Page images
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

In this case the plaintiff is or was banian to the firm of Roussac, Brothers in this town ; defendant is not a member of that film, but was employed to manage their firm during the absence of the partner in France. Daring this period he borrowed from the plaintiff sums of money, or government paper, on which sums of money were raised, of rupees 4,900, rupees 6,000, rupees 800, and on the 8th of Alarch last, rupees 3,000, in all about rupees 10,000. For this he gave his promisory notes and undertaking to return the paper. The last note had been endorsed over to a third party, who on its non-pay. ment, brought his action against the plaintiff and recovered damages and costs, both of which were paid. The present action was brought to recover the sums of money abovementioued, and also the costs of the action against the plaintiff.

Mr. Clarke for the defendant, admitted that all the sums were proved, save one for 800 rupees, of which the only evidence was that of a sirear, who placed the amount to defendant's debit, by direction of the plaintiff, in a Bengalli account book. The defendant, however, leaded a set off, to have deducted and allowed to him #. the plaintiff's claims, a sum of rupees 3,500. It appeared in evidence, that one of the bills, drawn by defendant, accepted by plaintiff, had been discounted by the Bank of Bengal. On this note an action was brought by the Bank, and in its progress the parties assembled at the chambers of \lr. Sandes, the Bank's soli. citor where, it was sworn a check on the Union Bank was given by defendant to plaintiff, payable to Aloiscounder Bonuorjee, the plaintiff's nephew. Moischun Ier was instructed by his uncle to take the money to Mr. Sandes. The trial turned eatirely on this, whether the amount ol the check was paid by the detendant, on account of the firm of Roussac, Brothers, or on his own account.

The court allowed the set off, and gave a verdict for the amount, claimed, less rupees 3,500.

For the plaintiff, the Advocate General and Mr. Sandes. For the defendant, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Bar well.

*H. Kyte. v. Hullodhur Day and others.

Mr. Cochrane, on the part of complainant, moved for an injunction to restrain two of the above defendants from receiving, and the sheriff from plying over a sum of rupess 1348, in the hand of the latter levy, seized in an action, in which one of the defendants on the plea sile of the court was plaintiff, and Henry Kyte the defendant, under a writ of fieri facia. The grounds on which the learned counsel moved were certificate of bill filled, an affidavit of plaintiff that Hullodhur Day was the father of the two other defendants, and had been retained by Kyte in superintending a coach building concern of his, on an understanding that he was to receive five per cent. on all business brought by him to the yard.--That Hulodhur had received from Kyte three notes of hand, one or rupees 400, one for rupees 500, and another for rupess 1,100;-that on these he premised to obtain money

and pay the full amount into complainant's hand; – that in place of so doing he had received bills to the amount of rupees 3,000, of which it was believed he had recovered the full amount, but had not paid over any part of the same, or of any part of the notes granted to him and his sons. That Hullodhur had left the service of the complainant and had, in the names of his three sons, filed three distinct actions on the notes given as before stated. In the one, complainant being arrested, paid the money. In another, Hullodhur had obtained an erparte judgment, and under an execution seized the sum sought to be detained in court by the injunction ;-that on the third action he had also obtained an exparte judgment and was proceeding to execution. It was stated to obtain a rule nisi (the late Rule of , ourt requiring that all motions for injunction should be on notice) that the money in the hands of the Sheriff was payable to day, and that it was the belief of complainant if it passed into defendant's hands, they would abscond out of the juris

diction, and the complainant would lose his money, and be without remedy, neither of the defendants having property and the defendant Huliodhur having taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act. The Court said the motion must be on notice, which would restrain parties from taking the money until motion heard. That the affidavit did not state the irreparable injury contemplated by the rule which formed the exception, and that they could not grant the application but on notice which might be given at once.Englishinan, January 20.

JANUARY 23, 1838.
John Moore v. Thomas Driver.

This was an order nisi, obtained on a former day, calling on the plaintiff to shew cause why this trial should not be postponed.

