BANK OF BENGAL v. EAST INDIA COY.

[1834] 11 KNAPP, 244

zeniindar to contract a del&, or for any other native to take a n obligation from a
zemindar without the consent of trhe oacers of revenue. Such an obligation, i f
founded on a, valuable consideration, would have been equally binding upon the
consc~enceof the z e i ~ i i ~ ~ and d a ~ the
, d e i n a ~ ~and
d the payment would be equally
legal as if such consent had been olhined and registered, though no court of justice
might have jurisdiction to enforce the right. Whatever may have been the notions
of public policy upon which the native courts were for some time r ~ t r a ~ n efrom d
taking cognizance of such traiisactj~ns,those notions have not been deemed, upon
experience, to have been well founded, sirice those parts of the 20th ariicles of the
Regulations of 1781 and 1787, upon which the Court of Sudder Devanny Adatvlut
rely, have been expressly rescinded by the R e ~ u l a t i oof~ the 29th of October 1790.
The title of a Regulation passed in 1793, No. 38, has been referred to, which
co~mencesin these terms : “A regulation for re-enacting, with modifications, such
parts of the rule passed on the 27th of June 1787 as p r o ~ ~ ~covenanted b~ts civil
servants of the Company employed in the adn~~nistration of justice, or the coilection
of public revenues, lending money to zemindars, iridependant talookdars, or other
actual proprietors of Iand.”
The language of this title appears to treat the restrictions contained in the
Regu~ationsof the 27th of June 1787, as a m o u n t ~ nto~ pro~iibit~ons, and, in a
popular sense, the Iaw which deprives a creditor of h i s remedy may be considered
as proh~bitinghim from taking an ob~igationto pay him ; but unKess such be the
true c o ~ s t r u e t ~ofothe
~ ~R e g u ~ a ~ ~
itself,
o x ~ that sense cannot be imposed upon
it by the language of a subsequent, Regulation not expressly declaratory, much less
by the title of a Regulation only. The Regulation of 1793, in iuodifyiiig that of
1787, prohibits, in express terms, mhatever is intended to be forbidden; those of
1181 and 1787 are only restrictive of jurisdiction, and if they were construed as
amounting tu p r o h ~ b i t ~ o n the
, extent of transactions which they embrace- would
lead to consequences highly ~ n c o n ~ e n i e and n t unjust. Their r,ords~lips~ therefore,
are of opinion that a report should be made to Eis Xajesty by the Judicial Com-
mittee, reco~mendingthat the decree o f the Sudder Deqanny Adawlut Court be
reversed, and that the: Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut be directed to affirni the
decision of the P~.ov~ncia,~ Court, but without costs, as a diEerence of opinion has
prevailed amongst the courts below, and that, for the same reason, ea& party
should bear his owii costs of this appeal. The order must proTide for the reim-
t the costs incurred by the East India Company in prose cut in^ and
b u r s e ~ e n of
defending the appeal.
[On point (i.) ap, to whether imposition of statutory restriction on suits for loans
rendered such loans illegal, cf. M e l l i w v. S h k l e y Locrtk Board, 1885, 16 Q.B.D.
446, 481, 453, 454 ; 3fusgrotle v. C h u ~TreorLy Toy, 1891, A.C. 272 ; Letrrnyd
v. Bracken (1891), Q.B. 114 : (ii.as )to effect of repeal, see Interpretatio~~ Act,
1889 (52 and 53 Vict. G . 63) s, 38 (2), and Indian Genera1 Clauses Act, 1897
(Act x. of 1897), S. 6.1

r z d ~ j ~ON A ~ P ~~0~
~ A TBE
~ s ~ COURT~ AT ~ A
~ ~ c u~T ~ ~ ~.
The BANK QF ~ E ~ ~ A The~ EAST, -INDIA
~ ~ ~Q ~~ ~ A~ ~ ~ ~ ~, - ~~
dents [January 6 and 8, 18341.
In an action against the East India Company by the holder of a forged imita-
tion of one of their promissory notes issued by the Governor-general in
Council a t Calcutta, held that the C o ~ p a n ywere not bound by the ac-
~ as genuine by a clerk in their Accountant~~eneral’s
k R o ~ l e d g ~ y ~ofe nit
office, who was authorized by the ~ c c o u n ~ ~ ~ ~ t -to n e r a ~ all such
~ ecompare
notes wit.21 the register, but not a u ~ h o ~ i z eto
d certify their g e ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ e n e s s
aIthough i t appeared that it v a s his practice to do so.
