Page images
PDF
EPUB

A PETITION TO GOVERNMENT.,

We have been informed, that a petition, very nu- | Bengallee as well as in Persian, the only difference being merously signed, the signatures being native, has been that he will be about three times as long in taking down recently, within the last day or two sent in to Govern- the evidence in Bengallee, as it would have taken him ment. The prayer of which is that measures be taken to do it in Persian, with the additional advantage of for the institution of schools to be devoted exclusively there being fewer persons capable of understanding what to the study of Sanscrit, as a foundation for the for- he may have written. In either case the poorer classes, mation of one general language, consolidating or super as it appears to us, gain nothing by the change. The ceding the various dialects of Bengallee which now ob- proceedings are lengthened by it; the Mahommedan potain. This petition, which has been handed over by pulation alarmed and displeased at it; and the labours Government to the Education Committee, is worthy, of the officials about trebled by it, and rendered less we understand, of serious attention, from the great num efficient withal. Under the present system, by which of its signatures, amounting, we are told, (for we have the exertions of the Civilian are taxed, beyond the not seen it) to thousands, and must be taken therefore power of performance in very many offices, all that he to be the expression of opinion prevalent with respect could do is to exercise an active supervision over his to the great evil now to be deplored, i. e. the want in subordinates-for the most part of course natives-as it Bengal of one fixed and generally understood language, is, it would appear, that with all the brevity and simplihaving one known character and common to all classes city of the Persian it is generally admitted, that he canof the inhabitants of this vast and fertile district. The not check the propensities of his Umlah, &c. to deceive answer of the Government to this petition will be of him, and the suitors. How, we will ask, will this much interest. Here is a clear admission that in the supervision in the superior be carried on, when he shall opinion of many, there is an absolute and crying demand come to have the proceedings of his Court, written in for a national language; we presume, however, that the Bengallee or Oordoo? by which his labours of inobjects of the petitioners will not be carried into effect; spection will be increased nearly threefold; and his and for many reasons, The new language founded attention will be called to instruments, and the minutes on the Sansert, or rather regulated by it, and consisting of the transactions of the day, written in a character inas we presume it would of a consolidation of the Ben- finitely more complicated than the Persian, and in which gallee dialects, improved by a larger infusion of Sanscrit in nineteen cases out of twenty, we will venture to say, than is now traceable in the Bengallee, would be to the and we speak on the information of persons well knowmany an unknown tongue, and would be open to all ing the fact, the Civilian himself, is less well read than the objections now raised against the Persian on this in Persian. The correspondent of the murkaru, X, Y. Z. score and to more besides. The Persian is not an un- to whose letter the latter of these observations in some known tongue; it is on the contrary as familiar as sort apply, has one singular enough argument, upon Hindoostanee, to a very large portion of the educated which he grounds his advocacy of the abolition of the Hindoos, and to all or almost all the Mahommellan Persian, i. e. that any deficiency, or omis-ions or missubjects of Empire. To all that portion, in short, of the takes in a Persian document may be concealed from the innabitants of