Page images
PDF

LANDHOLDERS’ SOCIETY.

Proceedings of a meeting of the committee held at the
Society's effice, No. 3, Clive-street ghaut, on Monday
the 25th instant.
pit esrxt.
Rajah Kallykissen Bahadoor; Rajah Rajnarain Roy
Bahadoor; Rajah Burrolacaunt Roy : Cowar Suttehurn
Ghosaul; Baboo Dwarkan auth Tagore; Baboo Pro-
soonocoomar Tagore; Baboo Ramcomul Sen ; G. A.
Prinsep, Esq.; G. Vint, Esq.; W. C. Hurry, Esq.,
and W. F. Fergusson, committee. -
Baboo Shreemonthloll Khaw, member.
The gentlemen proposed at the last meeting as mem-
bers of the Society were unanimously elected.
The following gentleman was proposed as a member :
Proposed by G. Vint, Esq. and seconded by Baboo
Ewalkanauth Tagore-W. Bruce, Esq.
The stamp duty now levied on the kobooleats and
security bond of the gomastahs and other moffussil
servants, was mentioned by Baboo Dwaikanauth Tagore

as a grievance, and he proposed that a respectful application be made to i. board of customs, salt and opium, pointing out the grievances sustained by landholders, particularly in consequence of a new order of the board, that the security taken from any gomastahs or other servants should be on a distinct stamp, by which: the amount previously required is doubled to 16 (on salaries of 3 to 5) rupees per month. That, as all leases and kabooleats between zemindars and ryuts are exempted from all stamps, it appears, that persons who are employed in collecting the rents from the above lessees, ought on the same principle, either to be exempted, or at least put on a lower stamp. This was seconded by Rajah Kallykissen Bahadoor, and carried unanimously. esolved, that a circular letter, inviting new members to the Society be lithographed for distribution. W. Cobb Hurry, Pnosoonocooman Tagore,

Hurkaru, June 30.] Honorary Secretarics,

A CASE OF

VIOLENCE.

The following has just reached us from a correspondent and we publish it without comment :

“A firm in your city, having some causes of discontent with a gentleman, with whom they were in partnership in a sugar concern, contrived first to have him arrested upon a partnership balance sworn to, it is said, as a private account The arrest was illegal, being performed by bursting open his door, at nine o'clock at night ! to the unspeakable terror of his family.

Having got the managing partner out of the way, their next step was to demand possession of the factory, which the assistants, acting by orders of their principal, refused to give, and, in two or three days, boats with about thirty runopean sari.oks, and forty burkandauzes, were brought up from Calcutta, and the factory taken by storm ; though there was no great fighting of course, for the assailing party were headed by Europeans, and the two European assistants in the factory, very properly turned the whole of their attention, to protect the managing partner's lady, her two children, and female ser

wants. She fortunately escaped across the river in a

dingy, to Chinsurah, and is now in safety.

The assailants were perfectly aware that the mother and ber children were residing in the factory, and that there was, moreover, from 5,000 to 6,000 gallons of run in the distillery store. It was with the full knowledge of this circumstance, that these gentlemen led a party of sailors to assault it ! Can any husband or sather think of the possible consequences without a shudder There is “no mistake" here, Mr. Editor, for one of the gentlemen has actually admitted before a magistrate, that he was accompanied by sailors | A friend of his an officer of a ship, on the river for his health ! and he, walked in to the factory, by accident, as one might say, seeing it all quiet and abandoned This occurred on the morning of the 10th instant, but owing to the absence of the magistrate of Barrasut, on duty, the parties are in full possession of the factory, to which they might suppose they had some right; but they have, moreover, taken possession of the dwelling house of a respectable family, and seized the property of all kinds, both factory and private, and some of it is on its way down to Calcutta Petitions have been presented to the local authorities, the joint magistrate at Barrasut,

and the superintendent of police, and proceedings will be immediately instituted in the Supreme Court. It is needless to say, that the assailants had no sort of legal process with them, which could give any colour to their proceedings.”—Hurkaru, June 21.

With reference to a statement which appeared in your paper yesterday, from a correspondent, respecting an attzck on a sugar factory by some sailors and others, I beg to inform you, that the facts alleged to have occurred are highly coloured, although there is some faint resemblance in the general outline. With the parties sent to take possession, there were 10 not 30 sailors, who were carried up, in order to prevent a breach of the peace, which it was supposed might follow any collision between the burkandauzes of the respective claimants to hold the factory. There was not the slightest resistance, the late occupiers having one and all left the premises, it is supposed, on the report of a party of sailors advancing being received, and no part of the furniture or private property was removed. The house belongs to the factory, and the entire concern to the firm in question. As the inatter will be shortly brought before the Supreme Court, when and where the actual circumstances and merits of the case will be fully disclosed, it is unnecessary | to say one word more on the subject. The public will soon be enabled to judge who is right and who is wrong. —Hurkaru, June 22.

