An important point was the admission by both sides that what defendant said was correct, that he {did in fact purchase from the bank a draft of rupees for the plaintitt and members of his family. Tt was a point in favour of the defendant that he quite openly kept the money his own name. If he had wanted to cheat the plaintiff out of his Tls. 1,000, the obvious coutee would have been to cash the receipt in January, 1919, and it would have been very dificult t3 trace the position afterwards. But he re-deposited it, treat ing himself as the true owner. There was urged against the defendant a letter which he sent to India in February, 1919, in which spoke of "your deposit receipt" ant said "you will be glad to know it fs being kept safely on for next but defendant's answer was that this letter referred only to the balance which he owed. Nothing seemed to happen when plaintiff returned from India. He lived with defendant for "some time on quite friendly terms, and he could easily ave discovered what had happene] to the deposit receipt had he gona to the bank. Instead of that, he allowed it to lie idle from August, 1920, until January, 1924. The admissions siid to have been made in the ease were very doubtful and were entirely outweighed by the [long delay and the absence of w: ten communications, and against this there was the affirmative story of defendant and plaintiffs admission that he received a draft ipees.
His Lordship came to the conclusion that plaintiff had failed to rove his claim, and gave judgment for defendant with costs.
Mr. P. W. Goldring appeared for plainti and Mr. L. K. Kentwell for defendant.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.