An unfortunate Arab, named Allee Chous, one of the discharged servants of the mission, now came in. He had that morning been robbed of sixty-three ahmulahs, the last money he had in the world, and although he hoped to discover the thief, had nothing with which to purchase his next week’s provision in the market. I understood the statement to be an appeal for assistance, and as I felt some sympathy for his situation, I gave him the last two salt-pieces I had in the house. Tinta coming in soon after, I made some inquiries respecting the police of Shoa, and learned that there was a regular body of men employed as thief-takers, called _Labarshoitsh_, who have an _ullica_, or superior, and form a portion of the royal household. They are agents of the King’s commands alone, and it is not until directions have been given by him that they proceed to apprehend culprits. Thieves must therefore have been denounced by name before a _Labarshi_ is sent upon his errand. The Negoos refuses to entertain charges where the accused parties are unknown, on the same plea that, according to Abyssinian ideas, the devil will be repulsed at the last day by our Saviour; on his demand for justice, the monks say he will be asked the names of the souls that belong to him, which, not being able to give, Jesus will then answer, “Begone from hence, for I know none of thine.” Most cases of theft, however, are not brought before the Negoos at all, but before the governors of the towns in which the crime has occurred, a summary kind of conviction takes place, the stolen articles being returned to the owner, and the property of the thief confiscated, who, if dissatisfied, can make an appeal to the Negoos; but in that case he must have very good evidence of innocence, or he will, in addition to the loss of his property, receive a severe flogging, commonly inflicted by the Labarshi, at the gate of the inner court of the palace, where the Negoos, if he pleases, may see the punishment. In cases of suspicion or doubtful guilt, singularly enough, the Shoans follow certain instructions which they say are contained in the epistles of St. Paul, and point more particularly to that passage in the sixth chapter of Hebrews, where it is said, “An oath for confirmation is the end of all strife.” It is, therefore, customary for the accuser and the accused to present themselves at a church, where before a priest mutual oaths are required to be taken; the former swearing to the loss of his property, the latter that the crime laid to his charge is unfounded, and there, unless further evidence is obtained, the matter ends. Should the accused refuse to purge himself in this manner of the accusation, it is considered as a confession of guilt, and the priest then acts as mediator, and generally receiving a small fine for the use of the Church from the delinquent, he is made the agent to restore the stolen property to the rightful owner, and the affair is quietly hushed up amongst them.