complainant filed his bill in the Supreme Court, f and pay the full amount into complainant's hand; - that Calcutta. The award has been pa id,

The Advocate General and Mr. Clarke were heard in support ef the bill.

But the court allowed the plea, and dismissed the bill, each party to pay his own costs.- - Englishman, Jan. 19.

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 as sembled at the chambers of Mr. Sandes, the Bank's soli-ant's grounds were not sufficient; that they were vague citor where, it was sworn a check on the Union Bank was and unsatisfactory, merely stating the absence of Mr. given by defendant to plaintiff, payable to Moischunder Crawford, who, it is alleged, has paid the money for which Bonuorjee, the plaintiff's nephew. Moischunler was the action is brought, but nothing was stated to show, the instructed by his uncle to take the money to Mr. Sandes.alleged payment could not be proved by the partners of The trial turned eatirely on this, whether the amount of the check was paid by the defendant, on account of the firm of Roussac, Brothers, or on his own account.

the firm of Gilmore and Co.

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

John Aitchinson v. J. 4. 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.

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 if any, what sum of money, by the complainant to the receiver, and how such money, when received, ought to be aps

A case of very considerable interest, both in a general been doubted, he voluntarily gave up two lakhs of and commercial point of view, was at the time we left, rupees. But even the amount due to him after this rein progress of argument in the Supreme court, the inquishment frequently varied, from consignments made Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Grant presiding. It was by him, and remittances made to him, and on the failure the appeal of the Assignees of Fergusson and Co. against of Fergusson and Co., the balance to his credit was the decision of Mr. Justice Malkin in the Insolvent 6,54,029. Mr. Clarke afterwards became a bankrupt court, in the matter of the Assignees of David Clark in England, and the respondents were appointed his 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.

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 Mr 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 agreement 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. -Calcutta Courier, January 26,

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT FROM A DECISION OF
THE INSOLVENT COURT.

In the matter of the petition of Samuel George and Ed-
ward Edwards, Assignees of David Clarke, and the estate
of Fergusson and Co.

Appellant-Elliot Macnaghten, Esq., Assignee.
Counsel.-The Advocate General and J. F. Leith

Esq.

Attorney.-Mr. Waddington.

For the Respondents.-Counsel.-Longueville Clarke, Esq., and William Patrick Grant, Esq.

Attornies.-Messrs. Wight, Boyle and Thomas.

In the case Mr. David Clarke was the head of the firm of Messrs. Fergusson and Co.; he left India in 1826, and retired from the firm on the 30th of April, 1827, joining the London firm of Fairlie, Bonham and Co. On his retirement, the remaining partners admitted that sicca rupees 8,31,636 stood to his credit, and wasdue by the house to him, but in consequence of the correct

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 ac cordingly presented to the Insolvent Court, where it was decided by Mr. Justice Malkin, that the estate of Mr. Clarke was entitled to the dividend and against this de cision, the present appeal was presented.

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 Eng lish 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 courts of Common Law, and he had never been distinguished for his knowledge of Equity. He cited the case of An derson versus Maltby, 24 Vessey 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 imput ing moral fraud or any turpitude whatever to Mr. David 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 1828, by Mr. John Smith, the then senior Member, and signed 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 commented 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-parte Ruffin 6 Ves. 119. Ex-parte Williams 11 Ves. 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 mercantile 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 consideraiion as Mr. David Clarke gave no con. sideration 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 differ ent 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

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. 2lly, 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.

The Chief Justice. The Assignees hold the fund, you demand a payment from them; how can you say they have no right to be heard against making that payment? Mr. Clarke said the right to be heard, was consequent on the right to resist payment, the right to resit was based on the right to invalidate the arrangement made between Clarke and his partners, but no sebsequent creditor, nor any creditor who had transferred his credit, was affected by or could question that arrangement; therefore, it followed that those who were not in a situation to question the arrangement, could have no right to be heard. Now, before the creditors could question the arrangement, they ought to shew that they had a right to do so; but there was not one tittle of evidence in the court below to shew, that the Assignee represented any creditor of Mr. David Clarke's or that any of the present creditors of Fergusson and Co., were creditors in April 127. The onus probandi was with them.

The Chief Justice.-This is arguing on a circle. The Assigneee has a right to resist payment, but it by no means follows that he has a right to enforce it. We think he has a right to be heard, but on being heard, if he does not prove he has right to oppose another question may arise, but nevertheless we must hear him.

on Mr. David Clarke's retirement.

