The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-13 00:00:00

BABOO ULRUC SING V BENJ. PERSAD.-BENGAL.

In this case (which was one of a disputed balance) the
appellant's Counsel, Messrs. Miller and W grain, were re-
quired by their Lordships to S'IOW some strong g-nund of
objection to the accounts, which had been examined by
two Courts below, and, as their L irdships canj-cured,
examined with great minuteness. Objection was made by
appellant's Counsel to the production of books by the
respondents to prove their own accounts, on the ground
that, in fact, these books were the b inks of the pirties
themselves ; also to the description of witn-sses w iieh had
been called by the plaintiffs (respondents) to prove the ac-
counts, insis'ing that they were not the proper parties who
ought to have be n called. The Court b.liow had inter-
preted all doubtful evidence against the emit tnt, an I the
Court in whica the first tri il took place, in their decree,
made use of terms against the appellant which were re-
prehensible.
Sir J. Bernard Bosanquet gave judgment on the part of
their Lordships. The Provincial Court ha l decided in
favour of the respondents ; from this Court an appeal wits
brought to the Sudder Dewauny Ads Out, who directed
further inquiry, and then affirmed the former d tree. an I
also gave the costs of the appeal. Delay had occurred
before the commencement of the suit; the question of law
its to the lapse of time would, however, be considered only
as forming part of the merits of the case. Is the me 'sum e
one of suspicion on account of the deaths of witnesse., and
the d fficultiei in making nut the accounts caused by the
delay ? The Court of Sudder Dewauny Adiwbit had
i• ,me to the conclusion that the re,ponden''s dem tnd had
been satisfactorily made out, not simp•y up..n the b tok, of
the plaintiff himself, but also by a comparison at his hooks
with those of an agent of the defendaat (appellant), and
also with those of another party : certain circumstances
ilep-ntling on parole evidence confirmed these accounts.
Sot being able to see any clear paint that the decree of
the Sudder Dewauny Mawlut was wrong (although there,,.
night be doubts on the case), their Lordships affirmed
he decree of that Court as far as regarded princ pal and
interest, but without costs of appeal to that C ,urt, and
also without the costs of the present appeal.

Raja R itv Vencata Niladry Row v. Enosgoonty So3riah
Ind another.—(Madras.)
Tnis suit was recov It the value of property to a con-
.iderahle amount, alleged to have been carried off, at
nooo_day, by an armed fierce, from a fort or strong resi-
dence of a person of consideration in India, a portion if
the property consisting of jewels,
Messrs. Miller and Wtgrarn, for the appellants, argued
that as the evidence of witnesses in the Courts below was
contradictory as to the quantity of luggage carried 'd—
one set of witnesses stating that large pack iges were taken
away, and the respondent's witnesses deposing that no
luggage was taken away—if those Courts were satisfied
that some property had been seized, they ought not to
to.v • in .de decrees till further inquiry had been made, since
there must have been m -ens to have acute,' the pint.
Fhe C iurts, on the contrary, by their decree, ne.ta-ivd
the fact entirely ; or, at least, it was implied th it the
appellant's witnesses had exaggerated the qu intity of lug-
gage abstracted.
Mr. Sergeant Spinkie contended that the Court blow,
having discredited the evidence of the appellants, and re-
ceived the confident testimony of the opposite side, had
decided the conffeting testim .ny of the witn sses. The
story of an armed party entering a strong fur', packing up
vari ty of goods, and escaping unmolered, ;n noon may
was absurd—it being in the power of the party injured to
intercept them.

The Right Hon. Thomas Erskine gave judgment on the
part of their Lordships. This was a question of f tet,
depending on the testimony of witnesses. An action was
brought to recover a sum of money alleged to have been
carried off, as above stated. Witnesses were called, who
depos-d that they saw m iney and other property abstraorda.
Toe Provincial C .urt gave no credit to t eir testimony.
An appeal was then brought to the Sadder D-w uay
Ailawlut. Tne appellant might, in this state of toe pro,
ceedings, have produced additional and satisfactory evr
deuce to prove his case. He had not done so, bu had
left it, with respect to evidence, as it was before Tne
circumstances detailed were very extraordinary. but the
plaintiff was the party on whom the onus originally lay
of subst inflating the ch urge.
Their Lordships affi med the decreeof the Court below.
Mr. Serge tat Spankie, in another case arising nut of
the sime proceedings, consented, on the par: of the app..l-
- ants, to have the decree of the Court below affirmed. No
c usts were given in either appeal.

The Marquis of Londonderry intends to re-
mlin at his seat at Wynyird until after Eater. Tie
Abrehioness, who has been stayin4 at Hold-mess 1-I,use
for a few days, on family affairs, again left town on Mon.
day for the north.

The Earl of Shaftesbury and Lord Wynford
have been appo'nted by his Majesty's Commission to act
as Speaker (or as the LMrds' Journ rerins it, " Seeakers")
in the ab.enre of the Lurd Chancellor.

It was Mr. Hall, and not Mr. Guest, who
seconded the motion for returns relating to Prince Leopold'a
annuity.

Preparations commenced on Tuesday at that
mpi,ndai chatehr, at Srantnure, c,lled ‘' The Priory," for
the reception of the Marquis and Marchioness of Ai,erenrn,
vitt) are expected there at the close of the mouth, accom-
-I,Anio by the Duchess of Bedford.
VVe are sorry to find, from an article dated
Jan. 29, that Dr. Grate has dourits of he od able
to restore the sight of Prince George of Cutnbalmd.
Vile operation is to be performed in the Bern.