Power of Subordinate Magistrate.] A Subordinate Magistrate
has no power to try an offence punishable under section 174 of the
Penal Code committed against his own Court, but is bound, under
section 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to send the case,
if in his opinion there is sufficient ground, for investigation to a
Magistrate having power to try or commit for trial.

THE QUEEN . CHANDRA SEKHAR ROY

CONTRACT

See AGENT.

- Consideration--Promise by Brother to give Sister in
Marriage.] A certain amount of money had been paid by one
Hindu to another in consideration of a promise by the latter that
he would give his sister in marriage to the former. The girl's
mother was alive. In a suit for recovery of the amount on the
ground that the latter had failed to fulfil his promise, held, that
the suit would lie.

JOGESWAR CHAKRABATTI V. PANCH KAURI CHAKRABATTI

-Sale of Goods-Addition of "Fresh Goods"-Reference
to High Court-Act XXVI of 1864, s. 7.] R. G. G. and Co.
entered into a contract to sell certain goods to A. S., N. S., both
Calcutta firms. The contract, which was in a printed English form,
was taken on the 18th December 1868 by one M., on behalf of the
firm of R. G. G. and Co., to obtain the signature of the vendees'
firm. It was signed on their behalf by A. S. Neither M. nor A. S.
understood English, and no explanation was given of the terms
of the contract to A. S. at the time he signed it, but there had
been negotiations between M. and A. S. as to these goods
prior to the time when A. S.'s signature was obtained. It did not
appear that the goods had been identified in any way by the
purchasers who had merely seen a sample. After his signature,
A. S. wrote in Nagri "goods fresh, grenadines five cases, at 2 annas
3 pie per yard." A. S., N. S., afterwards, on the 9th Feb-
ruary 1869, paid rupees 1,000 as earnest-money, which was accepted
by R. G. G. and Co., who then allowed further time for taking
delivery of the goods, which, however, A. S., N. S., finding some
of the goods were stained, declined to do. R. G. G. and Co. there-
upon brought an action for breach of contract in not taking delivery,
and a cross-suit was brought by A. S., N S., to recover the
rupees 1,000 paid as earnest-money.

Held, that the words "fresh goods" after the signature of A. S.
constituted part of the contract into which the parties entered, and
by which they were bound.

Where a case has been heard by a single Judge of the Small Cause
Court, and a new trial has been applied for, and the case has been
reheard by two Judges, the Court is bound, under section 7,
Act XXVI of 1864, to refer the case for the opinion of the High
Court, if requested to do so by either party to the suit, though the
Judges do not entertain any doubt, or differ in opinion.

MADHAB CHANDRA RUDAR v. AMRIT SING, NARAYAN SING.
AMRIT SING, NARAYAN SING, v. MADHAB CHANDRA RUDAR.

CONTRADICTION OF RETURN

See HABEAS CORPUS.

Page

100

195

395

111

...

...

557

CONVICTION BY MAGISTRATE FOR PRACTISING AS A
MOOKTAR IN THE REVENUE COURT WITHOUT
CERTIFICATE

App.

89

See ACT XX of 1865, s. 34.

C

Page

CO-PROPRIETOR-Injunction-Injury.] The defendant was in
possession of land under a potta granted by the ijaradars of the
proprietors, and thereon commenced to build a house and plant
a garden. The plaintiff, who had bought the right, title, and
interest of one of the proprietors, sued to restrain him. He did
not allege any injury. Held, that such suit would not lie.
SRI CHAND v. NIM CHAND SAHU
App. 25
CO-RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN APPEAL-
Adultery-Alimony--Divorce (Act IV of 1869), s. 37—Access to
Children--Costs] A husband brought a suit for divorce against
his wife on the ground of her adultery; the co-respondent appeared
in that suit. The respondent appealed on the ground (inter alia)
that, on the evidence, the Court ought to have held that the adultery
was not proved. Held, that in that appeal the co-respondent was
not entitled to be heard in opposition to the appeal.

The Court has power, under section 37 of Act IV of 1869, to
order permanent alimony to the wife, when a husband obtains a
divorce on the ground of her adultery. When the marriage is
dissolved on account of the adultery of the wife, she is not entitled
to have access to the children of the marriage.
KELLY U. KELLY AND SAUNDERS...

71

195

71

SMALL CAUSE COURT.

App. 23, 24, 31

See

App.

App. 70

660

578

See CRIMINAL Procedure Code.

COURT OF SESSION, POWER OF ...

See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Code.

CREDITORS CLAIMING AGAINST BENAMI HOLDER
See BENAMI PURCHASE IN CHILD'S NAME.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (Acts XXV of 1861 and VIII
of 1869)-Counsel-Pleader-Prosecution.] A counsel or pleader
is entitled to appear and act on behalf of the prosecution in the
Criminal Courts.

IN THE MATTER OF CHANDI CHARAN CHATTERJEE v. CHANDRA
KUMAR GHOSE

...

...

...

App.

CHAPTER XI-Complaint,
Irregularity in recording-Power of the Court of Session.]
A Court of Session is competent to proceed to the trial
of a prisoner brought before it upon a charge by a Magistrate
authorized to make a commitment, though the complaint or author-
ization be contained only in a letter from the Judge of that Court
to the Magistrate of the district, sent with the record of the case,
notwithstanding an irregularity or defect of form in recording the
complaint.