He swore

been committed. Having thus disposed of the law, he would now come to the facts 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.] of Mr. Gardener's, whose subordinate employment in The only evidence referred to by his friend, was that the firm, prevented his having any intimate knowledge of their affairs; but putting that aside, for he was deter to point out one single line which could even imply, mined to take the high ground, he challenged his friend 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 from his peculiar duties the pecuniary affairs of the been the book-keeper from 1823, and in reality knew that the house was perfectly solvent, that he would have house better than the partners themselves. trusted it to any extent, and that Mr. Adam 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 was an independent man, he had never been in the Mr. McKellegan house, and 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? Had 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 before 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 Mr. Clarke stated he would not argue against the partner? If not, they must then be guided by their evi opinion of the court much less would he do so when dence, or disbelieve it-or in other words, for he liked the weight of his objection would avail him equally plan language, they must either believe them and sup on the consideration of the whole question. He would port the decision of the court below, or if they reveried therefore go to the merits. He would at once acknow-it, pronounce them to be guilty of deliberate perjury. ledge the correctness of the law of all the cases cited There was no drawing the line; there were no nice disby the Advocate-General, and he would shew from tinctions in this part of the case, any more than there them, that his friend was in error in questioning the were in the other. He now came to the documentary correctness of Peak's case. Nothing in fact could be evidence. The court would recollect that when a bimore clear, more simple, than the law applicable to lance of 18,85,104 was found to be due to the partners this case. It was all to be found in Peak's case, and in April 1827, they were ranked among creditors of the the other cases instead of differing from, supported that house. The balance due to them was always treated decision. This was the law. If the arrangement for other debt of the house. Now take the first Mr. Clarke's retirement was made with the intention account made up in March 1828, that shews 6,63,612 of defrauding the creditors, then it was bad; but if deficit, that is what is due to creditors beyond the assets; not, then it was good. Knowledge of Insolvency by but among what is due to creditors, is what was due to the partners at the time of making the arrangement did the partners, namely 12,85,101; so that had all the crenot of itself constitute proof of fraud, but it might be ditors, but the partners, been paid, the surplus would coupled with other circumstances by evidence of it. In have been 6,21,492. Now the partners might do what Peak's case, knowledge of Insolvency without other they pleased with their own, and Mr. David Clarke circumstances was held not to be sufficient; in the other cases, there were strong circumstances coupled with this kuowledge, and therefore fraud was held to be proved. There was, therefore, no contradiction iu 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 But the case did not rest here. Hitherto he had condeficiency in the house, that all of them had been guilty fined himself to the appellant's evidence, let him now of the grossest moral 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-accounts were made up not between the partners and

as any

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 different state of affairs; then the deficit, instead of

very

being 6,33,612 in five months after, shewed 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.

it will be found, that there was a fund called the suspense of Doorgachurn Mookerjee, who were making away account, which was a fund expressly reserved to meet with it to avoid the effect of the decree of this court. bad debts, or an evil hour. To the creditors this fund belonged, but the partners never touched it; therefore This is a mere experimental bill, wholly novel and unMrPrinsep and MrCochrane for the infant defendants. in making up accounts between themselves, they never referred to it. This fund in 1827 amounted to 62 lacks precedented both in form and principle. The decree of rupees, and was not included in the calculations pro- to relief from this court, was not in existence at the time upon which the complainants ground their alleged title duced by the appellants, as between the partners and the creditors it would be included; and, therefore, the 60 when the bill was filed. As to the interlocutory decree lakhs ought to be added to the calcalations produced, establishes nothing more than a possibility that a claim of April 1835, it only directs an account, and therefore which made it ludicrous to talk of the insolvency of the might at some future period accrue to the defendants. house at that period. Mr. Clarke then went into an ex-Smith versus Eyles, Atkyn's Rep, is an authority that amination of the Gloucester Mills accounts, shewing the vicissitudes of mercantile speculations. This property of dealing with the property, and that a final decree a mere decree quod computet does not affect the right had cost him 10 lakhs, in a few years after it was sold for alone can put the parties in the position of creditors. 2 lakhs by the assignees, and then sold for 6 lakhs by the purchasers from them. Again in regard to debts, there Mr Clarke in reply urged, that even the interlocutory was equal uncertainty, many were es eemed good, which decree gave the complainant a right against the estate turned out bad, and many were considered ho peless so far as to entitle him to relief from this court, although which were paid in full. Mr. Smoult and Mr. Andrew it did not precisely define the amount of his claim. Wight were among the latter; he found them noted bad, and afterwards principal and interest paid in full.