Mr. Advocate General now moved the rule absolute."

Mr. Prinsep shewed cause, insisting that the defendant's grounds were not sufficient ; that they were vague and unsatisfactory, merely stating, the absence of Mr. Crawford, who, it is alleged, has patil the money for which the action is brought, but nothing was stated to show, the alleged payment could not be proved by the partners of the firm of Gilmore and Co.

But the court thought the grounds sufficient, and made the rule absolute.

John Aitchinson v. J. A. Curri:.

This was a demurrer to the plea of the defendant. The action was brought to recover the amount of wages due to the plaintiff far his services as an engineer in the Howrah Dock-yard. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the non-performance of a contract, plaintiff having quitted defendant's service without giving notice. to this plea defendant demurred.

The court allowed the demurrur on the first, second, and third counts, and directed an issue to Prove the contract—Englishman, January 23.

JANuary 25, 1838.
E. K. Hume v. Stephens and others.

In this cause, the order was made, referring to the Master to enquire and report whether or not the lease ought to be cancelled, on payment of any, and it any, what sum of money, by the complainant to the receyer, and how such money, when received, ought to be ap

portioned.—Englishma", January 26.

A case of very considerable interest, both in a general and commercial point of view, was at the time we left, in progress of argument in the Supreme court, the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Grant presiding. It was the appeal of the Assignees of Fergusson and Co. against the decision of Mr. Justice Malkin in the Insolvent court, in the matter of the Assignees of David Clark against the Estate of Fergusson and Co., who claimed to be allowed to prove for about six lakhs of rupees. Sir B. Malkin decided in favor of the claim to prove against the estate, and hence the appeal by the Assignees of Fergusson and Co.

Mr. David Clark retired from the firm in Calcutta in April 1827, and on his going out of the house, upon a balance of accounts being struck between the parties, an agreement by way of dissolution of partnership (we believe) was entered into by the other parties with Mr. D. Clark, and he was credited with a certain sum which he left in the house, and which after certain fluctuations now amounts, according to the Assignees of Mr D Clark, to about six lacs.

The decision of Mr Justice Malkin is appealed on the ground that there was abundant evidence before him to shew, that at the time the partners entered into the agreement with Mir D Clark the house was insolvent ; and that there was in point of fact, nothing in the books to the credit of Mr D Clarke, The Advocate-General and Mr. Leith for the Assignees admit, that had the transaction been bona fide, and had the house been solvent at the time of the agreemant in question being entered into, the Assignees of Mr D Clark might come forward. And their point, as we understand it, is, to shew that the case in question does not come under that class of decisions, in which payments, or credits in the books to retired part ners, consequent upon agreements in going out, have been upheld. The insolvency of the house at the time, and the knowledge of the partners of the fact, vitiating the whole proceeding ; and constituting no claim to be set up against the interests of the bona fide creditors– such is, we believe, the nature of the question raised in this appeal case. The counsel for the Assignees of David Clark, Messrs L. Clarke and W.P. Grant (who was a member of the house at home, Fairlie, Bonham and Co) contending that the case of Mr D Clark, comes within the rule of law laid down in the cases of payments by the house to retired partners, under and by virtue of deeds of agreement. We shall endeavour to place before our readers the judgment of the court in this interesting case. —Calcuttu Courier, January 26,

[blocks in formation]

been doubted, he voluntarily gave up two lakhs of rupees. But even the amount due to him after this relinquishment frequently varied, from consignments made by him, and remittances made to him, and on the failure of Fergusson and Co., the balance to his credit was 6,54,029. Mr. Clarke afterwards became a bankrupt in England, and the respondents were appointed his assignees. They claimed a dividend from the state of Fergusson and Co. on the sum standing to Mr. Clarke's credit. This was resisted by Mr. Macnaghten. The Assignee of Fergusson and Co., and a petition was accordingly presented to the lnsolvent Court, where it was decided by Mr. Justice Malkin, that the estate of Mr. Clarke was entitled to the dividend and against this decision, the present appeal was preseuted.