The complaint or authorization of the Court before which, or
against the authority of which, an offence mentioned in Chap. XI

70

of the Code of Criminal Procedure is alleged to have been com-
mitted, is a sufficient warrant for commencement of criminal pro-
ceedings.

...

...

...

THE QUEEN V. NARAYAN NAIK
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, s. 36- Removal of a Case by
the Magistrate from the File of a Subordinate Magistrate.] Inter-
ference by the High Court, in a case where the Magistrate had
improperly exercised his discretion in removing a case from the file
of a Deputy Magistrate.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF NABA KUMAR BANER-

Page

660

App.

45

s. 62-Prohibitory Order.]
Under section 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate
cannot pass a prohibitory order, without having previously issued
a rule to show cause why the order should not be passed.
THE QUEEN V. RAI LACHMIPAT SING

App.

81

274

100

ss. 407, 426.]

A. was charged

with the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to C., and B. was
charged with the same offence, and also with the offence of
abetting A. The Magistrate found A. guilty of the offence,
and sentenced him to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The
Magistrate also found B. guilty of abetment of the offence of
voluntarily causing hurt to C., and sentenced him to one month's
rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

On appeal, the Sessions Judge held that there was no evidence
to convict A., and he accordingly released the prisoner. The ap-
peal of B., however, was rejected, on the ground that the evidence,
though it did not prove him guilty of abetment, proved him guilty
of voluntarily causing hurt, and, therefore, under section 426 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the sentence could not be reversed.
No "error or defect either in the charge or in the proceedings on
trial" was alleged.

Held (by MITTER, J.) that section 426 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure did not apply.

THE QUEEN V. MAHENDRONATH CHATTERJEE

...

39

App.

39

(Act VIII of 1869), s. 435-
Power of a Magistrate in dealing with a case when dismissed with-
out full and sufficient enquiry.] Semble.-When a charge is dis-
missed by a Subordinate Magistrate without enquiry, a Magistrate
has no power, under section 435 of Act VIII of 1869, to order a
trial before another Magistrate, but can only order a commitment
to the Court of Session.

THE QUEEN v. HIRALAL SING

...

App. 48

(Act VIII of 1869), ss. 445A,
445C-Deputy Commissioner-Appeal.] The right of appeal to
the High Court given by section 445C of the Criminal Procedure
Code to persons convicted on a trial held by an officer invested
with the power described in section 445A, is confined to cases in
which the officer has exercised that power.

THE QUEEN V. DHORA BнOOYA

658

ALTERATION OF-Lower Court.] After a decree has

been confirmed by the High Court on appeal, the Subordinate Court
has no power to make any alteration in it.

P. T. ONRAET v. SANKAR DUTT SING
ASSIGNEE OF A

See ACT VIII OF 1859, ss. 208, 284, 285, 287, 290.

EXECUTION OF, MADE ON APPEAL
See PRACTICE.

FOR RENT, EXECUTION OF

See MOVEABLE PROPERTY.

321

508

321

App. 60

497

605

155

570

App. 59

380, 691

223

305

App. 71

See OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE.

See ACT XXI of 1863, ss. 27, 39.

DECREE-HOLDER, LIABILITY OF

See EXECUTION.

DEPOSIT-Act XIV of 1859, s. 1, cl. 15-Cause of Action.] The
plaintiff, on leaving Calcutta, in 1850, deposited a sum of money
with A., B., and C., on which they were to pay him Rs. 9 monthly,
and return the principal on his demanding it. Rs. 9 were paid to
him monthly until within twelve months of this suit. A. and B. had
died since the date of the deposit. This suit was brought against
C. and the representatives of A. and B. to recover the amount
deposited, and a decree was passed against C. on his own admission.
But the representatives of A. and B. set up that the suit was barred.
Held, that it was not a deposit under section 1, clause 15 of Act
XIV of 1859. But held also, in accordance with the English cases
(from which, however, the learned Judge dissented) that the cause
of action arose from the date of the agreement to repay the money
on demand, and not from the date of the demand, and therefore
the suit was barred.

PARBATI CHARAN MOOKERJEA v. RAMNARAYAN MATILAL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

...

...

...

...

See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, ss. 445A, 445C.
DILUVIATION OF LAND-Rights of Proprietors to Accretion.]
Where property is wholly submerged by a river, any land forming
afterwards on the site will, when the ownership of that site is
proved to exist in the former owner, remain in him, and the accre-
tions will not belong to the adjacent proprietor.

FELIX LOPEZ V. MADDAN THAKOOR, BRIJOMOHAN THAKOOR, AND
HARI MOHAN THAKOOR
DISCHARGE

...

...

396

658

...

521

...

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR NON-APPEARANCE, WHEN
NO DAY HAD BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING IT-Act
VIII of 1859, s. 217

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. See PARTNERSHIP.
DISTRESS-Vesting Order, Time of Operation of-Priority of Official
Assignee.] A distress levied after the filing of the petition of in-
solvency, but before the vesting order is drawn up, is invalid as
against the Official Assignee.

A vesting order is made when it is given by the Court, and not
at the time it is drawn up, signed, and sealed.
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN BODRY

-

...

...

See MAHOMEDAN LAW.

WIDOW IN POSSESSION OF ESTATE AS SECURI-
TY FOR, FORM OF DECREE AGAINST