The court postponed judgement, and rose at three o'clock.-Hurkaru, January 31.

MADRAS SUPREME COURT.

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 General for a want of proficiency in mercantile accounts. He also went at great length into other points not touched on by Mr. Clarke, especially the law relating to the During the trail of a case of larceny in the Supreme liability of partners as between them and their creditors. Court on Monday last, a Christian boy of eight years The Advocate-General replied, that it was useless to old, was brought up to the clerk of the crown to take an contend, that the two accounts signed by the partners, oath, previous to his being sent before the Grand Jury, In March and October, 1826, did not shew a complete when the following dialogue took place. state of insolvency. There the word deficit was used,

and over that his friends could not get. There was Sir E. Gambier. Has he learned to read and say his nothing of suspense account mentioned in them; but if prayers? He has learned a little; he says his prayers. there true nature and character wanted to be defined, To whom are his prayers addressed? God. Does look at the desponding remarks attached to them by the he know God hears and sees all that he says and does? partners them-elves, and look at Mr. David Clarke's He does not know. Does he know what is meant by Jetter to his brother. Would any, but men conscious of, taking an oath? No. If he tells lies and falsehoods, and weighed down by insolvency, have written to that does he know it is displeasing to God? No he does not effect. His friend Mr. Grant was wrong in stating that know. Does he know that it is wicked to say what is he had ever admitted that he was ignorant of accounts; false? He does know that. Does he know that God but this he had done he had admitted and did admit that will punish those who swear falsely? He does not. Has he was ignorant of that system which is magnificently he been taught where wicked people will go in the next termed Italian book-keeping a system which to him ap-world? He does not know that. Has he heard of Heapeared to have been invented by merchants, with its ven and Hell? No he has not. Of what persuasion is entry and double entry, for the sole purpose of keeping he? A Roman Catholic. What prayers has he learnt ? others in the dark and mystifying themselves.

The court, after short deliberation, stated they would ⚫ deliver their judgment at an early day.-Hurk. Jan. 29.

(Before Sirs E. Ryan, and Sir J. P. Grant.

RAJAI BURRODACAUNT ROY, versus JUGGURCHUNDER
MOOKERJEE AND OTHERS.

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 coinmandment? 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 statThis cause came on for hearing on supplemental billed to be eight years old he hardly looked five, and and answer. The former was filed in June 1836, and was perhaps confounded at being so closely interrogated prayed an account against the real and personal estate in open Court; and still less to question the propriety of of Doorgachurn Mookerjee, deceased and an unjunction persons being strictly examined, as to the sacred oblifrom wasting or changing the same, and for the appoint- gation of an oath; but to suggest whether something like ment of a receiver if necessary. An interlocutory de- the foregoing enquiry might not be beneficially extended cree ad computandum had been obtained in April 1835, to a very considerable portion of the persons who go in but the final decree was not dated until the 1st of No to the witness box; and whether any thing is so likely to vember, 1837, so that the present bill was filed antece-impress the natives with contempt for the ceremony of 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

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

prisoners is at stake, we can imagine that great advantage would be derived by closely questioning the principal witnesses as in the case of the lad on Monday last.

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 per jury.—Madras Herald, Jan. 17.

INSOLVENT COURT.

JANUARY 6, 1838.

(Before Sir E. Ryan, Knight.)

