BANK OF BENGAL.

There was a meeting of proprietors of the Bank of Bengal yesterday, to consider the propriety of petitioning the Governor General to authorize the increase of the capital stock. H. T. Prinsep, Esq. in the chair; the following gentlemen present:-Messrs. Bracken, Leach, W. F. Fergusson, A. Colvin, McKilligen, Mangles, E. Macnaghten, Collier, Martin, Newcomen, Fitzgerald, W. Storm, McFarlane, Hurry, W. Prinsep, Rabbeth, P. Tagore, Cragg, Lyall, C. Prinsep, H. M. Parker, Allan, Colquhoun, Bagshaw, Waddington, &c.

After a few words from Mr. Bagshaw, regarding the absence of a statement showing the necessity for a pro posed increase of capital, Mr. E. Macnaghten moved the first resolution in substance, as follows:

circulation, or to the number of deposits. Now, partie who were content to employ their capitals in discounts might do so in their own offices. Mr. Mangles said he could not turn his office into a discount shop, and he much doubted if the chairman would be so efficient as public servant were he to convert his office into a rendezvous for brokers. Mr. H. T. Prinsep wished to be understood as not opposing the proposal now before the meeting, but he thought the consequence would be that, in a few months, the greater part of the increased capital would be invested in Company's paper. Nevertheless, the motion, if carried, would not be entirely useless; at home, which would keep mad projects out of the mar there was a prestige in a crore of rupees, both here and ket. Mr. Bracken thought the words "mad projects" required explanation. Mr. H. T. Prinsep assured Mr, Bracken that they did not apply to the Bank of India;

"Resolved, that it is expedient to increase the capital and Mr. Mangles added, that they could be so applied of the Bank of Bengal."

Mr. A. Colvin seconded the resolution. Mr. Cragg opposed it. He did not see that such increase was necessary, and, with reference to anticipated profits, the result of increased discount transactions, he thought it very probable that the rate may be in four months reduced from ten to six per cent. Mr. Mangles said, the argument of Mr. Cragg was precisely the same as that made use of by the shareholders when the last increase of the capital was proposed, and which, it was now entirely unnecessary to remind the shareholders, had been proved erroneous. His opinion was that the maximum amount of capital now required for the purposes of the Bank, would, in a few years,be the minimum amount required, and that too without much diminution in the rate of discount. But should he be wrong in his opinion, he for one, and there were others for whom he could answer, would prefer having a small interest for a large capital than large interest for a small capital invested in the Bank of Bengal. He took occasion to say, that the proposed increase was not brought forward at the present moment in consequence of demonstrations in other quarters, the proposal had been long contem plated by Mr. E. Macnaghten, and by himself. Mr. Cragg thought it might be as well before the business was further entered into, to inquire if any arrangements had been made with reference to the establishment of branch banks. The chairman replied, there had not, in consequence of there being employment for the Bank's capital in Calcutta. Mr. C. Prinsep thought it would be a kind of suicide to admit the public to participate in the profits of the Bank by increasing the capital. As to the argument that the course proposed would stay the establishment of other banks; he said, so long as the Bank of Bengal had exclusive privileges in the circulation of their notes, the more numerous other banks the better for the proprietors; other banks could only operate as feeders, taking off their notes, which were the main source of profit. Mr. Mangles reminded the meeting that they had committed suicide two years ago by increasing their capital, and he had not any doubt but that the contemplated measure would produce simiJar advantages. Mr. Leach thought the note circulation had reached its maximum, and if they were taken off by the feeders it would be to return them to the Bank. Mr. H. T. Prinsep, as a Government director treated the proposed increase as a matter of indifference, and so he thought the Government would look at it; but as a private shareholder be much doubted the expediency of the measure. The contemplated increase of profit must arise out of an increased discount business; the

in the Pickwickian sense only. Mr. Braken declared that his only reason for opposing the resolution was that it affected the interests of absent proprietors.

After some further discussion, the resolution was put from the chair, when there appeared for the motion 177, against it.

Mr. Collier proposed the second resolution as follows:

"That it is expedient the increase should be of such amount as to allow upon each share a proportion of new stock that may be expressed in even thousands, vis. upon shares of Rs. 4,000 an increase of one-fourth, -or one-half,-or three-fourths."

Mr. J. Allan seconded the resolution, which was carried, no one opposing.