The Advocate General in support of the appeal, contended that the decision below was erroneous as against law and facts. He doubted the authority of Ex-parte Peak, the case on which the Conncil for the English Assignees and Mr. Justice Malkin had principally relied. Sir Thomas Plumer, by whom that ease was decided, had been undoubtedly an eminent Lawyer ; but the greater part of his life was spent in counts of Common Law, and he had never been distinguished for his knowledge of Equity. He cited the case of Anderson versus Maltby, 2d Wessey junior, 244, which he stated to be completely in point, and read passages from the Lord Chancellor's judgment to shew the distinction between legal and moral fraud. He was far from imputing moral fraud or any turpitude whatever to Mr. Davil Clarke, or any of his partners ; but he said, that there was that which in law was a fraud, and which vitiated as between the partners and the creditors, the arrangement which they had made among themselves. Mr. Clarke had retired in April, 1827, and here was a statement of the affairs of the house proposed in March 1823, by Mr. John Smith, the then senior Member, and -igned and approved by all the partners, shewing, that instead of having any balance to give to Mr. Clarke, that on the day he retired there was an actual deficit of 6,63,612 Rs. He then read the notes appended by the different partners to this statement, and Mr. David Clarke's letter to his brother, admitting its correctness, and commentell on the notes and letter, to shew that they completely brought the case under the doctrine of Anderson versus Maltby and also other cases which he cited. Ex-parte Burneby Cook, B. L. 269. Ex-pare Ruffin 6 Wes. 119. Ex-parte Williams l l Wes. 3. and Ex-parte Feil.

Mr. Leith followed on the same side, and in addition to what had been urged by the Advocate - General, contended that it was most natural that Mr. Clarke should have been very desirous of retiring from the House and would do much to effect his object; any one who knew the uncertainties, anxieties, and miseries, attending a Calcutta merc antile life for the last fifteen years, would readily comprehend this feeling. He likewise argued that the deed of dissolution of partnership was void for want of consideration as Mr. David Clarke gave no consideration to the remaining partners for the eight lakhs of rupess he was to receive, and for taking on themselves his liabilities.

Mr. Longueville Clarke for the English Assignees, stated, that he should conduct this case in a very different manner from what he would do, or would deem proper, were he appearing for Mr. Clarke or any of the partners. It was an immense sum of money which was at stake, and the question was to which of two bodies of creditors both of whom had been sufferers, the law would give it ; he should therefore press every point of law and fact which could avail his clients, a course which the would not adopt, were the question between Mr. David

. Clarke and his creditors.

In the first instance he denied the right of his friends to be heard, because he said they must shew their right to oppose before their opposition could be entertained. The Assignee only represented the cre litors and if they had no right to oppose, he could have none. First he contended that no creditor could oppose, unless he had been a creditor of Mr. David Clarke's, that is a creditor of the house previous to April 1827, and had continued to be so ever since. 2-lly, that right would be lost, had such creditor known of Mr. Clarke's retirement and consented to transfer his credit to the remaining partners. This had been decided in the Court of Exchequer so recently as April last, in Captain Hart versus Henry Alexander, 2d Meeson and Wetsby 488.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Clarke stated he would not argue against the opinion of the court much less would he do so when the weight of his objection would avail him equally on the consideration of the whole question. He would therefore go to the merits. He would at once acknowledge the correctness of the law of all the cases cited the Advocate-General, and he would shew from them, that his friend was in error in questioning the correctness of Peak's case. Nothing in fact could be more clear, more simple, than the law applicable to this case. It was all to be found in Peak's case, and the other cases instead of differing from, supported that decision. This was the law. If the arrangement for

