transaction.  I recollect an instance where three people were prosecuted for a theft.  There was no positive proof against them, yet the circumstances were so strong that it appeared proper to put them to the test of one of these collateral oaths.  They were all willing, and two of them swore.  When it came to the turn of the third he could not persuade his relations to join with him, and he was accordingly brought in for the whole amount of the goods stolen, and penalties annexed.