Mr. Cragg moved the third resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Colvin, and carried,

"That in the opinion of this meeting it is desirable (whether or not Government relinquish its share of the new stock) that the capital should be increased onehalf, so that in case the Government should determine to take its share, that the capital be increased by the sum of Rs. 375,000; and in the event of Government declining to take its share, the capital be increased by the sum of Rs. 3,2 00,000."

After a few words from Mr. W. F. Fergusson, who expressed himself unfavourable to the proposed increase, Mr. C. Prinsep proposed an amendment, in substance to limit the amount to one quarter the sum proposed. The amendment was lost by a majority of 22 to 12.

Mr. Mangles moved the following resolution, which was seconded and carried,

"That the proprietors, whether absent or present, shall have eighteen months from the date of the sanc tion of such increase of stock by the Governor General in Council, to pay the value of the shares they may espectively become entitled to, but inasmuch as it is expedient that the Bank should have the immediate use and benefit of such portion of such increased capital as can be supplied without detriment to the interests of

have the option of paying into the Bank the amount of there was another motion by Mr. Mangles, carried by a the value of the raw stock they may respectively become majority of 18 to 9, in substance, enjoining the direcentitled to, immediately such sanction of Government tions to inquire and report as to the possibility of payhas been obtained, to receive their half yearly dividendsing dividends to shareholders in England.

in such new stock to be calculated from the first day of July, or first day of January (as the case may be) next, after they may have made such payment.

The appointment of a deputy secretary next came under consideration, but the matter was left in the hands of the directors, the meeting expressing a strong

This closed the principal part of the business for the feeling in favour of Mr. Henderson.-Hurkaru, April, considerations of which the meeting was convened, but | 26.

LANDHOLDERS' SOCIETY.

Proceeding of a meeting of the Committee held at the Society's office, No. 3. Clive-street Ghaut, on Monday, the 23d instant.

Present.-G. Prinsep, Esq.; Cowar Suttochurn Goshaul; Baboo Prossonocoomar Tagore; Baboo Ramcomul Sen; W. C. Hurry Esq.; Baboo Pronnauth Chowdry, and Baboo Cossynauth Bose.

manner as is done by the Chamber of Commerce, and they also indulge the hope that the Government will condescend to communicate with them through the same channel

The Society will, at all times, be ready to offer their services to Government in communicating any information respecting the working of judicial, revenue, or police establishments in the interior, the condition of the labourBabooing classes and the state of agriculture, which it may be enabled to furnish.

Visitors.-Baboo Pooran Sing, of sahabad; Parbuttychurn Chowdry; Mowloobhey Mawallaw Bux, and Hussey Ally.

The enclosed prospectus will fully explain the objects Read a proposed petition against the resumption of the Society, to which we beg to refer you. regulation.

The following resolution was proposed by Baboo Ramcomul Sen, and seconded by Cowar Suttochurn Ghosaul.

That this committee concurring in the general view taken of the hardships and grievances of the lakhirajdars as set forth in the draft petition now laid before them, agree to forward the petition, when duly signed, to Government, and to support the main object of it with a separate representation on the part of the Society.

Proposed by Baboo Ramcomul Sen, and seconded by G.A. Prinsep, Esq.

Mr. George Preston as a member of the society. The following gentlemen proposed as members at the last meeting, were unanimously elected :

Baboo Bissum bhur Roy, zeminder of Domoordoha; Rajah Gungadhur Roy, and Baboo Chunderkaunt Chowdry, of Saverna.

Proposed by Baboo Prossonocoomar Tagore, and seconded by G.A. Prinsep, Esq., that an application should be made to Mr. F.J. Halliday, the officiating secretary to Government, revenue department, asking a copy of the draft resumption law now printed, with the appendixes.

We are, Sir, your most obedt. servants,
(Signed)
W.C. HURRY,
PROSSONOCOOMAR TAGORE,

"

Calcutta, April 7, 1838.

Hony. Secretaries.

The following answer was received from Government:
No. 501.

To WM. COBB HURRY, ESQ and

BABOO PROSSONOCOOMAR TAGORE. Gentlemen, I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated the 7th instant, enclosing the prospectus of a Society to be called the Landholders' Society, and requesting permission to address the Government through the medium of the Society's secretary in the same manner as is done by the Chamber of Com

merce.