Mr. Clarke's retirement was made with the intention of defrauding the creditors, then it was bad ; but is not, then it was good. Knowledge of Insolvency by

the partners at the time of making the arrangement dil not of itself constitute proof of fraud, but it might be coupled with other circumstances by evidence of it. In Peak's case, knowledge of Insolvency without other circumstances was held not to be sufficient ; in the

other cases, there were strong circumstances coupled

with this knowledge, and therefore fraud was held to be proved. There was, therefore, no contradiction in any of the cases, they all established the leading prin

ciple, whether or not the evidence amounted to a proof of fraud. Mr. Pearson had disclaimed attributing moral frand to the partners of Fergusson and Co., but he argued that they had been guilty of legal fraud; he denied broadly that any such distinction could exist in this case; he would take the high ground, and tell the court and his friend, that in his opinion, if the partners gave this sum to Mr. David Clarke, knowing there was a

been committed. Having thus disposed of the law, he would now come to the ficts These depend upon oral and written testimony. The oral evidence consisted of the depositions of Mr., T. H. Gardener, a clerk in the house, Mr. McKellegan, the book keeper, and Mr. Fergusson, one of the partners. [Here Mr. Clarke read the three depositions commenting on them as he proceeded.]

The only evidence referred to by his friend, was that of Mr. Gardener's, whose subordinate employment in the firm, prevented his having any intimate knowledge of their affairs ; but putting that aside, for he was determined to take the high ground, he challenged his friend to point out one single line which could even imply, that in Mr. Gardener's suspicion the firm was insolvent in 1827. There was nothing approximating to such a notion ; how then could this evidence help them ' But what said Mr. McKellegan. He had

been the book-keeper from 1823, and in reality knew from his peculiar duties the pecuniary affairs of the house better than the partners themselves. He swore that the house was perfectly solvent, that he would have trusted it to any extent, and that Mr. Alam Freer Smith, now an eminent merchant in Calcutta, but then a clerk in the house, and thoroughly cognizant of its affairs, applied for admission as a partner on Alr. David Clarke's retirement. Mr. McKellegan was an independent man, he had never been in the house, an I was now the first member of one of the richest houses here. Mr. Fergusson, of whom he would say without fear of contradiction, that no one was more esteemed as a merchant or a man, swore to the same facts. How then stood the case ? Ilad these gentlemen perjured themselves? If not, the decision of the court below could not be altered. He liked to put things on the borod and, therefore, what he conceived the real ground. He would therefore ask, could the court with the scanty evidence beiore them, which they had suppose that they could understand the affairs of Furgusson and Co., in April 1827, better than Mr. McKellegan the book-keeper, and Mr. Fergusson, the partner If not, they must then be guided by their evidence, or disbelieve it—or in other words, for he liked plan language, they must either believe them and support the decision of the court below, or if they revenied it, pronounce them to be guilty of deliberate perjury. There was no drawing the line ; there were no nice distinctions in this part of the case, any more than there were in the other. He now cane to the documentary evidence. The court would recollect that when a bilance of 18,85,104 was found to be due to the partners in April 1827, they were ranked among creditors of the house. The balance due to thern was always treated as any other debt of the house. Now take the first account made up in March 1828, that shews 6,63,612 deficit, that is what is due to creditors beyond the assets; but among what is due to creditors, is what was due to the partners, namely 12,85, 101 ; so that had all the creditors, but the partners, been paid, the surplus would have been 6,21,492. Now the partners might do what

they pleased with their own, and Mr. David Clarke

having given up two lakhs, the portion, assigned to him was only 10,144 beyond the assets of the house. So much for the first calculation ; but the second shewed a very different state of affairs; then the deficit, instead of being 6,33,612 in five months after, showed a deficit of 401, thus leaving a surplus, after paying all debts, of 12,84,703.

Look then at this documentary evidence ; it was ludicrous to say that it was any proof of the house being insolvent. In point of fact, the proof was the other way.

