« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
A PETITION TO GOVERNMENT. ,
We have been informed, that a petition, very nu. | Bengallee as well as in Persian, the only difference being merously signed, the signatures being naiive, has been that he will be about three times as long in taking down recently, within the last day or two sent in to Govern. , the evilence in Bengallee, as it would have laken him ment. The prayer of which is that measures be taken to do it in Persian, with the additional advantage of for the institution of schools to be devoted exclusively there being fewer persons capable of understanding what to the study of Sanscrit, as a foundation for the for. I he may have writtell. In either case the poor er classes, mation of one general language, consolidating or super- as it appears to us, gain nothing by the change. The ceding the various dialects of Bengallee which now ob- I proceedings are lengthened by it; the Mahome.lan po. tain. This petition, which has been handed over by pulation alarmed and displeased at it ; and the labours Government to the Education Commiitee, is worthy, of the officials ab ut rrebled by it, and rendered less we understanı, of serious attention, from the great num. efficient withal. Under the present system, by which of its signatures, amounting, we are told, (for we have the exertions of the Civilian are taxeil, beyond the not seen it) to thousands, and must be taken therefore power of performance in very many oflices, all that he to be the expression of opinion prevalent with respect could do is 10 exercise an active supervision over his to the great evil now to be deplored, i. e. the wani in subordinates—for the most part of course natives--as it Bengal of one fixed and yenerally understood langage, is, it woull appear, that with all the brevity and simplihaving one known character and common to all classes city of the Persian it is generally admitted, that he can. of the inhabitants of this vast and fertile di-trict. The not check the propensities of his Umlah, &c. to deceive answer of the Goveroment to this perition will be of him, anil the suitors. How, we will ask, will this much interest. Here is a clear admi-sion that in the supervision in the superior be carried on, when he shall opinion of many, there is an absolute and crying iemand come to have the proceedings of his Court, written in for a pational language ; we presume, however, that the Bengallee or Oordoo ? by which his labours of in. objects of the petitioners will not be carriell into effect; spection will be increased Draily threefold ; and his anil for many reasons. The new langnage foundledd attention will be called to instruments, and the minutes on the Sansert, or rather regulated by it, anii consisting of the transactions of ihe day, written in a character in. as we presume it would of a consolidation of the Ben. fuively more complicated than the Persian, and in which gallee dialects, improved by a larger iufusion of Sunscrit in nineteen cases out of twenty, we will venture to say, than is now traceable in the Bengallee, would be to the and we speak on the information of persons well know many an unknown tongue, anil would be open to all'ing the fact, the Civilian himself, is less well read than the objections now raised against the Persian on this, in Persian. The correspondent of the rurkaru, X, Y. Z. score and 10 more besides. The Persian is not an un- to whosp leller the latter of these observations in some known tongue ; it is on the contrary as familiar as sort apply, has one singular enough argument, upon Ilindoostanee, 10 a very large portion of the edurated which he grounds his advocacy of the abolition of the Ilindoor, and to all or almost all the Mahommerlan Per-jan, i. e. that any deficiency, or oinis-ions or mis. subjects of Empire. To all that portion, in short, of the takes in a Persian document may be concealed from the innabitants of the country likely from their positiun, rank facility of changing one letter or phrase into another. and property to constitute the principal suitors in the Now if the credit of the functionary is to depend upon Courts of Justice, or likely to be called on to fill situa. the falsifying of documents, at his pleasure or necessity, tions as officials in these Counts. The only class not lo answer the exigencies of a particular case, and that likely to know Persian are the lower classes of traders, this system of substitution and forgery is the general rule and the ryois, by far the inost numerous, of course, but of conduct of officials; it appears to us a matter of ininasmuch as the new language proposed by the peritia Wifference in what language the proceedings of the oners would be a sealeil book to them, to the same Courts are carried on ; because roguery of this sort can extent that Persian now is, we do not see what they be practised in any wrillen character, whether written would gain by the change. And 10 the Mahoinmerlan ini. in a sort of short-hand like the Persian, or in good habitants, the substitution of the new language for Per. honest vernacular, such English or