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 IN THE MATTER OF GOVIND CHUNDER KUR AN INSOLVENT. grandfather, besides the aforesaid land, possessed a Mr. Leith in opening the proceedings in this case, garden house at Rajhpoor, situated on the banks of the a former River Ganges, which he at the time he made the deed addressed the judge, and said that he had on occasion obtained an order from this court to examine of gift already mentioned, bestowed on the goddess this Insolvent regarding some landed property which it Gungu Mye, and there is no Government rent assessed it. The spot of ground to the east of Sree Rain is alledged on behalf of his assignee, and the creditors on of the estate, that he possesses within the jurisdiction of Mootee's garden, likewise belonged to deponent's grandthe Zillah of 24 Pergunnahs, and which he has omitted father, who annexed it in this deed of gift as well as the adjoining beetelnut garden of 2 biggah's. The beetelnuts to insert in his Schedule filed in this court by him. grown in it are appropriated to the use of the idol and The Insolvent was accordingly sworn. He deposed not sold. Deponent is unacquainted with Gopaul and Kis that he has no separate dwelling house, but he and his shen Mohon, nor does he know any ground at Rajhpoor family, together with his other relations, live in a house called Amrah Bagan. Deponent's grandfather had situated on 26 beegahs of ground in the village of Rajha house adjoining Chundy Churn Sircar's at Rajhpoor; poor, within the jurisdiction of the Zillah of 24-Pergun- this house is converted to an abode for the pilgrims and uahs. This house was the ancestorial property of his songsters who worship at the shrine of the deity. Degrandfather, Doorgah Ram Kur, who shortlyy previous ponent does not know Bhowany Roy, nor is he aware to his demise, bestowed it by a deed of gift for religious of any lands his grandfather purchased from him. Seekpurposes, on the goddess Radha Govindo Gee. The image dar Bagan, at the village of Goopy poor, contains le of this diety is kept within the dwelling house, and is biggahs of land; deponent does not know whether it on festival days brought out into the Hindoo-temple. was acquired by his grandfather, or subsequently bought Besides the Hindoo temple there is a Mahomedan Mus from the savings of the revenue of the other religious jid likewise on this ground. Doorgah Ran Kur died estates; it is devoted to religious purposes. leaving 4 sons, Ram Chunder Kur, deponent's father lands already mentioned, deponent's grandfather left Kisshen Chunder Kur, who had 5 sons, 4 of whom are many other estates, many of which he has never seen, alive, Sumbhoo Chunder Kur, who had one son yet and does not even know their names. living, and Mohes Chunder Kur, who has a daughter. of his uncle, deponent for a short period collected the The deed of gift was executed by Doorga Ram Kur, rents of his share, and at times of the shares of his rela Deponent's share was two annas 18 mother's previons to his demise, in Bengally. Depo-tives at their request.

Besides the

After the death

nent was then only 10 or 11 years of age. He does in the rupee. Deponent does not know what was the not know whether the registry of this land was trans- annual amount of these collections. Deponent collectferred in the collector's books to the name of the deity ed the rents for about two years and a half. The acafter the deed of gift. He cannot say in whose name counts of these collections are in the custody of the shares these lands are now entered in the collector's office, holders at Rajhpoor and their gomastas. Since depoit might be in the joint names of Sumbhoo Chunder nent's confinement, his uncles and cousins have separaKur and Mohes Chunder Kur; but deponent believes ted and therefore these gomastas are now dispersed ; Umbikha it to be in the name of the idol on which it was bestowed. yet some of them may be forthcoming. This land was seized by the collector for arrears of rent, Jadub and Ramchund Boes, mohurirs, who collected and sold about 4 or 5 months ago, and Baboo Isshur and kept the account of these rents and do so still, are Chunder purchased it for 3,600 rupees. This sale residing in Zillah 24-Pergunnahs in the village of happened before deponent was discharged by this court, wirzapoor, and can be found if inquired after. Depobut he cannot say whether it was before deponent had nent's grandfather had a lower roomed house at Barmade his application for an Insolvency. Deponent was reapoor called Peach Sahib's garden: this, together at that time, in the jail of Calcutta. This land depon- with an indigo factory at Erachee, were mortgaged to ent imagines to be worth 6 or 7,000 rupees and not 30 Baboo Juggeidernath Mullick by deponent's uncle for or 40,000 rupees. After the seizure of these lands by 5000 Rs shortly after the demise of Sumbhoo Chunder the collector, deponent's relatives petitioned against Kur, in 1242. This mortgage has not as yet been paid, the sale to the commissioner of Alipoor Division, Mr. and the property was totally sold for are ars of GovernDeponent believes that he has entered Pigou, who, as the land was devoted to religious pur- ment rents.

- poses and as such are not liable to assessment, it in his Schedule as forming a portion of his ancestorial cancelled the collector's sale. Deponent has no property. The rents of Turf Seeta Koond exceed 200 share in any of these lands. Each of the deponent's Re annually it is dedicated to the deity, but Kisto