But the case did not rest here. Hitherto he had conit will be found, that there was a fund called the suspense account, which was a fund expressly reserved to meet bad debts, or an evil hour. To the creditors this fund belonged, but the partners never touched it ; therefore in making up accounts between themselves, they never referred to it. This fund in 1827 amounted to 62 lacks of rupees, and was not included in the calculations produced by the appellants, as between the partners and the creditors it would be included ; and, therefore, the 60 lakhs ought to be added to the calcalations produced, which made it ludicious to talk of the insolvency of the house at that period. Mr. Clarke then went into an examination of the Gloucester Mills accounts, shewing the vicissitudes of mercantile speculations. This property had cost him 10 lakhs, in a few years after it was sold for 2 lakhs by the assignees, and then sold for 6 lakhs by the purchasers from them. Again in regard to debts, there was equal uncertainty, many were es eemed good, which turned out bad, and many, were considered hopeless which were paid in full. Mr. Smoult and Mr. Andrew Wight were among the latter ; he found them noted bad, and afterwards principal and interest paid in full.

deficiency in the house, that all of them had been guilty fined himself to the appellant's evidence, let him now of the grossest inoral fraud. He would draw no nice dis. turn to his clients'. There it will be found that these two tinctions; if the House were not solvent, and complete-I accounts were inade up not between the partners and ly solvent, then he said that a gross moral fraud had creditors, but between the Partners themselves. There

Mr. W. P. Grant supported Mr. Clarke. He went at great length into the acconuts explaining the nature of the suspense account, and attacking the Advocate Gene. ral for a want of proficiency in mercantle accounts. He also went at great length into other points not touch. ed on by Mr. Clarke, especially the law relating to the hability of partners as between them and their creditors.

The Advocate-General replied, that it was useless to contend, that the two accounts signed by the partners. In March and October, 1826, did not shew a complete state of insolvency. There the word deficit was used, and over that his friends could not get. There was nothing of suspense account mentioned in them ; but if there true nature and character wanted to be defined, look at the desponding remarks attached to them by the partners, then-elves, and look at Mr. David Clarke's letter to his brother, Would any, but men conscious of, and weighed down by insolvency, have written to that effect. His friend \lr., Grant was wrong in stating that he had ever admitted that he was ignorant of accounts; but this he had done he had admitted and did admit that he was ignorant of that system which is magnificently termed Italian book-keeping a system which to him appeared to have been invented by merchants, with its entry and double entry, for the sole purpose of keeping others in the dark and mystifying themselves.

The court, after short deliberation, stated they would deliver their judgment at an early day.—Iłurk. Jan. 29.

(Before Si's E. Ryan, and Sir J. P. Grant.

RAJAir BurrodacAunt Roy, versus Jucouncil under Moosh RJEE ANd others.

This cause came on for hearing on supplemental bill and answer. The former was filed in June 1836, and prayed an account against the real and personal estate of Doorgachurn Mookerjee, deceased and an unjunction from wasting or changing the same, and for the appointment of a receiver if necessary. An interlocutory de. cree ad computandum had been obtained in April 1835, but the final decree was not dated until the lst of November, 1837, so that the present bill was filed antece. dently to the latter, though subsequently to the former decree. The bill was taken pro confesso against all of the defendants except the three infants who had put in their answers in February and March 1837.

Mr Clarke and Mr Lieth for complainant, put in evidence to prove a large ancestorial estate in the possession of the present delendants, the representatives

of Doorgachurn Monkerjee, who were making away with it to avoid the effect of the decree of this court.

Mr Prinsep and MrCochrane for the infant defendants. This is a mere experimental bill, wholly novel and unprecedented both in form and principle. The decree upon which the complainants ground their alleged title to relief from this court, was not in existence at the time when the bill was filed. As to the interlocutory decree of April 1835, it only directs an account, and therefore establishes nothing more than a possibility that a claim might at some future period accrue to the defendants. Smith versus Eules, Atkyn's Rep, is an authority that a mere decree quod computet does not affect the right of dealing with the property, and that a final decree alone can put the parties in the position of creditors.