The facts of this case are so fully stated in the judgment as to render any re-
473
11 KNAPP, 266 BANK OF BENGAL 21. EAST INDIA COY. [I8341
capit~ilationof them ~iIi~~ecessary. It n’as decided without hearing the counsel for
the respondents.
The Solicito~~-general{Sir J. ~ a m ~ ~ b e Maute,
ll), (9. C.) and Cress-wcII, for the
~ppellants.
) 3. Scarlett, (I(. C.), Spartkie, (Serjt.),
The Attorney-general (Sir Wm. ~ o r n e ) Sir
~ i g r a m and
, Idoyd, appeared for the Respondents.
The Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy [Tbe Eon. Thomas Erskincl.-This
is an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Bengal,
in an action of a ~ s brought
~ ~ by ~the sBank~ of ~Bengal against the East India
Comp~n~ t o, rwover the interest alleged to be due to the ~laintiffs,as ~ n d o r s ~ s
and holders of three proniissory notes, made and issued by the ~ o v e r ~ ~ o r - g e in ~era~
Council, as agent for the defendanta.
The ~ ? l a ~ nweret ~ ~n os n s u i ~ dat the trial ; and upon motion to set that nonsuit
aside, and to enter a verdict for the p ~ a i n t ~the ~ s ,Court held, the nonsuit right,
and judgment was entered for the defendants accordingly. The p l ~ i n t ~ f fhave s
appealed to the King in Council, f2@] and the question is, whether the p l a ~ ~ ~ t i f f s
were ent~tledto recovert It was proved a t the trial, that the i n s t r ~ ~ i ~ edeelared nts
~ e issued by order of the ~ovc~nor- genera^
on were forged i n ~ i t a t i o nof~ g e n u ~ notes,
in Council, to secure t o the holders the r e p a ~ e n of t monies raised by way of loan
for the public service of the Company, and the p a ~ n c of ~ ~interest
t quarterly in
the meantime: that upon these notes being brought to the plaintiffs for discount,
they sent them to the office of the Aecountant-genera17where the Company’s notes
are prepared and registered, for the purpose of a s c e r t a ~ i ~whether ~ n ~ they were
genuine, and that Mr. Oxborou~h,w. olerk in the ~ c c o u n t a n t ~ g ~ n e r oEce, a ~ ’ s whose
duty it was to make and keep the register of the Company’s notes, examined the
notes in question, and being deceived by their appeai’anc~,and their coi.res~onding
with the entries in the register, wrote his initials on the ~ a r g to ~ nindicate that
they were genuine, and that the p l a i n t i ~ srelying) upon Mr. Uxborough‘s c e r t ~ ~ c a t e ,
discounted the notes. The appellants therefore contend, that such certificate
amounted to an acknowledginent by the Company that the notes hrtd been issued
by their authority; and that, as the a p p e ~ ~ a advanced ~~ts their money upon the
faith of that acl~no~~ledg~nent, they were e n ~ ~ t ~ t oerecover
d a ~ a ~ ntho
s t defendants,
as makers of the notes, whether they had been originals issued by their authority
or not.
The respondents, on the other side, insist, lst, that Mr. Oxboroug~ihad no
authority from the Company to vouch f o r the authenticity of these notes ; 2dly,
that no authority could by law be conferred on Mr. Oxborough to give effect to
an ~nstrument,as a p r o ~ i s s o r ynote of the ~ o m p a n y ,which was not so in fact;
and 3dly, that even if the notes had been genuine, the [24?] Supreme Court has
no jurisdiction t o entertain the presenti action against the respondents, for the
r e ~ s o n sstated in their printed case, and combated by the counsel for the appel~ant.