I observe, Mr. Editor, that your devils have overlooked a note in which I requested yeu to give my name and present residence in Caleutta to any person who may inquire for them ; pray do so, if you please. My respondent informs you, that the facts" are highly coloured.” I promise you they are not coloured enough ; and, verily, the idea of carrying up sailors “to prevent a breach of the peace" is a rich specimen—almost as rich as the comfortable ignorance in which he appears to be, that the bodily fear is quite equivalent in the eye of the law to the violence. The entire concern did as. suredly not belong to the firm in question. If their title was so clear, why use such means ? and why, within ten days of the violence, claim in writing, only a joint

proprietorship ! This document I have seen, Mr. Editor. —Hurkaru, June 25.

supreme court.

Tuesday, June 5, 1838,

In the matter of Thomas Wilson, of Dhurrumtollah, paper manufacture, Messrs. Baillie and Molloy, attornies for the insolvent, a plied on filing his schedule, that Saturday the 28th of July next, be fixed for the hearing of the petition of the insolvent, filed in the court on the 26th May last. Application granted, on the usual notice of hearing being served upon all the creditors of the said insolvent.—Hurkaru, June 7.

SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1838.

John Pratting Green and Taranychurn Neoghu, were this day brought up before the court for the hearing of the matters of their respective petitions. The latter was discharged, and the former remanded to the 28th of July next, for the purpose of serving notice of hearing on the detaining, and several other creditors, who had not been already served to that effect.

Joseph Snelson Morton.— Mr. Strettell applied on behalf of this insolvent, on filing an amended schedule, that Saturday the 28th of July next, he appointed for hearing the matters of his petition. Granted, on the usual notice of hearing being served upon all the creditors of the insolvent.

The assignees of the estates of Messrs. Alexander and Co ; Messrs. Cruttenden, Mackillop and Co.; Messrs. Fergusson and Co.; , Messrs. Colvin and Co.; and Messrs. Mackintosh and Co.; applied, that their quarterly accounts with the estates and effects of these insolvents, be received and filed in the court. Applications granted.—Hurkaru, June 11.

Farday, JUNE 15, 1838.

Third term.

This was the first day of term. The chief justice sat alone, and little was done except the taking of common motions.

Seeboosoon deny Dossee versus CoMulmoney Dosser.

Mr. Clarke (with whom was Mr. Nott) wished to apply to the equity side of the court, for a new trial of the issue at law, tried in this case last sittings, and he intimated an intention of calling upon the other side to shew cause in the first instance.

The Advocate General (with whom were Messrs. Leith and Morton) for the defendant, objected to this course, and cited the case of Moris v. Davis, 3 Russ. Tep. 3-8 in which upon a similar application the Lord Chancello Eldon, aster consulting with the Vice-Chancellor, held that the proper course of proceeding was to make an ea parte application for the judge's notes of the trial, showing some reasonable primá facie ground for ques. tioning the verdict.

Mr. Clarke said, that there was a distinction in this country, where, although the court was nominally a different court, the judges were the same in law and equity. Sir E. Ryan was of opinion, that a statement of ground ought first to be made in order to satisfy the mind of the court of the probable necessity for reconsideling the verdict. This was not by any means a motion of course.

The usual practice was, as laid down in the case cited from Russell.

Mr. Clarke said, that he should adopt this mode of procedure, and that he should make his application on Monday next. - *

Russickchu NDER SEAL versus MILLETr.

Mr. Leith moved that the payment of a sum of money directed to be paid by the master's report in this cause, should be made by a transfer of accounts, instead of the usual mode of payment into the hands of the accountant general. Notice had not been given of this motion, but it was apprehend, d that no objection could be made. Motion granted.

In Mr. Ogilvy's case no application whatever was made to the court, the objections to the return of the writ of habeas corpus, have been dropped, as the prosecutor is anxious that the proceedings may not appear to be vigorously and harshly pressed against the defendant.

The chief justice intimated that only common motions would be taken to-morrow, Saturday (this-day).

In Macnaghten v. Tandu the demurrer to the bill (which is a bill of discovery to ascertain the names of the proprietors of the Agra Ukhbar) stands for hearing on Monday.— Hurkaru, June 16.