the country likely from their position, rank facility of changing one letter or phrase into another. and property to constitute the principal suitors in the Now if the credit of the functionary is to depend upon Courts of Justice, or likely to be called on to fill situa- the falsifying of documents, at his pleasure or necessity, tions as officials in these Courts, The only class not to answer the exigencies of a particular case, and that likely to know Persian are the lower classes of traders, this system of substitution and forgery is the general rule and the ryots, by far the most numerous, of course, but of conduct of officials; it appears to us a matter of ininasmuch as the new language proposed by the petiti-difference in what language the proceedings of the oners would be a sealed book to them, to the same Courts are carried on; because roguery of this sort can extent that Persian now is, we do not see what they be practised in any written character, whether written would gain by the change. And to the Mahommedan in- in a sort of short-hand like the Persian, or in good habitants, the substitution of the new language for Per- honest vernacular, such as English or Bengallee. sian would be a positive evil, as great, as the present And as the Bengallee character is less generally known measure of Government, the substitution of the verna-than the Persian, we presume detection would be more cular in Bengal for Persian. To the poorer class of the difficult. This argument, however, if such it must be population of Bengal, we fear that the present state of called, is surely an argument from a particular cireducation considered, the language of the Courts of Jus- cumstance, to a general conclusion. Persian documents tice must for a long time to come, remain an unknown may have been falsified in some few instances; tongue, be it Persian, or be it an improved modification but the general rule we must presume is that they of the Bengallee on the Sanscrit model. We are told, are not falsified; and to make any thing of this moreover, that the people themselves if polled, would be argument it ought to be shewn, that public funcfound perfectly indifferent to the change. And that to tionaries generally, are in the habit of concealing the majority, the Roobicarry, &c. of a Court of Justice, gross negligence, by the alteration of the proceedis about as intelligible in Persian as it would be in ings of their Courts, after they have been regisBengallee. The knowledge of the written language in tered and signed; and that the practice will be the majority of the poor classes being confined to the put a stop to only by the substitution of the vernacular limited, familiar ani colloquial phraseology, appertain for Persian, which vernacular cannot by the same ing to the dealings and transactions of their particular falsifying process be made to exhibit the same result, calling and comprehending necessarily but a small i. e. the falsification of a document. This is, if we unsection of the words, expressions, and idiom constituting derstand the correspondent of the Hurkaru, the amount the language itself. That the result therefore of their of his argument in favour of the vernaculars; and we evidence should be taken down in Persian in a Court of need not say, that to us it appears in the light of Justice, or written out in Bengallee or Oordoo must be, nonsence. We do not at all question, that under the we suppose, a matter of indifference to them; they must the present system, the ends of justice have frequently under any circumstances confide in the fidelity of the been frustrated by designing officials; but that the usscribe, without having any control over his version of of the Persian is to be held the cause, we cannot adtheir deposition; and if the scribe be disposed to falsi-mit-corruption must be laid to the door of the sys