T t i s obvious, from this statement, that the found~tionof the appellant’s claim
rests upon the assumption that the respondents have, through Mr. ~ x ~ o r o ua sg ~ ~
their agcnt, admitted that the notes in question mere made and issued by them;
and indeed, while i t has been argued with great ability that the respondents a r e
excluded by such a c k n o w ~ e d ~ e nfrom t setting up any defence on the plea of
forgery, it has been conceded that, without such acknow~edgment,the p l a ~ n t ~ f f s
made out no case a t the trial. Their ~ o r ~ s h itherefore7 ~s, have though^ i t right t o
consider this point in the first instance; and f have been desired to declare their
opinion, that Mr. Oxborough’s authority has not been sufficiently proved, and
therefore that they forbear to call upon t,he counseI for the respondents to support
their objections to the a ~ p c l ~ a n tclaim.
’s
The notes in question purport t o have been made for and on behalf of the re-
~pondentsby the Governor-general in Council, and to have been signed, by his
author~ty,by Mr.1Esolt ~aekenzie,as Seeretary to the ~ v e r n m e n t and ; this appears
from t h e evidence t o have been the ~nvariableform of all p r o m ~ ~ s o notes ry issued by
the Company in India. ~ r i ~ ~ disc~ssing? o u t therefore, the questio~,whether i t
was competent for the Company to have made such a contract through the agency
o f any other persons, it i s enough to say, that there is no evidence of their having
474
 BANK OF BENCWL P. EAST INDIA COP. 118341 XI KNAPP, a48

ever exercised such a power ; and therefore, looking a i the respo~~dents in the tight
i n which they have been viewed by the counsel for the appellants? s ~ as ~ a ~
coimercial [2:248] firm, the ~ O v e r I ~ o r - ~ e nienr Founcil
a~ niust be c ~ ~ s i d e ~ase the d
only agent authorized to make and issus promissory notes 011 behalf of the Company
in India, and the sec~etaryto the ~ 0 ~ 7 e r n m eas n t the only agent appointed to sign
them, until some express authority to others be proved. It has been assumed, how-
emr, that the Company has delegated to other and to iizferior officers the duty and
power of ascertaining and certifying the authent~cityof notes s u ~ ~ i ~ i tto t e their
d
examination, and that they have thereby indirectly authorized another department
to pledge the Co~npany’sresponsibi~ityupon notes not originally made and issued
by the overn nor-general in Council. Conceding, for the sake of the arguxnent.,
that it was competent for the C o ~ p a n ylike , ~ to delegate
any other c o m i ~ e r c i a6rm,
such a power to whom they pIeased, and that the fact of Cheir h ~ vdone i ~so ~may
in this, as in other cases, in the absence of direct proof of authority be collected
from c ~ ~ e u ~ ~ ~ s t aitn eshould
e s , requiro clear and cogent eyidence to prove the im-
probable fact that they had reposed in an inferior ofticer the power of involving
them in unlimited responsibi~ity,not only by a fraudulent ~ i s r c p r e s e ~ i t a tbut ~o~~~
by an honest mistake or a carelms ~ ~ a ~ c u r a-hen c y , they had guarded &e original
issue of the notes by such high and formal sanciions. I n order to t r y the truth
of this a ~ u m p t i o ni t~i s material t o consider the time when, and the c i r c u ~ s t a n G e ~
under which this authority is supposed to have been conferred, and the nature of
the evidence by which it is a t t e ~ ~ t to e dbe proved.
Mr. Oxborough professes t o have derived i t through Mr. Wood, the Accountant-
general in 1824. It will be right, therefore, to examine his evidence upon this
subject. First, Iet us see what were his duties before E2491this time. In s ~ i ~ ~ s t a n c e ~
he says, it was his duty to register the nurnlser, date, and amount of each certi6c:its
broug~itto the office; and that thereupon a note, c o r r e s p ~ ~ i dwith ~ ~ gthe register
and certificate, was drawn out, vhich, hwing been first compared and attested by
the deputy or sub-acco.cmtant-genera1, was sent to the Secretary of the ~ o v e r ~ ~ m c ~ i t ,
for his signature, and was afte~~wards returned to the Accou~itan~genera~’s oEce,
to be delivered out t o the party entitled. Nr. ~ x b o ~ o u g 1 duty, ~ ’ s therefore, was to
make and keep a register of the number, date, and amount of every note iswed by
the C o ~ ~ a but n ~there
; is not the s ~ i g ~ ~ tseus tg ~ ~ t in
~ othe
n evidence that, prior
to Mr. Wood’s i ~ s t r u c t i o ~in
s , 1824, he Xiad any thing t o do with the making, signing,
n g note itself. It appears from other parts of tile evidence, that about,
or & t t e s ~ ~the
the year 1824, it was ~ i s c o ~ ~ ithat ” e dforged j ~ ~ t a t i o of
n sthe ~ o n i ~ apaper ~ y ’had~
got into ciroulation (not, as in the present instance, in the form of exact copies of
genuine notes, but i n that of notes similar in appearance, but varying in date,
number, and a ~ o u n t ) ,and the holders of notes became desirous of compar~x~g their
securities with the entries in the register ;and it was a t this crisis that Mr, Wood i s
stated to have given the ~ ~ s t r u c t ~ oupon n s which the a ~ p e l l a n t sp r ~ n c i ~ a rely.
