KILLED BY A POISONED ARROW

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4313, 23 March 1901, Page 3 (Supplement)

KILLED BY A POISONED ARROW

On November 29 last the Hon. David Carnegie, being at that time AssistantResident at Lokaja,- North Nigeria, was slain by a poisoned arrow, but the story of how he met his death at the call of duty has only just reached homeInformation came to Lokaja that the people of Taivari, behind Koto Karifi, opposite the* town of Susso Kusso, on 1 the banks of the Niger, had possessed themselves ; of rifles. Thither, with an, escort of ten men, young Carnegie went to seize them. He had accomplished his work, and had returned to the river bank, when the chief Dangara, who was away at the time the rifles were seized,, sent word to say that he (Carnegie) would nob have dared to do what he had done had he been there at the time. This was a challenge which, for the sake <?f policy, it was not well to disregard, and Carnegie and his little band turned back. At tbo town Dangara and his people set upon them, and Carnegie fell with a poisoned arrow through his thigh. Death came within ten minutes. > With groat bravery the little escort ko.pt tho natives off, and, without further loss, brought his body back, to Lokaja. A punitive expedition set out for T'aivari under Captain Cubit. After some delay it reached the town only to find it empty. Mr Carnegie, who was the younger son of the Earl of Southesk, was a ycung man who had achieved much and showed brilliant, promise. He had travelled far. across the West Australian wastes, through the great Sandy Deserts, narrowly escaping death from thirst several times. Ho had mappbcl out much unexplored land, and had written the book “Spinifox and Sand,” the record of bis expedition of 1896-97. He had worked, too, as a di"<rer and a miner. In Nigeria, where bo had been hut a. short while at the time of his death, he won much lovo and great respect. , A BULL AND A BULLY. A clergyman who gave evidence in a hqrse-deoHug case became somewhat confused in his account of the transaction in dispute, and the cross-examining couuse,. ■after making several blustering but meli fective attempts to obtain a more salis- | factory statement, said, “Pray, sir, do you I know the difference between a horse and [ a cow?” “I acknowledge my ignorance. I replied the reverend gentleman. “I hard- ! ly know the difference between n horse > and a cow, or between a bull and n bullv; ' onlv a hull. I am told, has horns, and a bully”—here he made a respectful how to the advocate—“luckily for me, haa hone.