Kolkata Court July 1879 Judgments
In Re: The Ava and The Brenhilda Government of Bengal Vs. Thomas W. Wh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal453
Wilson, J.1. In this case, the Advocate-General, on behalf of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, applied to the Court, in its Admiralty Jurisdiction, under Section 5 of Act IV of 1875, to investigate charges of misconduct or incompetency against Thomas W. Whittard, second mate of the steamship Ava, holding a Board of Trade certificate as master, and against John Scurr, master of the sailing ship Brenhilda, holding a like certificate. The application was made upon a petition, which states, amongst other things, that a collision took place on the 24th of May 1879, in the Bay of Bengal, between the two ships in question; that the mate Whittard was in charge of the Ava at the time, and that Scurr was the master of the Brenhilda; and the charges stating the specific acts of misconduct or incompetency alleged against each were annexed to the petition.2. On the 10th of July an order was made appointing the 22nd of July for the investigation, and directing summonses to be served upon the two p...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Gonesh Dooley and Gopi Dooley
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal351
McDonell, J.1. The Officiating Additional Judge of the 24-Parganas, differing from the jury, has referred this case to the High Court under Section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (His Lordship stated the facts of the case and continued):We think that the offence committed by the prisoner Gonesh was an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. He did not intentionally cause the boy's death; nor did he, knowing that the act was 'so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death,' put the snake upon the boy.2. The case of The Queen v. Poonai Fattemah (12 W.R., Crim. Rul., 7), put by the prosecution and referred to by the Judge in the charge, was one in which the prisoner actually caused the snake to bite the person who was killed. It differs, as the Judge remarks, materially from the present case, because then there was clearly the knowledge of imminent danger that must in all probability cause death.3. The Judge, in referring the case, was of opinion...
Tag this Judgment!Janger Mahomed Vs. Mahomed Arjad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal509
Morris, J.1. We think that the Judge has not correctly stated the law on the point of pre-emption that is here raised, and has somewhat misunderstood the ruling which he has quoted in the case of Chamroo Pasban v. Pulwan Roy (16 W.R., 3). The question before the Court in that case seems to have been, whether it was necessary to render valid the ceremony of tulub-ish-had to make the affirmation before witnesses in the presence of either the purchaser or the vendor. The Court held, that 'the affirmation before witnesses is required to be in the presence of the vendor and the purchaser, in order that they may know what is being done against their interests.' And further on added--'It is quite clear that, whether it be the vendor or the purchaser, whoever is in possession of the lands, should be present to witness to the affirmation.' We do not, however, understand the Court by this last sentence to lay it down as a distinct proposition of law, that if the purchaser only is present and not...
Tag this Judgment!Bonomalee Roy and anr. Vs. Kristo Lall Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal611
Romesh Chunder Mitter, J.1. We do not see any reason for interference in this case.2. The only point that we need notice is, that one of the bonds filed by the plaintiffs, viz., the bond for Rs. 599, not having been registered, was not admissible in evidence. This bond is dated the 8th Joist 1283 (20th May 1876). In support of this contention, the case of Sreemutty Matonginy Dossee v. Ramnarain Sadkhan (2 C.L.R., 428) has been cited. It appears to us that that case is quite distinguishable. On the other hand, the present case seems to us to be governed by the Full Bench decision in the case of Luchmiput Singh Dugar v. Mirza Kahairat Ali [4 B., L.R., (F.B.), 18], referred to in the decision cited before us, and which was distinguished by the learned Judges who passed it from the case which was then before them. The distinction between this case and the Full Bench decision referred to above, and the case cited before us, is, as shown by the learned Judges, that where the transaction is i...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendronundini Dossee Vs. Hurry Doss Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal500
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that the decree of the Court below should be confirmed. Speaking only for myself, I confess I think it very probable that, if we only had to consider the comfort and happiness of the parties concerned, the best way of disposing of the case would be to dismiss both suits. But the parties have taken their own course; they have insisted upon going to the expense of a trial. The case has been decided by the Court below, and we have only to consider whether that decision is right.2. Now, although we entertain no doubt, that, as a matter of law, a suit for restitution of conjugal rights may be maintained by a Hindu in this country, we are not at all prepared to say, that the same state of circumstances which would justify such a suit, or which would be an answer to such a suit, in the case of a European, would be equally so in the case of a Hindu. The habits and customs of the native community, especially as regards the marriage state, are so different...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Monghyr, on Behalf of Ruder Prokash Misser Vs. Hurdai ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal425
Mitter, J.1. In appeal it has been contended before us that the decision of the District Judge is wrong on both the points which he has decided. But before we enter upon the question thus raised before us on behalf of the plaintiff, it may be as well to notice here several objections of law to the maintenance of the suit taken before us on behalf of the respondent.2. The first contention is, that the order of the District Judge, directing the Collector, under Section 12 of Act XL of 1858, to take charge of the property of the minor, is wrong; and that, therefore, the present suit having been brought by a manager, on behalf of the minor, appointed by the Collector, has not been properly framed. The objection is based upon the ground that the interest of a minor in a joint family estate under the Mitakshara law is not such property as can be taken charge of by a manager appointed under the provisions of Act XL of 1858. This proposition is correct, as is shown by authorities which have be...