evidence alluded to by X. Y. Z., and liable, as he states,, sume, by the character in which he writer, be it Benand we believe states truly, to so much abuse, is in gallee, Persian or English. In conclusion, we will ask itself vscious-a mere farce, by which it is pretended any body whom it may concern, how many Civilians that the witness is examined coram judice, when in point or natives fit for emplyment, or capable of carrying on of fact the deposition presented to the Judge, may or may the current business of the country, can write a Roonot be the man's evidence. But this evil cannot be bicarry in the Bengal vernaculars? For that is the cured by the substitution of one language for another. question which inost presses at present, and is more A vivá roce examination by the magistrate would obviate germane to the measure of substitution then the query of this evil, but this the press of business does not admit the Hurkaru about Bengallee and the understanding of of. The only check then is in the improved morality of the " great bulk of the population."-Courier, Febru the native scribe; which is not much affected, we pre-ary 23.

SUPREME COURT.

THURSDAY, Feb 1.

(Before Sir Edward.Ryan and Sir J. P. Grant.)

or answer. It is quite immaterial whether the instru ments set forth be called an award or a ralease; probably the latter term is more correct but whatever it be, if fraudulent, it cannot be supported. Now fraud positively alleged in the bill, and not being positively

CONYLOLL V. POOROOSONTHUN Doss AND ANOTHER. In this case the bill stated that in 1818, three part-contradicted by the plea, must be taken to be admitted. There ought to have been an answer positively nega. ners, Toolseram, Mohunloll and Seeteram, possessed establishments as bankers and traders at Patna, Cal- tiving fraud. The case of Wright v. Proud, 13 Vesey, cutta, Mirzapote and Cossimbazar. The first mention lays down the general principle that a transaction will ed partner was entitled to a six-anna share, and the be set aisde between parties standing in a certain relaother two, who were brothers, to the remaining teu tion to each other, as guardian and ward, or trustee and anna share. After the death in 1818 of Mohunloll cestuique trust, whenever the transaction has arisen out (who left only a widow surviving a short time) the of the influence of that relation. Such has been the business was conducted by the two other partners. during the infancy of the complainant. But the case case here, and such the relative position of the parties Seeteram died in 1820, leaving three sons, one of whom died without leaving any widow or issue, and the other chiefly relied upon is Roache v. Morgon, 2 Schoales and two, Pooroosoothun Doss and Narain Doss are the Lefroy, where it was held that where fraud is alleged a defendants in this suit. The survivor of the three release pleaded does not prevent the Court from decreeing original partners, died in 1821, leaving an only son, a new account, unless the defendant by his answer fully Conyloll, the present complainent, who attained his full meets the charge of fraud, and it is declared to be imma age about 1830. The bill alleged fraud during the miterial that the bill itself does not state the release. This nority of Conyloll, misappropriation by the defendants brings the case preicsely within the analogy of the of a sum amounting to four lacs, and a fal-ification of present. the partinership accounts, whereby a balance was fasely stated against ine complainant. The prayer of the bill was that an account might he decreed, and the title of complainant declared to the original six-anna share of the partnership property.

Mr. Cochrane on the same side.-It is a general principle, which requires no authority, that the right of parties cannot be barred either by a reference to arbitration or by release, until a full and true account has been rendered. Now it is admitted here that no account has been rendered at all. But further, a distinct and

A plea was filed by the defendant, setting forth an specific charge of fraud is made out. The books relainstrument bearing date January 1834, whereby the ting to the partnership accounts are alleged to have parties had agreed to a reference to three arbitrators. been tampered with and falsified and to contain frauduThe plea further alleged that a prior parol agreement belent and forged entries, by means of which a balance is tween the parties, directing the payment of certain sums of money and settling the respective rights of the parties, was produced before the arbitrators, who made their verbal award, in February 1836, by which the above agreement was adopted and carried into effect as their solemn award.

This plea having been set down for argument, the case now turned entirely upon its validity.

falsely made out against the complainant. Now these are the very books which were produced before the arbitrators, and upon which their award was founded. That award, therefore, must be void. The case of Helps v. Sproute, 1 Mylne and Keen, decides that a plea of a settled account is no bar, unless fraud is negatived, and according to Walker v. Simons, 3 Swanston, protection is to be extended after the party has attained ma

Mr. Clarke and Mr. Leith for the defendants.jority until proper information has been obtained. It is difficult to conjecture what precise ground of objection is intended to be raised against the plea. This is, in effect, a plea in bar of a verbal award, made by arbitrators duly appointed; and Cor v. Macclesfield, in Dyer's reports, establishes the validity of a verbal award. Then the plea covers the whole bill, because the prayer of the bill is confined to the property which is the subject matter of the award. As to the prayer for a discovery, the right to a discovery is dependant on the title to relief and this plea expressly negatives such title.

Mr. Clarke, in reply.-The case of an award stands upon its own peculiar grounds, and is not touched by any of the arguments advanced or the authorities cited. It is to a certain extent equivalent to a judicial decision, Pitterson v. Peut, 3 Ark., and it is final and binding upon all the parties unless impeached by fraud and collusian on the part of the arbitrators. Now there is no presence or allegation whatsoever of such misconduct in this case.

The Advocate General for the complainant-The objection to this plea is matter both of form and substance. Although the bill distinctly alleges fraud against the

[ocr errors]

Sir E. Ryan-Would it not be a good ground for setting aside an award that it had been made upon the authority of false and fraudulent documents?

Sir J. Grant-It surely is law that an award is vitiated by fraud not only when practised by, but also