l~y
Mr. Oxborough, in. his evidence, s a p , (‘I was authQri~ed by the ~ c c o u n t a ~ ~ t ” g e i ~ e ~
to examine all notes sent by ind~v~duaIs, the Bank of Bengal, or others, and to put
my initials on them when examined. I was first so a~thorizedin the end of 1824.
Mr, Henry Wood was then Accoun~a~~t~generaI. He is now i n ~ i ~ g l a n dI. was so
authorized by conversations, s o ~ e t i ~ by e s chits (a Hindostanee word for notes).
I do not recollect the words he used ;but, [ZbQ] as f a r as I recollect, i t was to exaniine
the notes, to see that they agreed with our register, and t o see that they were yoocl
notes. It was in the latter end o f 1824 that I first. began to exaniine paper in that
way.’? Looking a t the c~rcumstancesunder which these directions were given, and
the manner in which they were conveyed, and the nature of the instructions them-
selves, it i s impossible to believe, without further evidence, that Mr. Wood intended
that his clerk should, by affixing his initials to these notes, do more than certify
n , corresponded with the entries in the register j for,
that, upon c o ~ p a r ~ s o they
according to Mr. M ~ r l e y evidence,
’~ there was no s u s p ~ c ~ oant that time that this
c Q ~ ~ a r i swould
o n not afford a s~iffic~ent test ;and although it appears that, in 1828,
it was discovered that by the fabrica~ionof fae-similes of genuine notes a closer
inspect~onof the instruments had been rendered necessary, and that it was usual
for Mr, Oxborough to subject. them to other tests besides the c o ~ ~ ~ p a rwith ~ s o the
i~
register, yet it is not pretended that he received any more extensive general authority
418
IL ~ N ~ aeiP , BANK OF ~ ~ U . E:AYT
N INDIA
~ COY.
~ [ 18343
A ~

from Xr. Wood; for he says, “From the first orders 1 received from Mr. Wood to
examine papers in the way 2 have mentioned, there w’rts no variation of that order
until after the discovery of the late forgeries in 1829.”
But i t has been argued, that the extent of Xr, ~ ~ o o ~i~structior~s d~s may be
c o l ~ from ~ t acts~ of particular reference by him, and especially from a memo-
randum written across a note from Parker, in which Mr. Parker speaks of the
authentication of certain notes ;an r. Wood writes, “ The e x ~ i n ~ n a t ~ofo nthese
notes i s essential to protect the Company from loss. Do them without fee: from ))

which expressions, coupled with the language of Mr. Parker’s note, i t i s inferred,
that [25l] s o ~ ~ i e t hmore ~ ~ ~tiia;n
g comparison with &e register was required, and
that Wood e v ~ d e n t ~conte~plated
y the liability of the ~ o ~ p a ninythe event
of a ~ ~ s ~ a ok~ei nni o n;but when it i s r e ~ e m ~ e r ethat d tbe notes referred to in this
~ e I ~ o r a i i dwere ~ on behalf of the Salt Board, a part of the Company’s
u ~ ~sent
e ~ t a b l ~ s ~and ~ ~ therefore
~ ~ e ~ ~ thatt ) the ~ o ~ r ~ p awould n y be the losers if they took
in payment notes that turiied out to be forged, the whole foroe of the argument
vanishes ; and the c ~ r ~ u ~ s t aonly i ~ cproves,
e that a servant of the C o ~ p a n yin ono
d e p a r t ~ e n twas required to eserciso, in ~ r ~ t e c t i oofn another department of his
e~npIoyers’business, the peculiar ~ n o ~ l e d gwhich e his oBcial duties conferred ;
and the other ~nstancesare open to the same explanation. I believe I have nom
alluded t o alf the direct evidence of Xr, Oxbaro~gh’sa u ~ h o r from ~ t ~ Mr, ~ o o d for
;
he deziies &at the letter, under the sairct~onof which he took his fee, was the warrant
under which he acted i n giving out the certi~cates. And it appears to tlieir Lord-
ships, that the only authority given, or intended to be given, to Mr. Orborough by
Mr. Wood was, to certify that the notes brouwht for e x a ~ ~ n a cto~r r~e ~n ~ o i i d ewith d
the entries in the register. But, if any d o u h had been left by the eoidence upon
which the ~ p ~ c l l a nrely, ~ s it would have been removed by reference to the corre-
spondence between Xr. ~ o o and d the ~ o v e r n m e r ~which
t, clearly points to this as
the only duty c o n ~ e ~ p l a t eby d Mr. ~ ~ o oor d ,sanct~onedby the Go~ernor-general.
