A number of other cases besides those mentioned occupied the time of the Court for some weeks, and among them were a number of cases in which prisoners were charged with being members of the Human Leopard Society. As there were so many persons under arrest on this charge, the Crown decided to proceed only against the important men concerned. Most of these men were defended by counsel, who examined the witnesses for the prosecution at great length, but in many cases they were unable to shake their evidence. A number of these prisoners were proved to have been present at various meetings of the Society at which the details of several murders had been arranged, and the Court in giving judgment stated that on the facts proved such persons were really accessories before the fact to these murders and might on the evidence have been found guilty on the capital charge had they been prosecuted for it, and in those cases the Court felt compelled to pass the maximum sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The only other case of interest was one in which a man of some importance in his chiefdom was charged with having in his possession without lawful authority a certain article, to wit an iron needle of a peculiar shape used for marking on initiation members of the HUMAN LEOPARD SOCIETY. The possession of this article is made an offence under the HUMAN LEOPARD SOCIETY ORDINANCE, punishable with imprisonment up to fourteen years. The case resolved itself chiefly into a discussion on a point of law, the arguments in the case all turning on the word “branding.” The case for the prosecution was that iron needles, made specially for the purpose, were used in the following way: the needle was inserted under the skin, the skin and flesh were raised, a razor then cut under or over the needle in such a way as to make a small wound from which blood flowed. A preparation called Nikori was then placed on the wound, and the result was a peculiar scar or mark. It was contended that an iron needle used for that purpose could be held to be a needle used for branding persons. For the defence it was argued by counsel that “branding” a person meant applying a hot iron to his person, and that marking a person was not the same as branding him; that the word “branding” by itself contained the idea of burning, that the Statute was a highly penal Statute giving exceptionally large powers to the Executive and imposing a heavy punishment for breach of its provisions. It was further argued that the needle was not even for “marking” members—that it was the razor which actually made the mark; that although the needle might be used in the process of marking it was no more used for “marking” the person than the hand which held it. [Illustration: THE PRISONERS OF A NATIVE CHIEFTAINESS, CRACKING PALM-KERNELS.] The Court held that the needle could not be held to be used for “branding,” and found the accused not guilty, and he was discharged.