Mr. Clarke-This is admitted. But in such a case it I denied to have been ever received by the solicitor. Mr. would be necessary to set forth all the particulars of the Cochrane contended, that there was both direct and alleged fraud, and to connect them with the award circumstantial proof of their receipt. Letters were read The bill must be brought expressly to impeach the from the deputy post master general, and on affidavit of award and not attempt to get rid of it in this vague and the Post Oflice peon, by which it appeared that two indirect manner. How are the allegations of fraud, con- letters were received at the post office by the Dacca nected in any way with the award? It does not appear mail about the time in question, with the address named, on the face of these pleadings, but that all the circum- and delivered accordingly. It was hoped that if these stances of the case were fully before the arbitrators; so facts were made out to the satisfaction of the Court, the that even if the books were falsified to any extent there motion would be granted, and the defendant allowed to might be other evidence produced before the arbitrators, come in-and that the Court would not suffer him to quite sufficient to enable them to arrive at a just decision. be ruined without any dereliction of his own. The An award is of the same force as a judgment or decree, defendant was an ignorant man, unacquainted with the and a plea of judgment recovered would surely never forms and technicalities of law, anxious to defend the be held bad upon a simple suggestion- a vague asser-suit, and furnished with a complete ground of defence, tion that there had been prior fraud. It would be ne- but barred therefrom entirely by an act over which he cessary to connect that prior fraud with the subsequent had no control. judgment, and shew expressly how in influenced such judgment. That is not done here. From the circum stances, therefore, of the present case nothing more can be inferred than the existence of fraud at some prior period; nothing is shewn to affect the validity of the award. The Court, after a short consultation, postponed judgment.—Hurkaru, Feb. 2.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

of his client and of persous employed in his office, Mr. Prinsep for Mr. Shaw, put in counter-affidavits and especially denying the receipt of the two letters in positively and expressly contradicting all the charges had occurred, and were specifically alluded to, where question. It appeared, moreover, that several instances mistakes in the delivery of letters at Mr. Shaw's office had taken place. An offer of arbitration had been made to Mr. Kallonias, but rejected. As to his alleged ignorance of legal matters, it was proved that he had been in an attoruey's office. Collateral affidavits were also put in, contradicting some of the matters sworn to by Mr. Kallonias, and throwing discredit on his statements. Mr. Prinsep was proceeding to answer the case as regarded the charges of corruption and collusion, contained in the affidavit of Kallinias, and asked what possible motive could be assigned for the conduct attributed to his client. A wild notion that all the world is conspiring to injure a man, is frequently a forerunner and index of incipient insanity!

The Court here intimated that as the only point in the case related to alleged neglect on the part of the solicitor, the charges of corruption must be abandoned.

Mr. Prinsep then went over the correspondence between the parties. The earlier instructions are so vague and contradictory that no one could safely act

Before Sir E. Ryan and Sir J. P. Grant-Sittings after upon them. First, the party directs that the jurisdic

First Term of 1838.

JOHN LUCAS versus GEORGE KALLONIAS AND OTHERS. In this cause a motion was made on notice on behalf of George Kallonias, one of the defendants, agninst whom an ex-parte decree had been obtained, of the date of the 24th July 1837, for substitution of attornies without payment of costs, and also to set aside the erparte proceedings on payment of all costs by the defendant's solicitor. The motion occupied the court the whole day, and excited great interest.

Mr. Cochrane for Kallonias.

Mr. Prinsep and Mr. Leith for the solicitor, Mr. Shaw.

The Advocate General and Mr. Clarke appeared to represent the interests of Lucas, the complainant in the original suit, but were not heard on this motion.

tion should be pleaded in bar; then that no answer -hould be put in at all; afterwards, that his solicitor should wait until he received further instructions. Nothing definite is contained in any of the letters admitted to have been received. As to the two missing letters, it is not denied that they may have been written, but only that they have ever been received. An agent is not to be mulcted in heavy costs because his client's letter has miscarried. But further, no proof is given of the identity of the letters sworn to have arrived obout the time in question by the Dacca mail. Again the circumstance of an arbitration having been offered and rejected, is a strong presumption that the present application is not made in good faith. Surely the Court will not grant such a motion as the present upon such slender and unsatisfactory grounds.

Mr. Leith, on the same side, was not called upon.

