The first ground put forward is that the Court wrongly assumed that the onus of proof was on the! defendant to show that the complainant was not acting in the execution of his duty. It is only necessary to say that no such assumption was made at all. The complaint alleged that the com-. plainant was acting within his dut there was ample evidence to the same effect and there was no rebut ting evidence. The Court was entitled to find as a fact that the complainment was, so acting.
The second ground is that the Cotirt wrongly held that the com-the appellant when it was not prov-
to pay octroi duty; and (2) the com-that (1) the appellant, was lable plainant had under the cireumstances powers of arrest or detention of a British subject.
T fail to see how the first of these points is material: No demand for the duty was made, and it was not urged in the Court below, as to the rresb the Court held on the evidence Before it that the complainant had certain powers. That is a finding' of fact and cannot be questioned in this Court which only deals with!
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.