Kolkata Court April 1876 Judgments
Jugobundhoo Roy Vs. Lokenath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal297
L.S. Jackson, J.1. In appeal the first point argued was that the Subordinate Judge ought to have dismissed the plaintiff's case on the strength of the Privy Council Rulings cited by the (defendant) appellant. Great stress was laid upon the fact that Grish Narain and Mohendro Narain were admittedly not in possession at the time they granted the lease, which formed the basis of the plaintiff's claim, and it was pointed out that the ikrar, dated 17th Assar 1278, clearly showed that the full payment of the consideration was contingent on the result of this litigation, and that thus the suit was eminently a speculative one. The rulings cited by the (defendant) appellant before the Subordinate Judge as well as Tara Soondaree Chowdhrain v. The Collector of Mymensingh 13 B.L.R. 495 Ram Khelawun Singh v. Mussamut Oudh Kooer 21 W.R. 101, Boodhun Singh v. Mussamut Luteefun 22 W.R. 535 and Bishonath Dey Roy v. Chunder Mohun Dutt Biswas 23 W.R. 165 were referred to in support of the appellant's con...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen on the Prosecution on Morad Ali Vs. Hadjee Jeebun Bux
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal355
Pontifex, J.1. On the part of Marad Ali, an affidavit of Mr. Pittar, and behalf of Hadjee Jeebun Bux, a joint and several affidavit of Mr. Lealie and Hadjee Jeebun Bux, were filed. To the latter affidavit was annexed an attested copy of the notes of the evidence taken by the Magistrate at the hearing of the charge.2. Mr. Branson went into the merits of the case, and contended that the defendant had been rightly convicted. [Mr. Jackson.--The notes of the evidence taken before the Magistrate must be taken to be the materials on which the Court is now to decide. See In re Louis 15 B.L.R. Ap. 14. Affidavits cannot be used to supplement that evidence.] There the case had been brought up under Section 147; this is an order calling on us to show cause why it should not be sent up. The notes do not comprise all the evidence taken before the Magistrate. He is not bound to take notes at all. [Pontifex, J.--Is it a case of mischief at all? The wall appears to be a party wall. But even if it had b...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Hurribole Chunder Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal207
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, the prisoner Hurribole Chunder Ghose was tried and convicted, at the February Sessions of the High Court, for using certain forged documents, and sentenced to ten years' transportation. At the trial before Macpherson, J., it was proposed on the part of the prosecution to put in a confession made by the prisoner. The confession was made, in the first instance, to two policemen, and taken down in writing, and the prisoner was then brought before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr. Lambert, at the Police Office in Calcutta, where he again affirmed the truth of his former statement to Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Lambert, in his capacity of a Magistrate, received and attested the statement.2. Upon this confession being tendered in evidence, it was objected to by the prisoner's Counsel, upon the ground that it was a confession made by the prisoner to a police officer, and therefore not admissible, by reason of the 25th section of the Evidence Act (I of 1872). ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohender Nath Mozoomdar Vs. Futeek Parooee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal386
Markby, J.1. This was a suit to recover damages for defamation. The matter had already been the subject of criminal proceedings. The Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiff a decree for nominal damages; but being of opinion that the suit was a vexatious one, directed the plaintiff to pay the costs of the litigation.2. The case having come up to this Court on special appeal, Mr. Justice Birch was of opinion that there was no ground upon which he could interfere with the decree for nominal damages, but being of opinion that the plaintiff ought not to have been made to pay the costs of the suit set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge as to costs, and directed that the plaintiff should recover the costs of the litigation.3. It is contended before us that, in special appeal, this Court cannot interfere with the discretion of the Courts below as to costs: and that in this case the award of costs to the defendant notwithstanding that the plaintiff obtained a decree for nominal damages, was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Churn Auddy Vs. Tariney Churn Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal422
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing a right of way for himself and his servants from a public road called Hiddaram Banerjee's Lane over a piece of ground, which is called a blind lane, to a kirkee door and privy in the plaintiff's house.2. The defendant, whose residence is situated at the end of the blind lane, has built up a wall, against the plaintiff's kirkee and privy doors, and also across the entrance from the blind lane to Hiddaram Banerjee's Lane, so as to prevent all access from Hiddaram Banerjee's Lane to the plaintiff's house.3. It does not very clearly appear from the evidence to whom the land called the blind lane belongs. The plaintiff has made an attempt to claim one half of it as his own, upon the ground, that as it was a road lying between his house and his neighbours, the presumption of law was that he was entitled to the half of it, usque ad medium filum of the space between the two houses.4. We think, however...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. GobIn Tewari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal281
Macpherson, J.1. Let the Magistrate be directed to re-arrest Gobin Tewari and Jodoo Lall, and keep them in custody till the hearing of the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sooraj Kant Acharj Chowdry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal384
Brich, J.1. This appeal is preferred against a summary order of the District Judge passed under Section 6 of Regulation VIII of 1819, directing the zemindar to accept the security tendered, and to give effect to the transfer without delay.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal lies to this Court from such an order; and we are of opinion that the objection must prevail. The pleader for the appellant has been unable to show us any law which authorizes an appeal from an order under Section 6. His argument is that an appeal lies, because the Judge has used the word 'decreed,' and has drawn up an order in the form of a decree directing that an injunction should issue. We think that the fact of the Judge having dealt with the application in this manner does not entitle the appellant to come up here in appeal when the law does not provide for an appeal from an order passed under Section 6 of Regulation VIII of 1819.3. It is then urged by the appellant's pleader that if we a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›