Mr. Cochrane, in reply, admitted that the only point Mr. Cochrane, in support of the motion, put in to which the case was now reduced, had reference to affidavits of his client and the correspondence which the receipt or non-receipt of the two letters in question. passed between him and his solicitor, Mr. Shaw, to prove The evidence is sufficient to establish their delivery and gross and culpable negligence on the part of the latter. receipt. If they had not been received, surely the soli In the early part of the correspondence Mr. Kalloniastor would have written to enquire the cause of the delay, appeared to be labouring under the impression that he especially when the consequences to his client were so was not within the jurisdiction of the Court, and that there was a conspiracy to draw him within it; but it was alleged that at a subsequent period positive instructions had been given to the solicitor to put in an answer and proceed regularly in the cause. All the letters which passad on both sides were admitted, except two, alleged

momentous. The case is not one merely of oath against oath-the whole line of transaction, the whole internal evidence of the case, bear out the statement of Mr. Kallonias. It is not a very usual thing for a single letter to miscarry by the general post, and it is a very strange coincidence that these two important letters

circumstance that the solicitor's dak-book has not been t produced, that it might have been examined in open court, to ascertain whether no entries had been made.

Mr. Leith and Mr. Grant for the plaintiff, were abont to prove jurisdiction under th New Rules, but the Court said, that this was necessary only when the case was a heard exparte in order to obtain a judgment, and not after judgment by default.

The attorney's bills were put in and proved to have been duly taxed, and copies delivered to the executors who promised to pay the amount.

Verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed sicca rupees 784.-Hurk. Feb. 7.

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 7, 1838.

Sir E. Ryan.-A motion to change the attornies in cause without payment of costs, being contrary to the usual course of proceeding, can only be granted upon proof of fraud or gross-misconduct. The second part of the motion cannot stand on light grounds, but only on strong equitable circumstances; now the charges of collusion and corruption are abandoned, and the only question is whether a case of negligence has been made out. With reference to the whole admitted correspondence between the parties, no definite instructions whatever appear to have been given to Mr. Shaw, and he is not therefore guilty of any negligence in declining to act upon them. Then the whole question turns upon the two missing letters. Now here one affidavit is consistent with the other, for one party cannot deny that Mr. Prinsep moved, that this cause should be set down they were written nor the other they were never received. The proof derived from the circumstances of the cause is pro forma on the Equity board, with the consent of parties, incomplete, and at all events can never amount to such trial of an issue of law therein. The ground upon which of obtaining an order for the immediate a probability as to satisfy such a motion as the present. the motion was made, was, that the principal witness, Uniess a case is very clear, the Court will never sum-Sir Charles Metcalfe, is about to leave the country immarily interfere, but leave the parties to their ordinary

remedies.

[blocks in formation]

The judgment of the Court in this case was delivered this day by the chief justice.

The case was argued in the third term of last year. The action was brought upon a policy of insurance for Rs 50,000 granted to the insolvent; there was an agree ment to prolong or renew the policy if required. After the insolvency of Fergusson and Co, the policy was renewed to the common assignee, who paid the premium when it fell due. The defendants in their plea set off a promissory note, drawn by Fergusson and Co. before their insolvency and indorsed to the defendants. To this plea of set-off there was a general demurrer.

Before Sir E. Ryan and Sir J. P. Grant.

for the purpose

mediately.

Motion granted.

DYCE versus DYCE.

BHUCKET versus BHUCKET AND BEEBEE PHICKEY versus
HURRANARAIN.

In these cases heard ex parte yesterday, the Court intimated this morning that the parties could take nothing by their judgments against the parties in default, on ač. count of the omission to give notice under the New rules to those of the defendants against whom judgment by default had been obtained, that damages against them would be assessed at the time of trial.

DOE ON THE DEMISE OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY versus
RAJCOOMAR SEAT AND ANOTHER.

The Advocate General and Mr. Couchrane for the lessors of the plaintiff.

This was an action of ejectment brought to recover possession of one cottah and eight chittacks of land, called the old Jorahbagaun thannah, in the town of Calcutta. In 1836, an ejectment had been brought for the same premises by the defendants against the present plaintiffs, who then suffered judgment to go by default, and in 1837, the defendants recovered Rs. 1,988 in an action for mesne profits. The Company claimed the premises by virtue of long and uninterrupted possession, but the defendants sought to establish ownership by shewing that their title had been acknowledged by the payment of rent.

