do not prohibit the use of alcoholic liquor, and have no gotras. They also have sub-divisions among them, which do not wear the sacred thread, and work outside the village limits. Thus, the Karamalas are a section of blacksmiths, who do not wear the sacred thread. Similarly, the Baita Kammaras are another section of blacksmiths, who do not wear the thread, and, as their name implies, work outside the village. In Vizagapatam, almost the only castes which will consent to receive food at the hands of Kamsalas are the humble Malas and Rellis. Even the Tsakalas and Yatas will not do so. There is a popular saying that the Kamsalas are of all castes seven visses (viss, a measure of weight) less. In 1885, a criminal revision case came before the High Court of Madras, in which a goldsmith performed abishekam by pouring cocoanut-water over a lingam. In his judgment, one of the Judges recorded that "the facts found are that 1st accused, a goldsmith by caste, on the night of the last Mahasivaratri, entered a Siva temple at Vizagapatam, and performed abishekam, i.e., poured cocoanut-water over the lingam, the 2nd and 3rd accused (Brahmans) reciting mantrams (sacred formulæ) while he did so. Another Brahman who was there expostulated with 1st accused, telling him that he, a goldsmith, had no right to perform abishekam himself, upon which 1st accused said that it was he who made the idol, and he was fit to perform abishekam. An outcry being raised, some other Brahmans came up, and objected to 1st accused performing abishekam, and he was turned out, and some ten rupees spent in ceremonies for the purification of the idol. The 2nd-class Magistrate convicted the 1st accused under sections 295 and 296, Indian Penal Code, and the 2nd and 3rd accused of abetment. All these convictions were reversed on appeal by the District Magistrate. There was certainly no evidence that any of the accused voluntarily caused disturbance to an assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, and therefore a conviction under section 296 could not be supported. In order to support a conviction under section 295, it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove (1) that the accused 'defiled' the lingam, and (2) that he did so, knowing that a class of persons, viz., the Brahmans, would consider such defilement as an insult to their religion. It may be noted that the 1st accused is a person of the same religion as the Brahmans, and, therefore, if the act be an insult at all, it was an insult to his own religion. The act of defilement alleged was the performance of abishekam, or the pouring of cocoanut-water over the lingam. In itself, the act is regarded as an act of worship and meritorious, and I understand that the defilement is alleged to consist in the fact that the 1st accused was not a proper person--not being a Brahman--to perform such a ceremony, but that he ought to have got some Brahman to perform it for him." The other Judge (Sir T.