Our Supreme Court report of Saturday was incorrect (as mentioned by our morning cotemporary) in stating, that the demurrer to the bill of discovery in Macnaghten versus Tandy stood for hearing on Monday (yesterday). This was a clerical error for Thursday. We may mention, however, that the Englishman is by no means altogether accurate in warning its readers not to confound this case with the famous libel case in which the same parties appear as plaintiff and defendant, and in informing them that the two cases have no connerion with each other. It is very certain indeed, that a bill in equity to compel a discovery is not quite the same thing as an action at law to recover damages for a libel ; but in the present instance the former is closely connected with the latter, inasmuch as the bill is filed for the purpose of ascertaining the proper parlies to the action, and it may be considered, therefore, as supplemental and auxiliary to the proceeding at law. The defendant has denurred to the bill on the well established principle, that no party is bound to discover any matter which may subject him to penal consequences. The precise question, however, involved in the present instance, has not been forestalled by any reported decision, and is still quite open to argument on behalf of the complainant.

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

tron, without prejudice, in the present term. According to the old rules, if a party had died in vacation, the judgment might have been entered up as of the term preceding, and, although by the new rules all judgments are to be entered of record of the day and year, whether in term or vacation, when signed, yet a discretion was reserved to the court to allow a judgment to be entered up nunc pro tunc. In the recent case in the court of exchequer at home Mann v. Lord Audley, 5, Dowling's Reports, 596, the application was resused, merely be. cause it could not have been granted under the old rules: the defendant had died in Hilary Term, and the motion was not made until the Easter-Term following.

Sir Edward Ruan said, that it was an important point, and the court would take time for consideration.

Joseph versus PRINser ANd others, Executons.

The Advocate-General moved, that certain words of course, accidentally omitted in a decretal order made in this cause in July 1837, might be inserted by amendment. The other parties had given their consent. The order was interlocutory only, and it was the custom for the registrar only, and not the judge, to sign interlocutory orders. The clause ouitted was the usual direction to take an account of the debts due to the testator. It Wullis v. Thomas, 7 Wes. Jun. a similar application was granted; at least the master was authorized to take the accounts without any alteration in the decree itself.

Sir E. Ryan said, that the alteration would be a material alteration in the decree, yet as all parties had consented, it might be made. His lordship added, this could not form a precedent for future cases.

IN The Marten of W. Cunnie, deceased.

The Advocate-General moved, that the usual citations should issue in the goods of this party. Mr. Currie left debts and effects in this country and also in England ; and by his will appointed his son and another party executors, who had proved the will in the proper ec. clesiastical court at Canterbury. But it had been decided that such probate would not extend to India, and it now became necessary to take out administration with the will annexed in this country. A power was given by the executors, to Messrs. Colvin and Co. to institute actions, and otherwise to act; and the question was whether this powerextended to enable them to take out administration and act as executors here.

Sir E. Ryan was of opinion, that the power was insufficient.

Motion refused.

SaeeMuTTY Seboosoon deny Dossee versus SREEMUTT Y Comulmoney Dossee.

This was the issue out of chancery tried last sittings, to inquire into the validity of a certain clause in the will of a wealthy Hindoo Kissenchunder Seal. It may be recollected that the cause occupied four entire days in the hearing, and that a verdict was found for the defendant, negativing the clause.

Mr. Clarke now moved for a new trial. He felt him. self placed in a very difficult position in applying for new trial upon evidence on which their lordships had once already expressed an opinion ; but the case appeared to him so full of doubt and uncertainty, that he was inclined to hope the court, might see some ground for a re. hearing. He should now state the chief points upon which he founded his present application.

Sir E. Ryan. Have you any new statements to bring to the notice of the court 1f not, your position is one of insuperable difficult. The court cannot well come to a different conclusion at this stage of the proceedings,

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

Sir Edward Ryun said, that Mr. Clarke had applied to the court in this case, for liberty to enter up judgment, on a warrant of attorney given by the defendant, empowering the plaintiff to enter up judgment on a cognovit. (See the Hurkaru of Tuesday.) The cognovit had been prepared, but the defendant died before judgment was entered up, and the application was made a few days afterwards to a judge in chambers, and by his direction referred to the court. Now according to the old rules, all judgments bad reference to the first day of the preceding term, but by the new rules every judgment had effect from the day when signed. It was true, that the court had still, a discretionary power of allowing judgments to be entered nunc pro tumc. But it was the opinion of their lordships, that since the new rule, it was necessary for the party to be actually living, at the time when the judgment was signed. Such opinion had been expressed in the last edition of Archbold's practice, and also by Mr. Baron Paike in Mann versus Audley, 5 Dowl. Pract. Reports. Under these circumstances, the court could not grant the application.