The argument for the plaintiff's was, that the contract upon which the action is brought, is entirely a contract between the assignees and the defendants, whereas the set-off relates to a matter between the insolvents and the defendants, and that such a defence therefore amounts to setting off a debt due from one party against a claim made Several thannadars and chowkeydars were produced by another. To this the defendants answered that the as witnesses, and proved that the thannah had stood assignees are entirely as the representatives of the insol- where it was for the last half century. This evidence vents, and that the renewal of the policy was but a con- was corroborated by W. C. Blacquire, Esq, who has tinuance of the original contract and not an entirely new agreement. But the Court were clearly of opinion that the debt could not be set off, and that there must be judgment for the plaintiff. They cited the cases of Cor v. Listard, I Douglas Rep. Evans v. Mann, Cowper's Rep. West v. Piye,2 Bingham's reports.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

ROWLAND GRAHAM tersus JUGGUTCHUNDER Moo-
KERJEN AND OTHERS, EXECUTORS OF SUMBEOOCHUNDER
MOOKERJEE.

This was an action for work and labour done, and for money paid by the plaintiff in his capacity of attorney for the testator. Judgment had been obtained for want of a plea, and evidence was now adduced to assess the

been employed in the Police Establishment si ce 1789. On cross-examination, it appeared from this gentleman's evidence, that the assessments were paid by the owners

of the soil.

Mr. Clarke (with whom was Mr. Lieth) for the defendants, stated the grounds of their title. He would produce evidence to shew that the defendants were in possession of all the surrounding land, that they had continually paid the assessments for the identical property in question, and that they had received rent from the Company, who now sought to disprove their title. The receipts for rent unfortunately could not be produced, as in the year 1831 the defendant's cutcherry was robbed, and their ancestorial papers and documents lost. Sinca the death of the father of the present defendants, it was admitted that no rent had been paid, by reason of the

bad management of the estate during their infancy. But family of Toraub consisted of three widows and three it was contended that the recovery of the rents and pro- children, one of whom had since died: two of the widows fits, in the action for mesne profits, was equivalent to with the two surviving children, were the lessors of the receipt of rent. plaintiff in the present action.These representatives of Captain F. Birch, superintendent of police, was called Toraub claimed two-thirds of the estate; because acas a witness, and proved the receipts for assessments,cording to the rules of Mahommedan Law a brother is from the defendants for the land in dispute. The collec-entitled to double the share of a sister (McNaghten's tor of rents and other witnesses were called to prove payMahomedan law of inheritance). ment of rent on the part of the Company; but it did not Mr. Clarke (with whom was Mr. Leith) for the defenappear distinctly from their evidence whether the rent dant,did not dispute the pedigree of the plaintiffs. He was paid for the thannah in question, or only for a cook-should adduce evidence to shiew, that Toraub, who was room attached thereto.

very young at the time of his father's death, had always increase the ancestorial state, that his mother had paid lived extravagantly, and had never had done any thing to off his debts on several occasions out of her dower estate, that in lieu of the marriage settlement to which she was entitled, he had released his right to the property by a deed of gift. That the premises in Mangoe Lane were purchased under a bill of sale, in the name and with the money of the mother, and, finally, that she had duly exe. cuted a deed of trust, by which she conveyed the legal proprety shortly hefore her death to the present defendant.

Sir E Ryan.-There must be judgment for the lessors of the plaintiff. The proof of the defendant's title has been attempted to be made out; first, by proving that they have paid the assessments to Government, and secondly that they have received rent from the Company, for these premises. Now, as to the first point, it proves nothing. The assessments are made payable by the owners or occupiers of land, by a public Act, 33 Geo III c. 52, and no proof can be drawn from the circumstance that a house has been wrongly assessed. As to the second point, no rent has been proved to have been paid for the thanna, within the last twenty-four or twenty. five years, to the least, so that during that period there has been a continuing adverse possession agaiast the defendants. The statute of limitations had begun to run during the lifetime of the ancestor of the defendants; it therefore continued to run notwithstanding their inter-ducing further evidence to shew, that the instrument in mediate infancy.