In reply, I am directed to state, that the Hon'ble the Deputy Governor or Bengal, will always be disposed to receive and consider the representations of any class of the inhabitants affecting their own interests or the good of the community. The communications of the Landholders' Society upon matters connnected with the land revenue and judicial departments of Government, must be addressed in due course through the secretary of these

Read the following letters, addressed by the society departments.

to Government:

H.T. PRINSEp, Esq.

Secy. to Govt. in the Genl. Dept. Sir,-We beg leave to bring through your medium to the notice of the Honourable the Deputy Governor of Bengal and Vice President of the Council of India, the formation of a Society of the landholders of Bengal, the object of which is to promote co-operation and mutual assistance in all matters relative to the landed interests of the community.

Having observed the utility of the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce to the commercial interests of the country, they think that similar good may result from their own efforts, if they can be permitted to address the Govern

I am, Gentlemen, your obedt. servant,
(Signed) H.T. PRINSEP,

General Department,

Secy. to the Govt. of Bengal.

Fort William, 11th April, 1838.}

Resolved, that the proceedings of this day's meeting, as well as the above correspondence with the Government, be published.

Ordered that the translations of the proceedings of the general meeting held at the Town-hall be sent to the Bishop's College to be printed.

WM. COBB HURRY,
P.TAGORE,

Hony, Secretaries.

SUPREME COURT.

MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1838.

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

Sittings after 2d term- Plea Side.

Sreemutty Russickchunder Neoghy v. Sreemutty Hurrymony Dossee.

The Advocate General (with whom was Mr. Prinsep) supported a rule which he had obtained on a former day, for the postponement of the trial of this issue until next term, on the ground of the alleged-concealment of a material witness in the house of the defendant.

Mr. Clarke (with whom was Mr. Leith) shewed cause, on affidavits denying the alleged concealment of the witness, but he said that he should not oppose the postponement of the trial, or payment of costs by the other side.

Rule absolute on payment of costs.

Sreemutty Dossee v. Rajnarain Day.

Sreemutty Sibboosoondery Dossee v. Sreemutty Comulmoney Dossee.

This is a feigned issue out of Chancery to try the question, whether a certain clause of bequest appearing tained in the original instrument. Several witnesses are in a certain will or testamentary document, was con to be examined on both sides, and the cause is likely to occupy a considerable time in the trial.

On the application of Mr. Clarke, the cause was postponed until to-morrow, as a commission for the examination of one of the witnesses, a Hindoo female, is not yet returned.

Mr. Clarke, Mr. Grunt and Mr. Nott, for the plaintiff, The Advocate General, Mr. Leith, and Mr. Morton, for the defendant.-Hurk., April 3,

Mr. Cochrane opened the pleadings. This was an action of trover, to recover certain goldmohurs and Tupees in specie, aud some silver bullion, amounting in Doe value altogether to about Rs 10,000. The plea was the general issue.

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1838.

(Before Sir E. Ryan and Sir John P. Grant.)

Sittings after 2d Term. Plea Side.

on the demise of Jaun Bebee v. Abdoolah, Barber. The Court delivered judgment in this ejectment, in which a rule had been obtained and argued to enter at last term, verdict for the plaintiff for the whole or pro tanto. Certain questions of Mahommedan law had been referred to the moulavie for his opinion.

Sir E. Ryan. It is not necessary to state the facts of this case, because the issue is narrowed to the simple question of the construction of the instrument under which the defendant claims.

Mr. Advocate General. The plaintiff is the widow and executrix of one Ramhury Ghose, who, in his life time, adopted a son, called Baneywadub Ghose. Disputes had taken place at different times concerning the property left by the testator, the adopted son wishing to obtain it in the life-time of the widow, though he was not entitled until her death, when he would inherit as next heir. On one occasion, the son, in conjunction The first point relates to the nature of the instrument. with the present defendant and other parties, broke open The Court entertains no doubt that the opinion of the the house of the plaintiff, and assaulted her, for which moulavie is the commonsense view, and according she preferred an indictment, and the parties were con- to that opinion the instrument is a wagf, or endowment victed. The property in question was carried by the for religious or charitable uses. The moulavie adds son, and deposited with the present defendant, in whose that it would have been a will, if it have been made custody it still remains. in the time of mortal sickness, or if by its terms the instrument was not to take effect until after the death raises the question whether a female can be a muta of the party executing it. On the second point, which wallee or trustee, the Court is equally clear. the duties may be performed by proxy. Mahommedan law, a female may be mutawallee, and

Witnesses were called to prove the above facts. gold mohurs were in a red purse, and the rupees in Tron chest, which appeared to have been broken The adopted son had absconded.