Motion refused.

ADMIRALty side,

In the Matter of the ship “Calcutta.”

This was a claim of salvage. An application had been made to direct the sheriff, to cite Charles Howe Cockerell and others, owners and consignees of the bark “Calcutta,” to shew cause why salvages should not be allowed to Captain Charles Henry West and the officers of the steam-ship Enterprise, for the rescue of the said bark from the perils of the sea.

It appeared from the affidavits, which were put in and read in this cause on the part of the salvors, that in the month of October last, the steamer Enterprise, employed on Government service in the river Hooghly, observed a vessel off Saugor point, in apparent distress, and making a signal that no pilot was on board. This vessel, which was the bark Calcutta, burden 440 tons, P. H. Bentley, commander, was at that time drifting rapidly towards a dangerous shoal, with a heavy gale blowing, threatening squalls, and a strong flood-tile. She ppeared to be dismasted. The Enterprise immediately left the duty, on which she was engaged, and proceeded to the assistance of the Calcutta. After considerable exertions, and with no small difficulty and risk, he steamer succeeded in making fast a hawser, and in getting the bark clear of the sands, and then towed her to Kedgeree, where she anchored. The whole of the ensuing night was tempestuous, and the steamer remained near the rescued vessel, for her protection, until day-light the next morning, when she towed her up, the river to her moorings at Diamond Harbour. The affidavits on behalf of the claimants stated, positively, that, from the dangerous position of the Calcutts, and the strong wind and tide, she must have been infallibly wrecked, but for the timely aid afforded by the steamer. One of the affidavits was that of Longueville Clarke, Esq. who was on board of the Irrawaddy steamer, Captain Warden, commander, and witnessed the danger of the Calcutta, and the exertion of the Enterprize. The vessel and cargo were valued at more than a lac of rupees.

The counter-affidavits (among others) of Captain Bentley, the commander, and of Mr. Middleton, the first officer, set forth, that no signal of distress was made by the Calcutta, that she was in no danger whatever, and that the only signal was the union-jack, which had been flying all day for a pilot. They added, that, observing the Enterprize and Irrawaddy in sight, they had supposed that those steamers were disengaged, and they wished, therefore, to obtain their services. These gentlemen positively swore, that to the best of their judgment and belief, the steamer rendered no material service, and that the Calcutta could have easily reached Diamond Harbour in safety, without aid. The Calcutta was a strong new vessel, totally uninjured; she was , not, dismasted, but had struck her upper spars, and double-reefed her top-sails.

The Advocate General and Mr. Leith, addressed the court on behalf of the defence. The learned counsel contended, that there was no ground for this claim, upon the other party's own showing. No danger was incurred by the steamer, and nothing was performed except what was within the scope of her usual duty and occupation. The steamer, therefore, was merely entitled to the ordinary rate of remuneration for her services, (which had i. been received) and to no extraordinary reward in the shape of salvage. Cases had been decided in which it was held, that the claim could not be sustained for the performance of a mere

[blocks in formation]

pirates. And in the Joseph Harvey, 1, Robertson's

Reports, it was laid down that mere pilotage duty, even under hazardous circumstances, must be distinguished from salvage services, and is entitled only to the coininon reinuneration.