It appears that on the 25th of June 1524, which was shortly before the date fixed
by Mr. borough for the earliest direction given to him on the subject, Mr. Wood,
in a letter to Mr. Halt ~ ~ c k e n wrote ~ ~ e a8, follows: “ 2 take this o p p ~ r t u n ~ of ty
s u b ~ ~ ~ ttot i the ~ ~ 12521
g considerat~onof Government the propriety o f exacting
from the public some fee for searching the registers of the Go~ernmentdebt, when
infor~~ratio~i is required respect~ngthe t r ~ n s f e rof tlis proprietary right in the
~ ~ v e ~~ *r o ~~ i~s s~onot-. ~~ y e ~The ~ time
t of the uxrco~~er~anted assistants of my
office i s often i n c o ~ ~ v e ~ocoupied.” ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~Wow? ~ y In e ~ a i ~ ~ i i ithe~ n notes
g to see
whether the signatures are genuine? KO; but ‘ I in searching the registers for in-
formation connected with the G ~ v e r ~ ~ n idebt; e ~ r t and it is reasonable that the public
should pay for the trouble they cause, in the same way as they are now obliged to
pay for any ~ n f o r ~ ~$bey a t ~mayo ~require from the r e ~ i s t r a rof the ~ u ~ r e Court;
~ne
and X am of opixiion that a fee of one rupee for s e & r c h for ~ ~esch
~ ~ note may not be
t h o u ~ h ttoo high. Should the ~ o v e r r ~ ~ n be e n tpleased to sanction a fee of one
rupee for search^^^^ the regiskrs for each note, I would recommend its being paid
to the u n c ~ ~ e n a ~ assistant
ted who has efiarge of the re8isters.”
It is impossible to read this letter without being s a t i s ~ e dthat ~ ~ o t was ~ ~ cons
~ n g
te~nplatedby hfr. Wood beyond a ~ e m u n e r a t ~ oto n the assistant for increasing
labour in searching the register, and that he bad no idea of ~ ~ v e s t lrim ~ i ~with
g the
new and r~sponsiblepower of vouohing in any other way far the a u t h e n t ~ ~of ~ tthe
y
notes e ~ a ~ i n eand d ~the answer from the ~ o v e ~ n ~ Secretary ent shows that the
x a ul n ~ & r s t ~Xr.
~ o ~ e r n o r - g ~ n e so o d W~od’sobject. The c o n ~ l u d i n~~a r a ~ r is ap~
in these words : ‘(The Governor-general in Council approves and authorizes your
s ~ ~ g g e s t ~that
o n a fee of one rupee be levied for searching the registers for each
note.”
But it. i s further c o ~ ~ ~ n dthat e d , a ~ ~ it hxilay ~ be~12533g true
~ that Xr. ~~0~
never intended t o give Hr. ~ x b o r o u g the ~ i powers he supposes t a have been conferred
upon him, yet that, in Pact, he exercised that pcmer; and, t ~ e r e € a r that ~ , &s the
~e~~~~~ Bank and others might fairly conclude that the practice h
of the ~ o ~ e r n m e nthe t , Company tirust be r e s ~ o n s i ~ for l e the acts d
a3 their agent. If Mr. ~ ~ ~ o had r been
~ u found~ ~ ini the A c ~ o u n t a n ~ ~ ~ ~ e r a
o%cs pu~~licly giving out certificates upon notes brought t o him by persons anxious
476
 s E m u L 3 . ~ ~ li.