The

a

open.

By

Mr. Clarke, for the defence called no witnesses, but objected, that either there was no conversion proved on the part of the present defendant, or else that the plain-ties and opposite opinions have been pronounced by high The remaining two questions present greater difficultiff's own witnesses had shewn that the civil claim was authorities. merged in a felony. As to the latter point, he said that of the property is essential to the validity of a waqf, These questions are wether actual delivery the chest was proved to have been forcibly carried away or deed of endowment, as in the case of ordinary gifts, and broken open, and an action of trover was tried last and whether it is affected by a qualified reservation by term, in which the plaintiff was nonsuited on similar the donor, in his own favour, during his lifetime. [His evidence. But he relied chiefly on the first objection, Lordship here referred to the Hidaya, and several treavis. the want of proof of conversion, and he admitted tises of high authority in Mahommedan law, in which that these two grounds of defence were not quite consis- the opinions on the subject clash with each other.] tent with each other. The plaintiff ought to have Upon a full consideration of all the authorities, the proved a demand and refusal to support this action, for opinion of the Court coincides with that given by the the property had been carried away by another party, moulavie, which is more conformable to the modern and deposited with this defendant. He contended that, decisions. as far as the proof affected the resent defendant, there render the waqf valid in law, and that it is not affected We hold that delivery is not essential to was nothing to shew either a wrongful taking, or an by the qualified reservation of the donor. The ap illegal detention. propriation, therefore, is good, and there is no ground The Court, however, were of opinion, that neither ob- for disturbing the original verdict which was found jection would hold. In estimating damages, a difficulty for the defendant.

arose about the value of the bullion, proof being given The Advocate General and Mr. Grant for the lessor of nine lumps of silver being among the property, of the plaintiff. weighing 320 siccas, but there was no evidence of its

Mr. Clarke and Mr. Leith for the defendant.

Sremutty Siboosoondery Dossee v. Sreemutty Comulmoney Dossee.

This issue to try the question whether the will of a wealthy Hindoo, Kistnochunder Seat, did or did no contain clause of bequest, came on for trial. The plead. ings having been opened, and the case for the plaintiff, who had to support the affirmative of the issue, having been stated, the evidence of this chief witness taken, under a commission, was tendered by the plaintiff's

counsel.

The Court inquired, how it had happened that the evidence of the most material witness was taken on paper, instead of being given vivâ voce in open Court. The very object of the issue was to satisfy the mind of the Court on a point on which the depositions taken in the equity suit were not sufficient to enable them to arrive at a definite conclusion. If the evidence was to be offered in this shape, how was the trial of the issue a whit more satisfactory and conclusive, than the hearing of the original suit on the Equity side?

Mr. Clarke, the leading counsel, for the plaintiff, replied, that it was certainly unfortunate, and all parties regretted the necessity; but the witness in question was dangerously ill, and, at the time of moving for the commission, Dr. Raleigh was in Court ready to swear to his athidavit concerning the witness's precarious state of health, but by consent of the other side, the swearing of the affidavit had been dispensed with. It was fully

admitted that this witness was the most material of all of the plaintiff's witnesses, being the party who had drawn up the will, and read it over to the testator.

Sir John P. Grant. You say the other side consent ed; what right had they to enter into any such compromise?

The Advocate General (counsel for the defendant), submitted that they had a full and unquestionable right and were perfectly justified. There had been no consent, or compromise, further than the circumstance that no opposition was offered to the motion, and surely such an arrangement was liable to no objection! The order was made under the sanction of the Court, and this commission was issued under their express authority, and the Court could not find fault with their own order.

Sir E. Ryan observed, that the attention of the Court was not called to the circumstance that this party was

the most material witness.

The Advocate General admitted this, and said that he was not himself aware of the circumstance at the time.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1838.

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

Sittings after 2 Term.

The Queen v. Parbutty, Junghee, and Takoor Doss. These three prisoners, convicted of murder, in the Supreme Court sessions of August 1836, were this morning placed at the bar, and Her Majesty's free pardon under the great seal, was read to them aloud by the clerk of the Crown, and interpreted into the Bengallee language by the sworn interpreter of the Court. This pardon was granted upon the merciful recommendation of the prisoners, by the Judges of the Supreme Court. The signature of Queen Victoria appeared upou the document, written in a fine bold hand, and it was countersigned by Lord John Russell, the Secretary of State.

