Among the ancient Peruvians, "when one killed another in a quarrel, the first thing enquired into was, who had been the aggressor; if the dead man, then the punishment was slight, at the will of the Inga; but if the surviver had given the provocation, his penalty was death, or at least perpetual banishment to the Andes, there to work in the Inga's fields of corn, which was like sending him to the galeys. A murderer was immediately publickly put to death, tho' he were a man of quality."[85] Among the Mayas of Yucatan and Nicaragua, in case of great provocation or absence of malice, homicide was atoned by the payment of a fine.[86] [Footnote 85: Herrera, _op. cit._ iv. 337 _sq._] [Footnote 86: Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_, ii. 658.] From certain passages in the Mosaic law the conclusion has been drawn that the ancient Hebrews did not consider it obligatory to inflict death upon him who had killed his neighbour in a fit of passion.[87] It is said that a man shall be put to death if he "come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile,"[88] or if he "hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die."[89] On the other hand, he shall be allowed a resort to a city {296} of refuge if "he lie not in wait,"[90] or if he thrust his neighbour "suddenly without enmity."[91] [Footnote 87: Goitein, _Das Vergeltungsprincip im biblischen und taltmudischen Strafrecht_, p. 33 _sqq._] [Footnote 88: _Exodus_, xxi. 14.] [Footnote 89: _Deuteronomy_, xix. 11 _sq._] [Footnote 90: _Exodus_, xxi. 13.] [Footnote 91: _Numbers_, xxxv. 22, 25.]