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

Sir E. Gambier. Has he learned to read and say his prayers ? He has learned a little ; he says his prayers. To whom are his prayers addressed God. Does he know God hears and sees all that he says and does He does not know. Does he know what is meant by taking an oath No. If he tells lies and falsehoods, does he know it is displeasing to God No he does not know. Does he know that it is wicked to say what is false 1 He does know that. Does he know that God will punish those who swear falsely He does not. Has he been taught where wicked people will go in the next world ! He does not know that. Has he heard of Heaven and Hell! No he has not. Of what persuasion is he A Roman Catholic. What prayers has he learnt A moral poem in Tamil. Has his father taught him any prayers? The ten commandments to pronounce. Does he know any commandment about bearing false witness " He does not know it. Has he learnt any conmandment He has learnt ten. Which of the ten can he say ? No reply. The boy was sent to the Grand Jury with a message that he was not to be examined on oath as he did not comprehend the obligations of it.

We have given the above, not for the sake of point. ing out the ignorance of the witness, for although stated to be eight years old he hardly looked five, and was perhaps confounded at being so closely interrogated in open Court; and still less to question the propriety of persons being strictly examined, as to the sacred obligation of an oath ; but to suggest whether something like the foregoing enquiry might not be beneficially extended to a very considerable portion of the persons who go into the witness box; and whether any thing is so likely to impress the natives with contempt for the ceremony of swearing as the slovenly manner in which oaths are usually administered For our own part, we do not believe that a person who would assert a deliberate falsehood would have much hesitation in breaking an oath : but whilst oaths are legally considered necessary, they certainly ought not to be mumbled over in a whisper, as they constantly are in our courts of Justice and in cases of improtance, where the liberty and even life q

prisoners is at stake, we can imagine that great advantage would be derived by closely questioning the princi. al witnesses as in the case of the lad on Monday ast. After several years pretty close attendance in the Supreme court, during which period we have had occasion to watch the evidence with some attention, our decided conviction is, that the natives of this country, as a body, have no more hesitation in asserting what is false in the witness box than they have out of it. We believe our opinion coincides, with that of most persons

who have had experience in the courts of Justice ; and under these circumstances we contend no means should be left untried to cheek so enormous an evil. The simplest method we can recommend is to impress the witness with the awful responsibility of calling God to bear testimony to a lie, by obliging him distinctly and deliberately to repeat the oath or allegation in the face of the court, and by warning him that, in addition to the moral penalty which he incurs the court will be always ready and willing to inflict the highest punishment which the law allows for the crime of perjury.—Mudras Herald, Jan. 17.


January 6, 1838. (Before Sir E. Ryan, Knight.)

in the MATTrn of Govind chunder Kurt AN IN solvent. Mr. Leith in opening the proceedings in this case, addressed the judge, and said that he had on a former occasion obtained an order from this court to examine this Insolvent regarding some landed property which it is alledged on behalf of his assignee, and the creditors, of the estate, that he possesses within the jurisdiction of the Zillah of 24 Pergunnahs, and which he has omitted to insert in his Schedule filed in this court by him.