Bengallee. sian would be a positive evil, as great, as the present And as the Bengallee character is less generally known measure of Government, the sulistitution of the verna. than the Persian, we presume detection would be more cular in Bengal for Persian. To the poorer class of the citficult. This argument, however, if such it must be population of Bengal, we fear that the present state of called, is surely an argument from a particular cir. education considereil, the language of the Courts of Jus. cumstance, to a general conclusion. Persian documents tice must for a long time to come, remain an unknown may have been falsified in some few instances; tongue, be it Persian, or be it an improved modification but the general rule we must presume is that they of the Bengallee on the Sanscrit model. We are sold, are not falsified ; and to make any thing of this moreover, that the people themselves if polled, would be argument it ought to be shewa, that public funcfound perfectly indifferent to the change. And that 10 tionaries generally, are in the habit of concealing the majority, the Roobicarry, &c. of a Court of Justice, gross negligence, by the alteration of the proceedis about as intelligible in Persian as it would be in ings of their Courts, after they have been regisBengallee. The knowledge of the written language in tered and signed; and that the practice will be the majority of the poor classes being confined to the put a stop to only by the substitution of the vernacular limited, familiar ani colloquial phraseology, appertain for Persian, which vernacular cannot by the same ing to the dealings and transactions of their particular falsifying process be made to exhibit the same result, calling and comprehending necessarily but a small i.e. the falsification of a document. This is, if we unsection of the words, expressions, and idiom constituting derstand the correspondent of the Hurkaru, the amount the language itself. That the result therefore of their of his argument in favour of the vernaculars; and we evidence should be taken down in Persian in a Court of need not say, that to us it appears in the light of Justice, or written out in Bengallee or Oordoo must be, nonsence. We do not at all question, that under the we suppose, a matter of indifference to them; they must the present system, the ends of justice have frequently under any circnmstances confide in the fidelity of the been frustrated by designing officials; but that the use scribe, without having any control over his version of of the Persian is to be held the cause, 'we cannot ad. their deposition; and if the scribe be disposed 10 falsi. mit-corruption must be laid to the door of the sys
evidence alloded to hy 8. Y. Z., and liable, as he states, suine, by the character in which he writer, be it Ben. and we believe states truly, to so much abuse, is in gallee, Persian or English. In conclusion, we will ask itself vscious—a mere farce, by which it is pretendeu any body whom it may concern, how many Civilians tha: the witness is examined coram judice, when io point or 'natives fit for emplyment, or capable of carrying on of fact the deposition presented to the Judge, may or may the current business of the country, can write a Roo. not be the man's evidence. But this evil cannot be bicarry in the Bengal vernaculars ? For that is the cured by the substitution of one language for another. question which inost presses at present, and is more A vivå roce examination by the magistrate would obviate germane to the ineasure of substitution then the query of this evil, but this the press of business does not admit the Hurkaru about Bengallee and the understanding of of. The only check then is in the improved morality of the " great bulk of the population.”-l'ourier, Februthe native scribe ; which is not much affected, we preolury 23.
Tuunsday, Feb 1.
or answer. It is quite immaterial whether the instru.
ments set forth be called an award or a ralease ; pro(Refore Sir Edward. Ryan and Sir J. P. Grant.) bably the latter term is more correct : but whatever it
be, if fraudulent, it cannot be supported. Now fraud CONY LOLL v. POOROOSONTHUN Dosg AND ANOTHER. positively alleged in the bill, and not being positively In this case the bill stated that in 1818, three part, There ought to have been an answer positively pega.
contradicted by the plea, must be taken to be admitted. ners, Toolseram, Mohuololl and Seeteram, possessed establishments as bankers and trailers at Patna, Cal. Living fraud. The case of Wright v. Proud, 13 Vevey, cutia, Mirzapore and Cossimbazar. The first mention lays down the general principle that a transaction will ed partner was entitled to a six-anna share, and the tion to each other, as guardian and ward, or trustee and
be set aisde bel ween pariies standing in a certain relaother two, who were brothers, to the remaining teu anna share. Afer the death in 1818 of viobünloll cestuique trust, whenever the transaction has arisen out (who left only a widow surviving a short time) the of the influence of that relation. Such has been the business was conducted by the two other partners.