Mr. Prinsep, for the plaintiffs, urged, first, that quite sufficient appeared upon the affidavits to shew the extreme danger in which the vessel was placed. It was sworn positively by persons competent to judge, that the vessel was placed in so preearious a position, that she must have been speedily wrecked without aid. This inference was very natural too, considering the circuinstances of wind and tide, and it was absurd to suppose. that the vessel could have got off, and arrived at her moorings in safety, if lest entirely to her own devices. Authorities were not wanting to shew, that no great exertion was essential to be proved on the part of the salvors, and no vast risk necessary to be incurred, in order to entitle the salvors to their claim. In the case of the Maria Edward's Adm. Reports, 175, the vessel had been totally abandoned and first taken possession of by two fishing-smacks; yet, although these vessels were proved to be fully competent to the task of carrying the vessel safely to shore, a King's ship interfered for the purpose of giving assistance, and was held entitled jointly with the original salvors. Secondly, it had been urged on the other side, that the steamer had done no more than her duty, whereas to entitle a party to the claim, such party (it was alleged) must be a mere volunteer. Now the cases cited, relating to the saving of a ship by her own crew, were utterly inapplicable, because the crew had done nothing more than they had actually contracted to do, and could not, therefore, claim any reward : and the distinction between pilotage and salvage might be safely admitted, without affecting the present claim. If the commander of the steamer had been a regular pilot, and had performed nothing more than a pilot's duty, he certainly could not have demanded any additional remuneration; but the case was not so. It was true, that to a certain extent, it is the general duty of commander of a steamer to interfered, because general instructions to that effect have been promulgated under the sanction of Government. But to a certain extent too, it is the duty of every ship to assist another in distress, as it is the duty of every good Christian to lend a helping hand to his neighbour. The case of her Majesty's vessels being allowed salvage for saving other ships from damage or destruction, was precisely in point. It was the bounden duty of a King's ship to aid and protect a merchant vessel under British colours —in the instance, for example, of such vessel being attacked by a hostile ship of war, -yet the King's ship might institute a claim for salvage. In the matter of the Marianne, Haggard's Adm. Reports, 158, where the vessel was saved by the King's sloop Arrow, Lord Stowell said, that the sloop was entitled to salvage, although there was an obligation upon her Majesty's

vessels to aid the merchant ships of this country.

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

The plaintiff and defendant were sureties in a bond given to the receiver (E. Macnaughten, Esq.) for securing the payment on the part of their principal, of certain money payable by instalments.-After the payment of a certain portion, default was made by the principal, and two instalments falling in arrear, the receiver, having applied, without success to the principal debtor, instituted proceedings against the present plaintiff, as surety. The plaintiff paid the amount due, Co.'s Rs. 10,500, and now sued his co-surety upon a separate bond, which he had taken from him for his own indemnity. *

The plaintiff was very nearly nonsuited, from inability to give legal proof of the default in payment on the part of the principal debtor ; but he was allowed to recover on giving evidence of the demand made upon the principal, and of the proceedings at law instituted against himself at the suit of the receiver, and under which he had paid up the arrears which had accrued due.

The Adrocate General and Mr. Prinsep appeared for the plaintiff.

Verdict for Company's Rupees 10,500.

FQuity side.

Modboosoodou N SANDEll versus Raus Money Dossee.

This cause stood for hearing on the pleadings, the bill having been filed for an account.

Mr. Prinsep (with whom was Mr. Cochrane) for the complainants, stated, that the parties had agreed that a decree should be taken by consent. The learned counsel proceeded to specify the terms.

Mr. Osborne rose and said, that in the consultation at which he was present, the terms consented to were not the same as those now stated on the other side, and in the absence of his leader, Mr. Clarke, he did not feel himself justified in consenting to any alteration.

Mr. Prinsep said, that if Mr. Clarke had been present, he would not object to the terms now stated.

Sir Edward Iryan observed, that this was a curious position to place their lordships in. 'I he court were first informed, that a decree would be taken by consent, and then, as soon as the matter was opened, it appeared that there was a dispute between counsel, respecting the precise terms. The regular course was, whenever the parties were willing, that a decree should be had by consent, to draw up the decree before coming into court, and then for the senior counsel on each side to sign it. If counsel could not agree, the cause must be gone into, and the court would decide.

It was at last settled, that a decree should be taken on the pleadings, and that a reference should be directed to the master to take an account of all matters in the pleadings mentioned.

Murry Loll Seal. versus Mud DENMohun NuNDUN AND Otis eits.

This was a bill for a foreclosure, stating the loan to a deceased party, (represented by the defendants,) and that the same was secured by bond with warrant of attorney, and a mortgage of certain premises.

Mr. Prinsep and Mr. Leith appeared for the mort. agee. g Mr. Osborne appeared for three infant defendants. The cause was heard er-parte against the adult defendants. Sir E. Ryan. Let there be the usual decree of foreclosure.

Mudden Mohun Mitten versus Juccesson Auth Pensaud Mullick.

Iu this case the bill was filed for a foreclosure upon two mortgages. The cause was heard er-parte, and the usual decree made.

The Advocate General and Mr. Leith for the mortgagee.

Decree of foreclosure.—Hurkaru, June 23.

Monday, JUNE 25, 1838.

- * third termi,

(Before Sir E. Ryan and Sir John P. Grant.) - ** Sree Mutty Nibbunmoney Dabey v. Silam loll Tacone. Mr. Clarke moved that the master's report might be confirmed. The former master had made his report in the cause, to which exceptions had been taken and in

« PreviousContinue »