The Insolvent was accordingly sworn. He deposed that he has no separate dwelling house, but he and his family, together with his other relations, live in a house situated on 26 beegahs of ground in the village of Rajhpoor, within the jurisdiction of the Zillah of 24-Pergunnahs. This house was the ancestorial property of his grandfather, Doorgah Ram Kur, who shortlyy previous to his demise, bestowed it by a deed of gift for religious purposes, on the goddess Radha Govindo Gee. The image of this diety is kept within the dwelling house, and is on festival days brought out into the Hindoo-temple. Besides the Hindoo temple there is a Mahomedan Mus. jid likewise on this ground. Doorgah Ran Kur died leaving 4 sons, Ram Chunder Kur, deponent's fathe Kisshen Chunder Kur, who had 6 sons, 4 of whom are alive, Sumbhoo Chunder Kur, who had one son yet living, and Mohes Chunder Kur, who has a daughter. The deed of gift was executed by Doorga Ram Kur, 18 mother's previons to his demise, in Bengally. Deponent was then only 10 or 11 years of age. He does not know whether the registry of this land was transferred in the collector's books to the name of the deity after the deed of gift. He cannot say in whose name these lands are now entered in the collector's office, it might be in the joint names of Sumbhoo Chunder Kur and Mohes Chunder Kur; but deponent believes it to be in the name of the idol on which it was bestowed. This land was seized by the collector for arrears of rent, and sold about 4 or 5 months ago, and Baboo Isshur Chunder purchased it for 3,600 rupees. This sale happened before deponent was discharged by this court, but he cannot say whether it was before deponent had made his application for an Insolvency. Deponent was at that time, in the jail of Calcutta. This land deponent imagines to be worth 6 or 7,000 rupees and not 30 or 40,000 rupees. After the seizure of these lands by the collector, deponent's relatives petitioned against the sale to the commissioner of Alipoor Division, Mr. Pigou, who, as the land was devoted to religious purposes and as such are not liable to assessment, cancelled the collector's sale. Deponent has no : share in any of these lands. Each of the deponent's

his brother Bindabur Kur; but the lands devoted to religious purposes, is udper the general superintendence of them all, but Mohesh Chunder Kur as the senior of the family is the nominal superintendent. Deponent's grandfather, besides the aforesaid land, possessed a garden house at Itajhpoor, situated on the banks of the l{iver Ganges, which he at the time he made the deed of gilt already mentioned, bestowed on the goddess Gungu Mye, and there is no Government rent assessed on it. The spot of ground to the east of Sree Rain Mootee's garden, likewise belonged to deponent's grandfather, who annexed it in this deed of gift as well as the adjoining beetelnut garden of 2 biggah's. The beetelnuts grown in it are appropriated to the use of the idol and not sold. Deponent is unacquainted with Gopaul and Kis. shen Mohon, nor does he know any ground at Rajhpoor called Amrah Bagan. Deponent's grandsather had a house adjoining Chundy Churn Sircar's at Rajhpoor; this house is converted to an abode for the pilgrims and songsters who worship at the shrine of the deity. Deponent does not know Bhowany Roy, nor is he aware of any lands his grandfather purchased from him. Seekdar Bagan, at the village of Goopy poor, contains Ie biggahs of land; deponent does not know whether it was acquired by his grandfather, or subsequently bought from the savings of the revenue of the other religious estates ; it is devoted to religious purposes. Besides the lands already mentioned, deponent's grandfather left many other es'ates, many of which he has never seen, and does not even know their names. After the death of his uncle, deponent for a short period collected the rents of his share, and at times of the shares of his relatives at their request. Deponent's share was two annas in the rupee. Deponent does not know what was the annual amount of these collections. Deponent collected the rents for about two years and a half. The accounts of these collections are in the custody of the shareholders at Itajbpoor and their gomastas. Since deponent's confinement, his uncles and cousins have separated and therefore these gomastas are now dispersed ; yet some of them may be forthcoming. Umbikha Jadub and Ramchund Boes, mohurirs, who collected and kept the account of these rents and do so still, are residing in Zillah 24-Pergunnahs in the village of Mirzapoor, and can be found if inquired after. Deponent's grandfather had a lower roomed house at Barreapoor called Peach Sahib's garden : this, together with an indigo factory at Erachee, were mortgaged to Baboo_Juggeidernath Mullick by deponent's uncle for 5000 Rs- shortly after the demise of Sumbhoo Chunder Kur, in 1242. This mortgage has not as yet been paid, and the property was totally sold for are ars of Government rents. Deponent believes that he has entered it in his Schedule as forming a portion of his ancestorial property. The rents of Turf Seeta Koond exceed 200 Rs annually : it is dedicated to the deity, but Kisto

uncles and cousins look after their own share, likewise

Ram Poor, which is included in the Talook of Dangah,

« PreviousContinue »