case here, and such the relative position of the parties Seeteram died in 1820, leaving three sons, one of whoin during the infancy of the complainant. But the case died without leaving any widow or issue, and the other chie relied upon is Roache v. Morgon, % Schoales and two, Pooroosoothun Dose and Narain' Doss are the Lefroy, where it was held that where fraud is alleged a defendants in this suit. The survivor of the three release pleaded does not prevent the Court from decreeing original partners, died in 1821, leaving an only son,
a new account, unless the defendant by his answer fully Conyloll, the present complainent, who attained his full meets the charge of fraud, and it is declared to be imma. age about 1830. The bili alleged fraud during the misterial that the bill itself does not state the release. This nority of Conyloll, misappropriation by the defendants brings the case preicsely within the analogy of the of a sum amounting to four l'acs, and a falsification of present. the partinership accounts, whereby a balance was fazely
Mr. Cochrane on the same side. It is a general prin. stated against ine complainant. The prayer of the bill ciple, which requires no authority, that ihe right of was thai an account might he decreed, and the title of parties cannot be barred either by a reference to arbitra. complainant declared to the origiwal six-anna share of rion or by release, until a full and true account has been the partnership property.
rendered. Now it is admitted here that no account has
been rendered at all. But further, a distinct and A plea was filed by the defendant, setting forth an specific charge of fraud is made out. The books relainstrument bearing date January 1834, whereby the ring to the partnership accounts are alleged 10 have parties had agreed to a reference to three arbitrators. been tampered with aud falsified and to contain fraudu. The plea furtber allegeil that a prior parol agreement belent and forged entries, by means of which a balance is tween the parties, directing the payment of certain sums falsely made out against ihe complainant. Now these of money and selling the respective rights of the parties, are the very books which were produced before the was produced before the arbitrators, who made their l arbitrators, and upon which their award was founded. verbal award, in February 1836, by which the above | That award, therefore, must be void. The case of agreement was adopted and carried into effect as their Helps v. Sproule, I Mylne and Keen, decides that a plea solemo award.
of a settled account is no bar, unless fraud is negatived, This plea having been set down for argument, the and according to Walker v. Simons, 3 Swanston, protec • case now turned entirely upon its validity.
tion is to be extended after the party has attained ma. Mr. Clarke and Mr. Leith for the defendants.
jority until proper information has been obtained. It is ditficult to conjecture what precise ground of ob
Mr. Clarke, in reply. The case of an award stands jection is intended io be raised against the plea. This upon its own peculiar grounds, and is not touched by is, in effect, a plea in bar of a verbal award, made by any of the arguments advanced or the authorities cited. arbitrators duly appointed ; and Cor v. Macclesfield, It is to a certain extent equivalent to a judicial decision, in Dyer's reports, establishes the validity of a verbal Pitlerson v. Peut, 3 Ark., and it is final and binding award. Then the plea covers the whole bill, because the upon all the parties uoless impeached by fraud and colo prayer of the bill is confioed to the property which is lusian on the part of the arbitrators. Now there is no the subject matter of the award. As to the prayer for presence or allegation whatsoever of such misconduct in a discovery,—the right to a discovery is dependant on
this case. the title to relief and this plea expressly negatives such
Sir E. Ryan- Would it not be a good ground for title.
setting aside an award that it had been made upon the The Advocate General for the complainant-The ob- authority of false and fraudulent documents ? jection to this plea is matter both of form and substance. Sir J. Grant-It surely is law that an award is vie Although the bill distinctly alleges fraud against the tiated by fraud not only when practised by, but also
Mir. Clarke-This is admitted. But in such a case it I denied to have been ever received by the solicitor. Mr. would be necessary to set forth all the particulars of the Cochrane contended, that there was both direct and alleged frauil, and to connect them with the award circumstantial proof of their receipt. Letters were read The bill must be brought expressly to impeach the from the deputy post master general, and on affidavit of award and not attempt to get rid of it in this vague and the Post Oflice peon, by which it appeared that two indirect manner. How are the allegations of fraud, con letters were received at the post office by the Dacca *nected in any way with the award ? It does not appear inail about the time in question, with the address named, *on the face of these pleadings, but that all the circum- and delivered accordingly. It was hoped that if these stances of the case were fully before the arbitrators ; so facts were made out to the satisfaction of the Court, the that even if the books were falsified to any extent there motion would be granted, and the defendant allowed to might be other evidence produced before the arbitratore, come in-and that the Court would not suffer him to quite sufficient to enable them to arrive at a just decision be ruined without any dereliction of his own. The An award is of the same force as a judgment or decree, lefendant was an ignorant man, unacquainted with the and a plea of judgment recovered would surely never forms and technicalilies of law, anxious to defend the be held bad upon a simple suggestion - a vague asser- suit, and furnished with a complete ground of defence, tion that there had been prior fraud. It would be ne. but barred therefrom entirely by an act over which he cessary to connect that prior fraud with the subsequent had no control. judgment, and shew expressly how in influenced such judgment. That is not done here. From the circum- of his client and of persous employed in his office,
Mr. Prinsep for Mr. Shaw, put in counter-affidavits stances, therefore, of the present case nothing more can positively and expressly contradicting all the charges be inferred than the existence of fraud at some prior and especially denying the receipt of the two letters in period ; nothing is shewn to affect the validity of the award. The Court, aller a short consultation, postponed
questi It appeared, moreover, that several instances
band occurred, and were specifically alluded to, where judgment.-Hurkaru, Feb. 2.