The prisoners were then discharged.

(In the matter of Kistnochunder Mookerjee) This party is the material witness, whose evidence, taken under a commission, was offered yesterday at the trial of the issue in Sreemutty Sibboosondery Dossee v. Sreemutty Comulmoney Dossee, it may be recollected that their Lordships objected to the evidence of so important a witness being taken on paper, and postponed the trial in order to oblain a medical certificate concern ing the present state of health of the party.

Dr. Raleigh, of the medical service, was sworn and examined. Saw Kistnomohun Mookerjee yesterday evening. Has regularly attended him for some time past, by the direction of Rajkissen Mookerjee, (who is the agent and manager of the plaintiff in the issue, and the alleged finder of the will set up by her). Kistnomohua is in a state of great debility. His present complaint is fever and inflammation. He is altogether in a precarious and dangerous state, and could not attend the Court for the purpose of vira voce examination without risk. Perhaps there would be no actual risk of life. His age may be about 46. There is no great probability of his being speedily in a condition to give his testimony in court.

The Court, under these circumstances, were of opinion,

that it would serve no purpose to postpone further the trial of the issue, as the personal attendance of this witness appeared to be so problematical. The issue therefore will come on to-morrow Thursday, (this-day) and it is expected to occupy two days at least.

Doe on the demise of Kishnochunder Biswas and others v.
Anundmoy Biswas.

Mr. Leith opened the pleadings.

The Advocate General stated the case. This was an

action of ejectment to recover a piece of ground, about four cottabs and three chittacks, and certain godown, situated in Sootanooty in the town of Calcutta.

Sir E. Ryan then suggested that the cause should stand over until Thursday morning, and that, in the meantime, an affidavit by a medical gentleman should be procured of the present state of health of this witness. Should the decision ultimately turn upon a nice weighing of testimony and probabilities, it might be impossible for the Court to give any verdict without seeing the witness, and examining him viva voce, and in that event, the parties would be put to the great expense of another issue. The evidence taken under the commission might be considered as taken de bene esse, if it should hereafter Sir E. Ryan interrupted the proceedings, and inquired be found necessary to use it, from the utter inability of of the defendant's counsel whether he had any more the witness to attend within a reasonable time, if ever. witnesses, because it seemed to the Court to be a mere Should it on appear on Thursday that there was a pro- waste of time to proceed. It appeared that the very party bability of the witness being able to attend in a week or under whom the defendant claimed, was a witness to ten days, the cause might be further postponed, other-two instruments, long previously executed, shewing the wise the issue might be taken on that day.

Several witnesses were examined, and the trial occupied a considerable time.

extent of the premises conveyed to the Biswas's; and, among natives, the being witness implied something more

After some discussion the suggestion was agreed to by than among Europeans.

the counsel on both sides.

Stands over until Thursday next.

The case of Doe on the demise of Kishnochunder Biswas v. Anundmoy Biswas stands for to-morrow, Wenesday

Mr. Prinsep, (with whom was Mr. Clarke for the defence) said, that he would not protract the case, after this intimation had fallen from the court.

Verdict for the Lessors of the Plaintiff, for the Land,

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1838.

(Before Sir Edward Ryan and Sir J. P. Grant.) Sittings after 2d Term, Plea Side.

Doe D. Biswas v. Biswas.

The Advocate General moved in this ejectment case, tried yesterday, in which the lessors of the plaintiff obtained a verdict, that judgment might be entered up, and execution issued immediately.

Sir E. Ryan said that this was not a case of the kind, in which, according to the practice which prevailed in England, the Courts granted immediate execution. Refused.

Pratt v. Colville.

