Privy Council Cases

Wood Vs. Wood

Court : Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the parties were married in September 1856, the petitioner being then about 15 years of age. They lived together, in Calcutta, for some years after the marriage, but had no children. In October 1864, the petitioner discovered that the respondent had committed adultery with her ayah. She did not on this account withdraw from cohabitation with the respondent, but from that time the respondent treated her with neglect. About this time she began to support herself by teaching in a school, and in 1869, in consequence of his constant absence until a late hour at night, she ceased to have sexual intercourse with him. They continued, however, to live together, and there is no reason to suppose that the husband was desirous of renewing the intercourse. On the contrary, she states, and this is not denied, that at this time her husband wholly neglected her. During this time also the respondent contributed nothing to the support of the petitioner, and frequently ...

The Empress on the Prosecution of Johardi Sheik Vs. Hematulla

Court : Kolkata

L.S. Jackson, J.1. The Deputy Magistrate was bound, under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedures Code, to hear all the witnesses for the prosecution. We direct that he do this, and then pass such order on the case as the evidence appears to him to call for....

The Empress Vs. Amiruddeen

Court : Kolkata

L.S. Jackson, J.1. It has been pressed upon us in this appeal that the prisoner has not been duly convicted under Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, because there was not before the Court upon the present trial any evidence to show that in point of fact an offence had been committed, still less that such offence bad been committed by the person in respect of whom the wrongful act of the Police Officer, the prisoner, had been done. What appears is, that a person named Adhari Dhopa was charged before the Court of Session, and was tried and acquitted, of an offence, the offence charged being the cutting off somebody's ear; and it appears that the particular act which the prisoner in this case had committed, and which amounted to knowingly disobeying a certain direction of the law as to his conduct as a public servant, had a tendency to save a person, namely, the person charged, as first stated, from legal punishment. It appears to me quite sufficient, for the purpose of a conviction un...

imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom525

1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court....

Lati Kooer Vs. Sobadra Kooer

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal721

Ainslie, J.1. It appears to us that the view taken by the subordinate Courts is not correct. A number of decisions of this Court have been cited, which lay down that where property has passed in execution of a decree, and that decree has been set aside, the Court which gave possession of the property is bound to make complete restitution to the person injured by its cancelled decree. The first of those decisions is Nursing Churn Sein v. Bidyadhuree Dossee 2 W.R. 275; that no doubt is not a case exactly in point. The question there was with reference to a specific sum of money taken out from the Collectorate treasury in execution of a decree; but we think that the principle on which the Court then based its judgment is the same as that on which the judgments in cases to be quoted further on are based. There is a case in Chowdhry Sib Narain Pohaj Mandhata v. Chowdhry Kishore Narain Pohraj Mandhata 10 W.R. 131 which is distinctly in point; and in that case Mr. Justice Bayley in delivering...

L.A. Wallace and ors. Vs. F.G. Jefferson

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom453

Charles Sargent, J.1. In Bustros v. While (L.R. 1.Q.B.D., 423) it was decided by a Court of Appeal consisting of eight Judges that, under Order XXXI, Rule 11, of the English Judicature Act, a Judge has no discretion as to refusing to allow the production of documents in possession of a party to the suit relating to the matter in question, provided the documents are not privileged. Section 130 of the Civil Procedure Act of 1877 would appear to have been copied from the above rule, and we think, therefore, it is advisable to adopt the English ruling as to its construction. As the defendant's affidavit admits that the documents in question relate to the matter in dispute, the only question to be determined is, whether they are privileged. They consist of two or three telegrams and letters, all of which passed between the plaintiffs in London and Mr. Richardson, who manages their business in Bombay. It was said that they were confidential communications between principals and their agents....

J. Williams Vs. Williams and Conran

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal689

Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the petitioner, John Alexander Vincent Williams, sues for a divorce from his wife, Grace Evelina Williams, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent, Robert Conran; and lie also claims damages against the co-respondent. The District Judge has granted a decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage with Rs. 3,000 damages against the co-respondent, and this decree is now before us for our confirmation.2. It appears that the parties wore married in the year 1858 at Benares. They had several children, but only one survived. In the*year 1863 they were living together at Allahabad in the police barracks, where the co-respondent, who is a single man, also resided, the petitioner and the co-respondent being both at that time Police officers. The co-respondent was on intimate terms with the petitioner and his wife; but there is no reason to suppose that the petitioner had at that time discovered anything which could give him cause for suspicion.3....

The Collector of Jessore Vs. Hurrish Chunder Roy

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal713

Ainslie, J.1. A judgment in this case was delivered by us on the 8th of May last, but before it was signed it was objected by Baboo Annoda Persaud Banerjee, for the respondent, that the Court had fallen into a mistake as to the purport of the decree made by the Judge of 24-Pergunnahs on the 11th of March 1873. On examining that decree it appears to us that it was so. The case, therefore, must be disposed of on other grounds.2. The object of the special appellant hero is to set aside the judgment of both the Courts below on the ground that it is inconsistent with the terms of Section 61 of Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.) which says that 'if after sale of any such wider-tenure in execution of decree any portion of the amount decreed remains due, process may be applied for and issued, against any other property, moveable or immoveable, belonging to the debtor.' In this case the under-tenure, of which the arrear was decreed to be due, has not been sold. Therefore, in the words of the section, exec...

The Empress Vs. Baidanath Das

Court : Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are clearly of opinion, that an offence under Section 49, Act XXI of 1856, can be tried summarily by a Magistrate under Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The confiscation, which is provided for by Section 49, is merely a consequence of the conviction, and does not form part of the punishment for the offence. We observe that, in the case of Khetter Mohun Chowrunghee 22 W.R. Cr. Rul. 43, to which we are referred, the question which we are called upon to decide was given up by the Government Pleader without argument; and that in the second case the learned Judges merely followed the ruling in the first, so that this would appear to be the first occasion on which the point has been seriously considered....

NaraIn Singh Vs. Ram Lall Mookerjee

Court : Kolkata

Pontifex, J.1. admitted the plaint, and said that Section 19 of the Code gave the Court jurisdiction, and that it was not necessary to apply under Clause 12 of the Charter....