mistakes in the delivery of letters at Mr. Shaw's oitice
had taken place. An offer of arbitration had been made SATURDAY, FEB, 3 1838.
to Mr. Kallonias, but rejected. As to his alleged igno.
rance of legal matters, it was proved that he had been This was the last day of term, but the last cause in an attoruey's office. Collateral affidavits were also on the board having been heard on Friday, the Court put in, contradicting some of the matters sworn to by poly took common motions and rose at an early hour. Mr. Kallonias, and throwing discredit on his statements. Judgment has not yet been delivered in the appeal case Mr. Prinsep was proceeding to answer the case from the Insolveni Court, and some other cases argued regarded the charges of corruption and collusion, conduring the present term,
tained in the affidavit of Kallinias, and asked what Mr. William White Burkinyoung, who arrived possible motive could be assigned for the conduct attrifrom England last week, was almitted an Attorney of buted to his client. A wild notion that all the world this Court.
is conspiring to injure a man, is frequently a forerunner Monday, (this-day) is the first day of the sittings.
and index of incipient insanity! Al present fourteen causes have been entered on the the case related to alleged neglect on the part of the
The Court here intimated that as the only point in Plea side, and one on the Equity side.
solicitor, the charges of corruption must be abandoned. Monday, Feb. 5, 1838.
Mr. Prinsep then went over the correspondence
between the parties. The earlier instructions are so Before Sir E. Ryan and Sir J. P. Grant-Sittings after upon them. First, the party directs that the jurisdic
vague and contradictory that no one could safely act First Term of 1838.
tion should be pleaded in bar; then that no answer
hould be put in at all ; afterwards, that his solicitor Joux Lucas versus GEORGE KALLONIAS AND OTHERS. should wait until he received further instructions. No.
In this cause a motion was made on notice on behalf thing definite is contained in any of the letters admitted of George Kallonias, one of the defendants, agninst to have been received. As to the two missing letters, whom an er-parte decree had been obtaineil, of the date it is not denied that they may have been written, but of the 24th July 1837, for substitution of attornies only that they have ever been received. An agent is not without payment of costs, and also to set aside the to be mulcted in heavy costs because his client's letter erparte proceedings on payment of all costs by the las miscarried. But further, no proof is given of the defendant's solicitor. The motion occupied the court identity of the letters sworn to have arrived obout the the whole day, and excited great interest.
ime in qnestion by the Dacca mail. Agaiu the circumMr. Cochrane for Kallonias.
stance of an arbitration having been offered and rejected,
is a strong presumption that the present application is Mr. Prinsep and Mr. Leith for the solicitor, Mr. not made in good faith. Surely the court will not grant Shaw,
such a motion as the present upon such slender and The Advocate General and Mr. Clarke appeared to unsatisfactory grounds. represent the interests of Lucas, the complainant in the Mr. Leith, on the same side, was not called upon. original suit, but were not heard on this motion.