0 0~ ~ ~ K DOSS
~ s [1834]
H ~ N 11 KNBPP, m
t o ascertain whether they were genuine without hczving any acknowledged duty to
perform under which such certificate could be required, it might, with some colour
of reason, be contended that the Company must be considered aa authorizing a
practice, which could not have been unknown to theni, for the only intelligible pur-
pose to which it could have been referred ; but when Mr. Oxborough's situation in
e d to search the register, and t5 compam the
the office, and his a c k n o ~ ~ l ~ gduties
notes with the entries, and t o certify their correspondenc~are considered, the
practice which is supposed to imply authority from the Company to authenticate the
signatures to the notes losels all its weight. Neither can it, with justice, be urged
that the imposition of a new fee might mislead the public into the belief, that it was
required on account of some' additional security afforded, for i t appears that a copy
of the letter a~itho~izing the fee was hung u p in the office, which would at once have
satisfied any one, who chose to make the inquiry, f o r what purpwe the fee was
required; and no instance1 has been proved of the Company's having recognised
Mr. Oxborougb's authority by ac-ting upon his certificate, for, according to MY.
~ ~ k e i ~ z ievidence,
e's they never paid the interest upon [26$1 the Bote without
subjtwting it to the scrutiny of two u~icovenant~d and one covenanted assistants,
even though it might have upon it Mr. Oxborough's certificate.
TJpon the whole case, therefore, their Lordships are of opinion that no authority
was in fact given to Mr. Oxborough to authenticate the notes in question ; and that,
faakirig a t the formal manner in which tha notes were invariably drawn and issued,
the cautious examination of them, before even the interest was paid, the known
and acknowledged duties of Mr. Osborough, the form of his certificate, and the
avowed purpose for which the fee was taken, the Company are not responsible for
any erroneous opinion formed by Mr. Oxborough or the Bengal Bank a8 to the
extent of iiis a u t h ~ r i t y . Their Lordships will therefore r e c o m i ~ to ~ Majesty
e ~His
that the judgment of the Court below be affirnicd, but, in deference to the opinion
of the learned Judge * who dissented from that judgment, that it be a%rmed without
costs.
[See 2 Rul. Cas. tit. AGENCY, Sect. iv. pp. 357 et seq.; and 11 Rul. Cas. tit. ESTOPPBL,
Sect. iii. pp. 73 et seq., on point 5s to agency. On point as to jurisdiction
of Supreme Court to entertain the action (see 2 Knapp, 246-73, see 1'. nw.i
0. S. ~ ~ Co. v. Secretary
~ of~ State forg Zmdiu, 1861,
u 5 Barn.
~ H.C. App.
~ ~
p. 9, and note to ~ o ? (In~r e JusPices
~ a ~of), 1829, 1 Knapp, 59. On point as to
disallowance of costs, cf. Beuvmomt v. Barrett, 1826, 1 Moo. P.C. 59, 81.1

t255l ON APPEAL FROX BENGAL.

BABOO BENEE SUHAEE and BABOO NADHO SUHAEE, Children of Rlussuni-

maut Seetul Bahoo, by their Guardian, Ramchurn ~ a ~ , - ~ BABOO
~ ~ Z ~
~WR~ISH E ~S S , - ~ e ~ zF~e b~. 7~ and
~ O e 18343.
? ~ 8, ~ ~
The Court of Sudder Dewaany Adawlut of Bengal ought not to affirm a decree
of a Provincial Court in a case respecting a balance of partnership accounts
without examining the original acccunt books of the firm, if they are ten-
dered in evidence before it, although they were not produced before the Pro-
vincial Court.
The facts of this case are so fully stated in the judgment, as to render any further
detail of them unnecessary. The arguments on the part of the appellant-12 prin-
cipaily turned upon the fact, that the decree wa8 made against Seetul Bahoo, without
inspection of tha books of accounts in respect of the balance clf which the action was
brought ; and, on the part of the respondent, it was urged, that as SeetuI Bahoo had,
* In the court below, Mr. 3. Nyan dissented from the judgments of the Chief
Justice (Sir C. Grey) and Mr. J. Pranks.
477