Claim on Former Friend for Tis, 1,000, Furniture and Photographic Stuff the Supreme Court on! Wednesday Sir Skinner Turner gave judgment in the case of Gaya. Deen v. Daba Pudun Das, a claim for Tls. 1,000, together with a quantity of photographic materials and some furniture, said to have been deposited with defendant during plainti' forced absence in India—a time deportee—and then alleged to have been wrongfully detained. The value of the photographic materials was placed at £87 and $870 and of the furniture $323.
His Honour, in giving judgment, fi aid the defence put in was that the Tis, 1,000 was actually transferred to defendant for cash; that defendant did have the care of certain the International Banking Corpora. tion for Tls. 1,000, expressly marked "not transferable," and they knew from the Bank "what happened. Upon going to India and taking wife and family with him, plaintiff not unnaturally wanted money. He handed the deposit to Santa Ram and, according to his own statement, he was told by Santa Ram that he handed it to the defendant because, for some reason or other, he could not get cash for it. Bur they now knew from the Bank that there was absolutely no reason why the deposit note should not hays been cashed at the time, at any time up to August 1918, though perhaps with some loss of interest, Plaintiff endorsed it in blank and its subsequent history was quite clearly known. It was handed to defendant by Santa Ram and nothing more seemed to have been heard of it until its due date in January, 1919, when it was to all intents and purposes cashed by the Bank when handed to them by defendant and Uearing the true en-businesses, gave evidence that the goods had rg salared: by te eral manager, Fanwary U1 and April 1 da silva, between
Gujan Singh, speaking for the partnership, said they did not know how many more of these claims would crop up. They had not been allowed to so into the hotel for some time and did not know what had His Honour observed that he had judgment against defendants in other cases because of the deed of partnership, but recently it had come to his knowledge that da Silva had turned them out of the hoter and would not allow them near it, and it appeared a little doubtful whether the goods were ordered by da Silva or by the partnership. He was not at all sure that the defend ants were liable.
Mr. V. MacDonnell, for plaintiff, raised the question as to when da Silva's, power as manager was revoked:
Gujam Singh said they had not taken any part in the management of the hotel since January this year.
His Honour adjourned the case for the production of letters written to da Silva on defendants' behalf. photographic materials—but of nothing like the value alleged—and that these had been handed back, while there was a complete denial to the furniture.
The facts shortly were these, tis Lordship continued: In June 1918 was arrested in Shanghai, under the powers which that time, with a view to be was in Shanghai for a period of at least before leaving He returned to China August, 1929, and nothing at all was heard of this matter, so far ai documentary evidence was con-corned, from the date of his return until the beginning of this year. At the time of his arrest plaintiff's wife, children and brother-in-law wees in Shanghai, and for the pur-Pose of winding up his affairs he Signed a very full power of attorney, dated July 8, in favour of his brother-in-law who from that time on had full power to deal with plaintiffs property and affairs. in China. Plaintiff left Shanghai the beginning of August, and fa little later. date was joined at. Hongkong by his wife and-family and his brother-in-law. "His Lordship did not know whether they' fever came back, but they were not. here now and had not appeared to give evidence,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.