Mr. Clarke then applied for leave to move the Court for a nonsuit, on the ground that the statute of limitations did not apply to Mahommedans and Hindoos at all.

Sir E. Ryan.-You can move, but we will not reserve leave, as the Court is quite clear on the point. Judgment for the lessors of the plaintiff.

The next case on the Board is Deo d. Jaun Bebee v. Abdoollah Barber.-Hurkaru, February 8.

THURSDAY, FEB. 8, 1838.

DYCE versus DYCE.

The deed of gift was held sufficiently proved by calling Evidence to this affect was gone into great length, a subscribing witness, who being blind was unable to swear to his own signature, but proved, that such an instrument has been executed in his presence, and by ad

question had been uniformly acted upon. It appeared.in the course of examination, that one of the lessors of the plaintiff was born before the marriage of her mother had taken place.

The Advocate General endeavoured to impeach the deed of gift executed by shewing fraud.

But the Court said that this would place him in a peculiar predicament. It was through Toraub that the plaintiffs claimed, and even if it was competent for thom to shew fraud against him, it would tend at the utmost to establish a case available only in a Court of Equity.

The Advocate General then considered the points which had arisen on Mohommedan law, and contended, first that by the law of the Mussulman community, one born out of wedlock, is legitimized by the subsequent Mr. Prinsep applied to the Court for decretal orders, marriage of the parents, and is not excluded from the into consolidate the original and cross suits, and to direct heritance. This point, however, was not material to the the trial of more issues at law. This application was case, as it affected only one of the plaintiffs. The learnmade on consent of all parties. The only two points, ed counsel then cited McNaghten's Law of Inheritance, which required to be ascertained, were, 1st; whether a to shew, that by the Mahomedan law, a co-heir cannot certain paper, purporting to be a receipt or acknowledg. oust another of the whole of his share of the inheritance ment was executed by the Begum Sumroo in her life. without the consent of the latter (which is not likely to 2odly; whether such document was delivered to the be very readily obtained!) and that a testator cannot discomplainant in the original suit, as a receipt or acknow-pose of a larger proportion of the estate than one-third in edgment. legacies and bequest. Upon these grounds, he contended, that the plaintiffs were at all events entitled to a judgment quoad part of the property in question.

Mr. Clarke, Mr. Leith and Mr. Grant, were instructed to consent on behalf of the other parties interested. Order granted accordingly.

DOE ON THE DEMISE OF JAUN BEEBEE AND OTHERS versus

ABDOOLLAH BARBER.

Sir E. Ryan.-There must be a verdict for the defendant; but we shall reserve leave to the Advocate General on the point of law to move the Court that judgment, protento. may be entered up for the plaintiffs. The deed of gift or release and the instrument of sale are valid and Mr. Grant opened the pleadings in this action of eject-genuine, the deed of trust is admitted to be genuine, but ment. There were five counts, laying a joint demise by all the four lessors of the plaintiff, and a several demise by each. The premises sought to be recovered, consisted of a house and grounds oppurtenant, and other land situated in Mangoe Lane and in Collingah.

The Advocate-General stated the case. The ques. tion turned chiefly on a Mahommedan pedigree. Kaloo Khansamah, the common ancestor, who died about forty years ago, left two sous and a daughter, of whom one son died unmarried, the other, Toraub, left representatives (who were the plaintiffs in this action) and the daughter

its validity in law is contested. This, therefore, is the only point remaining for consideration. It may be observed, however, that the whole property is not conveyed away in this instance, for some interest is expressly reserved to the whole family, and the defendant, though possessed of the legal estate, is only a trustee in equity.

Verdict for the defendant, with leave to move that a verdiet may be entered for the lessors of the plaintiffs.

Mr. Clarke applied to the Court at its rising, that the case of Walker v. Bruce might be fixed for to-morrow, as it stood next but one on the board and was likely to

« PreviousContinue »