Kolkata Court August 1882 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: the Matter of the Petition of Henry Kyte and Vs. Henry Kyte
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal223
Maclean, J.1. The vakil for the petitioner has failed to satisfy me that the conviction, dated 1st December 1881, is not founded upon a correct view of the law; and, under any circumstances, I object to re-opening a case after the lapse of six months from the date of the conviction.2. I am not prepared to say that the petitioner was not in possession of the liquor. It had, it is admitted, been passed out to him from the Customs, and he was about to despatch it to the consignee at Agra. Neither am satisfied that the holder of a license, not granted by the Excise authorities here, is a licensed vendor within the meaning of Beng. Act VII of 1878. In this view of the law, the petitioner, whether in possession on his own account, or for the consignee, was a person 'other than a licensed vendor,' and being admittedly without a pass from the Collector or other officer duly empowered in that behalf, I see no illegality in his conviction under Section 61, Beng. Act VII of 1878.Macpherson, J.3. ...
Futtehma Begum and ors. Vs. Mohamed Ausur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal309
Wilson, J.1. It is not the ordinary course of procedure for this Court to interfere in 2nd appeal with any findings of fact which have been arrived at by the lower Appellate Court; but we are well within the scope of the authorities in holding that where the lower Appellate Court has clearly misapprehended what the evidence before it was, and has thus been led to discard or not give sufficient weight to important evidence, and to give weight to other evidence to which it is not entitled, and has thus been led not into any mere incidental mistake, but totally to misconceive the case, this Court may interfere. Now in this case there were several material questions to be decided; the first was whether the bond sued upon was executed by Ausur. As to that the Judge of the lower Appellate Court said in his judgment at p. 15 of the Paper Book: 'It appears to me that the evidence as to Ausur's signature to the bond is most unsatisfactory, and that that signature is in no way proved; (Section 6...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›