up a

The dispute, however, which is the subject-matter of the present issue, is entirely between the widow of Kistnochunder (the defendant) and her daughter-in-law, the widow of Hurrakissen (the plaintiff.) According to the will set up by the plaintiff there is a specific bequest of sicca rupees 60 per month to the defendant, for maintenance in the event of her quitting the family house. It may at first seem strange that the defendant should disclaim a lagacy made in her own favour, and thus endeavour to impeach the will which bequeaths it; but the explanation is very simple. The amount of property altogether is ten or twelve lacs, and the defendant, claiming as the widow of Kistnochunder, would be entitled to a much larger proportion than the monthly sum assigned for maintenance, whereas, if this specific bequest can be proved to be contained in the will, it will impliedly merge her general claim to her share as widow of the testator. The defendant accordingly sets different version of the will, and pretends that it originally contained no specific bequest to herself, but that the clause in question is a forgery, and an interpolation. Several persons were present at the making of the will, but there is a dispute as to their number and identity, and very different accounts are given on either side, of what took place on the occasion. The Court will see, therefore, that the decision will turn almost entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses on each side, the balance of testimony and the degree in which each story is supported by the probabilities of the case. One circumstance affords strong ground for presuming that the clause in question must be genuine, and could not have been interpolated. There is a subsequent clause giving a legacy to another party, and this legacy has been paid, nor is it pretended that the latter clauses did not originally exist:-if, therefore, the disputed Sir Edward Ryan observed, that a complainant in clause is of posterior fabrication, there equity would be entitled to an attachment for non-ap-been a hiatus in the original will, wholly unaccounted pearance, upon a motion, of course, without any special application.

Mr. Leith moved, upon affidavits, under rules 5th and 22d of the new equity rules, for an attachment against the said William Colvin the defendant, for want of ap: pearance. The affidavits stated, that this party had sailed for England in the ship Coromandel, that he had not resided in Great Britain or Ireland for a period of two years, and that the cause of action was less than Rs 30,000. By the 13th section of the charter of 1774, the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to try or determine any suit or action" against any person then resident in Great Britain or Ireland, unless such suit or action against such person so then resident in Great Britain or Ireland, shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action arose, and the sum to be recovered be not of greater value than thirty thousand rupees."

Mr. Lieth said, that he had deemed it advisable under the circumstances to call the attention of the Court specially to the facts.

The Court said, that the case fell within the 5th rule, and that the 22d had no application, nor was it affected by any new regulation introduced by those rules, but the same practice existed before they were passed.

Attachment granted.

(Sreemutty Sibbosoondery Dossee v. Sreemutty
Comulmoney Dossee,)

Mr. Grant opened the pleadings. This is a feigned issue out of Chancery, to try the question whether a certain clause of bequest, in favour of the defendant, was contained in the will of one Kistnochunder Seat, The affirmative of the issue is on the plaintiff.

for.

must have

The learned counsel here put in the deposition of the plaintiff's chief witness, Kistnochunder Mookerjee, who was examined by counsel under a commission before C. R. Prinsep, Esq., granted upon motion, on affidavits that the witness himself was in a precarious state of health, and unable to appear personally, before the Court. According to his own evidence, deponent wrote out the will at the dictation of the testator, and then read it aloud. Four other persons were in the room. The testator approved of it, and caused some additions to be made in the progress of reading; but the clause of bequest, which is the subject matter of this issue, formed part of the body of the will. This was in the evening after gun-fire, and the writing was finished about midnight. The testator was carried on the following evening to the banks of the Ganges, and died in an hour afterwards. Deponent saw the will again, about six weeks after the death of his son, Hur. rakistno, when it was found in a box, and read aloud -several persons were present.

There witnesses for the plaintiff were then put Mr. Clarke stated the case for the plaintiff. Annuudchunder Seat died in the year 1813, leaving a widow, into the box, and successively examined and crossone son and a daughter. That son, Kistnoch under examined at great length. The two first, Ramchunder Seat, is the testator, whose will gives rise to the present Bhose, and Radagovind Roy, had been in the service proceedings. Kistnochunder died in August, 1827, of the testator, and were now employed by Seboosoondery leaving a son, Hurrakissen, and a widow, Commulmoney, the plaintiff. The defendant's counsel cross-examined the defendant in this issue. On the evening before his them with reference to a conversation with one Ramdeath, Kistnochunder made his will, by which he gave mohun Bysack, in which it was endeavoured to fix them away several legacies, chiefly of inconsiderable amount, with having told a totally different version of the story. The third witness, Ramrutton Mookerjee, was a mookand allowed the bulk of his property to go to his son Hurrakissen, the heir-at-law. In September 1831, tyar, not in the service of the testator or plaintiff. All Hurrakissen died intestate, leaving a widow, Siboosoon-three swore to being present on the occasion of the dery, the plaintiff in this issue: and immediately after writing of the will and two of them were present when his death, disputes began to arise in the family, and a it was subsequently discovered. They supported the bill was filed against this widow by the present defen-plaintiff's version of the will.

dant, in conjunction with the legatees and other parties The examination of these witnesses, alone occupied