Mr. Cochrane, in reply, admitted that the only point Mr. Cochrane, in support of the motion, put into wbich the case was now reduced, had reference to affidavits of his client and the correspondence which the receipt or non-receipt of the two letters in question. passed between him and his solicitor, Mr. Shaw, to prove the evidence is sufficient to establish their delivery and gross and culpable negligence on the part of the latter. receipt. If they had not been received, surely the soliIn the early part of the correspondence Mr. Kallonias cor would have written to enquire the cause of the delay, appeared to be labouring under the impression that he esperially when the consequences to his client were so was not within the jurisdiction of the Court, and that inomentous. The case is not one inerely of oath against there was a conspiracy to draw him within it ; but it was oath-the whole line of transaction, the whole internal alleged that at a subsequent period positive instructions evidence of the case, bear out the statement of Mr. had been given to the solicitor to put in an answer and Kallonias. It is not a very usual thing for a single proceed regularly in the cause. All the letters which letter to miscarry by the general post, and it is a very passed on both sides were admitted, except iwo, alleged strange coincidence that these two important letters
circumstance that the solicitor's dâk-book has not been Mr. Leith and Mr. Grant for the plaintiff, were aboot produced, that it might have been examined in open to prove jurisdiction under th New Rules, but the Court court, to ascertain whether no entries had been made. said, that this was necessary only when the case was
Sir E. Ryan.-A motion to change ibe attornies in a beard erparte in order to obtain a judgment, and not cause without payment of costs, being contrary to the after judgment by default. usual course of proceeding, can only be granied upon The altorney's bills were put in and proved to have proof of fraud or gross-misconduct. The second part of been duly taxed, and copies delivered to the executors ihe motion cannot stand on light grounds, but only on who promised to pay the amount. strong equitable circumstances ; now the charges of
Verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed collusion and corruption are abandoned, and the only question is whether a case of negligence has been made sicca rupees 784.- Hurk. Feb. 7.
With reference to the whole admitleil correspondence between the parties, no definite instructions what.
WEDNESDAY, FEB. 7, 1838. ever appear to bave been given to Mr. Shaw, and he is not therefore guilty of any negligence in declining to Before Sir E. Ryan and Sir J. P. Grant. act upon them. Then the whole question turns upon the two missing letters. Now here one affidavit is con
Dyce versus Dyce. sistent with the other, for one party cannot deny that
Mr. Prinsep moved, that this cause should be set down they were written nor the other they were never received. The proof derived from the circumstances of the cause is pro forma on the Equity board, with the consent of parties, incomplete, and at all events can never amount to such wal of an issue of law therein. The ground upon which
for the purpose of obtaining an order for the immediate a probability as to satisfy such a motion as the present. the motion was made, was, that the principal witne Uniess a case is very clear, the Court will never sum. Sir Charles Metcaise, is about to leave the country immarily interfere, but leave the parties to their ordinary
Motion granteil. Sir J.Grant, entirely concurred in opinion with the learned Chief Justice. Mr. Shaw has fully answered the charge of negligence, and no imputation rests on
BAUCKET versus BHUCKET AND BEEBEE PHICKEY rersus him whatever.
HURRANARAIN. Motion refused with costs.
In these cases heard er parte yesterday, the Court in
rimatest this morning that the parties coulil take nothing TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1838.
by their judgments against the parties in defauli, on ac.
count of the omission to give notice un'ler the New rules AssionEES OF FERGUSSON AND Co. v. DWARKANAUTH default had been obtained, that damages against them
to those of the defendants against whoin judgment by TAGORE AND OTUERS.
would be assessed at the time of trial. The judgment of the Court in this case was delivered this day by the chief justice.
DOE ON THE DENISE OF THE EAST India Company versus The case was argned in the third term of last year.
RAJCOOMAR SEAT AND ANOTHER. The action was brought upon a policy of insurance for
The Advocate General and Mr. Couchrane for the les. Rs 50,000 granted to ihe insolvent; there was an agree. sors of the plaintiff. ment to prolong or renew the policy if required. After the insolvency of Fergusson and Co. The policy was renewed
This was an action of ejectment brought to recover to the common assignee, who paid the premium when possession of one cottah and eight chiitacks of lani, it fell due. The defendants in their plea' set off a pro. called the old Jorah bagaun thannah, in the town of missory note, drawn by Fergusson and Co. before their Calcutta. In 1836, an ejectment had been brought for insolvency and indorsed to the defendants. To this plea the same premises by the defenfants against the present of set-off there was a general demurrer.