Tag this Judgment!Nund Lall Bose and anr. Vs. Meer Aboo Mahomed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal597
Mitter, J.1. It appears to us that in this case the decisions of the lower Courts are erroneous, and must be set aside, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for the amount claimed.2. The plaintiffs are the heirs of one Russick Lall Mitter. When the estate left by him was in the possession of his widow, Moti Sunduri, certain mouzas appertaining to that estate were given in mokurari by her to the defendants in this case. A portion of these mouzas having been taken by Government for public purposes, a certain amount of compensation-money was in deposit in the Collector's Court in lieu of the lands thus taken. On Moti Sunduri's death, a suit was brought on the 7th October, 1871, by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the reversal of the mokurari potta and for possession of the lands covered by that potta. The lands which were taken by Government, the compensation-money of which was in deposit, appear to have been included in that suit, the plaintiffs being ignorant of the...
Tag this Judgment!Anundo Lall Dass Vs. Boycaunt Ram Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal283
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We presume that it is to compensate for this injury, as well as perhaps for a portion of the broken glass and the removal of the furniture, that the Judge has given Rs. 1,200 damages.2. We are asked to say that this sum is not enough, and to make a substantial addition to it; but I really see no sufficient reason for increasing the damages, and if I did, I find nothing in the plaintiff's evidence to afford me any reasonable guide as to the sum I should give.3. I entirely reject as unfair and extortionate the theory of Mr. Cantwell, that the ruinous condition of the plaintiff's house was attributable to the defendant's negligence, and that the house should be rebuilt at the defendant's expense; and rejecting this I find no other evidence whatever to inform me what the proper amount of damages should be.4. The plaintiff and his advisors have, I presume, thought it good policy to adhere to their own extravagant claim, and to provide the Court with no means of assessi...
Tag this Judgment!Golam Arab Vs. Curreembux Shaikjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal294
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It seems that since the year 1850, when the Small Cause Court Act IX of 1850 was passed, a number of suits of this nature have been brought from time to time in the High Court, and judgments have been obtained in them without objection. None of them were defended, and the question seems never to have been seriously raised, until about a year ago, whether such suits would lie. So that we have now to decide that question in an Appellate Bench of this Court for the first time.2. The particular point upon which Mr. Justice Pontifex dismissed the suit appears to us to be only one of several considerations, which ought to be enquired into, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was the intention of the legislature, that judgments in the Small Cause Courts should be enforced by suits in this Court. We must see how far such suits are consistent with the provisions of Act IX of 1850; and on the other hand, how far such suits are calculated to defeat the intentions of t...
Tag this Judgment!De Angelis and Co. Vs. Mayappa Setty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal578
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of the defendant's breach of contract, the plaintiffs, although sub-charterers, must be considered as between themselves and the defendant to be subject to the same obligations as the owners of the ship.2. The damages here cannot be measured quite upon the same principle as in the case of the non-acceptance of goods sold.3. The plaintiffs let to the defendant a certain space in the ship for the carriage of his goods, with an implied undertaking that those goods should be safely conveyed to Tuticorin; and whether the plaintiffs worked the ship themselves, or procured it to be worked by others, they must presumably have had to pay in some shape or other for their cost of conveyance.4. We are, therefore, of opinion, that, on the facts found, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover, as damages, a sum equivalent to the entire freight agreed to be paid by t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›