plainviffs, who then suffereil judgment to go by default,
and in 1837, the defendants recovered Rs. 1,988 in an The argument for the plaintiff's was, that the contract action for mesne profils. The Company claimed the upon which the action is brought, is entirely a contracı premises by virtue of long and uninterrupted possession, between the assignees and the defendants, whereas the but the defendants sought to establish ownership by set-off relates to a matter between the insolvents and the shewing that their uitle had been acknowledged by the defendants, and that such a defence therefore amounts to
payment of rent. seuing off a debt due from one party against a claim made
Several thannadars and chowkeydars were produced by another. To this the defendants answered that the assignees are entirely as the representatives of the insol, where it was for the last half century. This evidence
as witnesses, and proved that the thannah had stood venis, and that the renewal of the policy was but a con.
was corroborated by W. C. Blacquire, Esq, who has tinuance of the original contract and not an entirely new been employed in the Police Establishment 61' ce 1789. agreement. But the Court were clearly of opinion that the debt could not be set off, and that there must be evidence, that the assessments were paid by the owners
On cross-examination, it appeared from this gentleman's judgment for the plaintiff. They ciled the cases of
of the soil. Cor v. Listard, I Douglas Rep. Evans v. Mann, Cowper’s Rep. West v. Pryco, 2 Bingham's reports.
Mr. Clarke (with whom was Mr. Lieth) for the defen.
dants, stated the grounds of their title. He woulù proJudgment for the plaintiffs.
duce evidence to shew that the defendants were in pos.
session of all the surrounding land, that they had con. RowLAND GRAHAM tersus JUOGUTCHUNDER Moo.
tinually paid the assessments for the identical property XERJEN AND OTHERS, EXECUTORS OF SUMBEOOCH UNDER
in question, and that they had received rent from the MOOKERJEE.
Company, who now sought to disprove their title. The
receipts for rent unfortunately could not be produced, as This was an action for work and labour done, and for in the year 1831 the defendant's cutcherry was robbed, money paid by the plaintiff in his capac ly of attorney and their ancestorial papers and documenis lost. Since for the iestator. Judgment had been obtained for want the death of the father of the present defendants, it was of a plea, and evidence was now adduced to assess tbe admitted that no rent had been paid, by reason of the amount of damages.
defendants being then under age, and the consequent bad management of the estate during their infancy. But family of Toraubconsisted of three widows and three it was contended that the recovery of the rents and pro children, one of whom had since died : two of the widows fits, in the action for mesne profits, was equivalent to with the two surviving children, were the lessors of the receipt of rent.
plaintiff in the present action.These representatives of Captain F. Birch, superintendent of police, was called Toraub claimed two-thirds of the estate ; because ac. as a witness, and proved the receipts for assessments cording to the rules of Mahommedan Law a brother is from the defendants for the land in dispute. The collec. L'entitled to double the share of a sister (Mc Naghten's for of rents and other witnesses were called to prove pay.
Mahomedan law of inheritance). ment of rent on the part of the Company ; bui it did not Mr. Clarke (with whom was Mr. Leith) for the defen. appear distinctly from their evidence whether the rent Hant, did not dispute the pedigree of the plaintiffs. He was paid for the thannah in question, or only for a cook. shoulil adduce evidence io shew, that Toraub, who was room attached thereto.
very young at the time of his father's death, had always Sir E Ryan.—There must be jadgment for the lessors increase the ancestorial state, that his mother had paid
liver extravagantly, and had never had done any thing to of the plaintiff. The proof of the defendant's title has off his debts on several occasions oui of her dower estate, been attempted to be made out; first, by proving that lihat in lieu of the marriage settlement to which she was they have paid the assessments to Government, and entitled, he had released his right to the property by a secondly that they have received rent from the Company, deed of gift. That the premises in Mangoe Lane were for these premises. Now, as to the first point, it proves purchased under a bill of sale, in the name and with the nothing. The assessments are made payable by the money of the mo!her, and, finally, that she had duly exeo owners or occupiers of land, by a public Act, 33 Geo cuted a deed of trust, by which she conveyed the legal III c. 52, and no proof can be drawn from the circum. proprety shortly hefore her death to the present desea. stance tbat a house has been wrongly assessed. As 10
dani, the second point, no rent has been proved to have been paid for the ihanna, within the last twenty-four or twenty;/ The deed of gift was held sufficiently proved by calling
Evidence to this affect was gone into great length, five years, to the least, so that during that period there has been a continuing adverse possession agaiast swear to his own signature, but proved, that such an in.
a subscribing witness, who being blind was unable to the defendants. The statute of limitations hand begun to
strument has been executed in his presence, and by ad. ruu during the lifetime of the ancestor of the defendants: ducing further evidence to shew, that the instrument in it therefore continued to run notwithstanding their intermediate infancy.
question had been uniformly acted upon. It appeared in
the course of examination, that one of the lessors of the Mr. Clarke then applied for leave to move the Court plaintiff was bora before the marriage of her mother bad for a nonsuit, on the ground that the statute of limitations iaken place. did not apply to Mahommedans and Hindoos at all. The Advocate General endeavoured to impeach the deed
Sir E. Ryan.-- You can move, but we will not reserve of gilt executed by shewing fraud. leave, as the Court is quite clear on the point. Judgment for the lessurs of the plaintiff,
But the Court said that this would place him in a pe
culiar preilicament. It was througli Toraub that the The next case on the Board is Deo d. Jaun Bebee v. plaintiff claimed, and even if it was competent for thom Abdoolluh Barber. Hurkiru, Februury 8.
io shew fraud against him, it would tend at the uimost to establish a case available only in a Court of Equity.
The Advocate General then considered the points THURSDAY, FIB. 8, 1838.
which had arisen on Mohommedan law, and contended,
first that by the law of the Mussulman community, one Dyce versus Dyce,
born out of wedlock, is legitimized by the subsequent Mr. Prinsep applied to the Court for decretal orders, marriage of the parents, and is not excluded from the in. to consolidate the original and cross suits, and to direct heritance. This point, however, was not material to the the trial of more issues at law, This application was case, as it affected only one of the plaintiffs. The learn. made on consent of all parties. The only iwo points, ed counsel then cited McNaghten's Law of Inheritance, which required to be ascertained, were, l«; wheiner a lo shew, that by the Mahomedan law, a co-heir cannot certain paper, purporting to be a receipt or acknowledg. oust another of ihe whole of his share of the inheritance ment was executed by the Begum Sumroo in her life. without the consent of the latter (which is not likely to 2odly ; whether such document was delivered to the be very readily obtained !) and trial a lestator cannoi disa complainant in the original suit, as a receipt or acknow. pose of a larger proportion of the estate than one-third in edgment.
iegacies and bequesi. Upon these grounds, he contended, Alr. Clarke, Mr. Leith and Mr. Grant, were instructed that the plaintiffs were at all events entitled to a judgmeut to consent on behalf of the other parties interested. quvad part of the property in question. Order granted accordingly.
Sir E. Ryan.- There must be a verdict for the defen. dant; but we shall reserve leave to the Advocate General
on the point of law to move ibe Court that judgment, Doe on the demise of Jaun BEFBEE AND OTHERS versus protento. may be entered up for the plaintiffs. The deed of ABDOOLLAH BARBER.
gift or release and the instrument of sale are valid and Mr. Grunt opened the pleadings in this action of eject- genuine, the deed of trust is admitted to be genuine, but
There were five counts, layiog a joint denuise by its validity in law is contested. This, therefore, is the only all the four lessors of the plaintiff, and a several demise point remaining for consideration. It may be observed, by each. The premises sought to be recovered, consist- however, that the whole property is not conveyed away in ed ot a house and grounds oppurtenant, and other land this instance, for some interest is expressly reserved :o the situated in Mangoe Lane and in Colliogah.
whole family, and the defendant, though possessed of the The Advocate General stated the case.
legal estate, is only a trustee in equity. tion turnell chiefly on a Mahom medan pedigree. Kaloo Verdict for the defendant, with leave to move that a verKhansamah, the common ancestor, who died about forty dict may be entered for the lessors of the plaintiffs. years ago, left two sous and a daughter, of whom one son Mr. Clarke applied to the Court at its rising, that the died unmarried, the other, Toraub, lest representatives case of Walker v. Bruce might be fixed for tomorrow, (who were the plaintiffs in this action) and the daughter as it stood next but one on the board and was likely to