"This blatant lying is rather trying," observed Judge P. Grant Jones in H. M. Supreme Court on Sept. 26 in the ease in which Bachan Singh sued Khushal Singh for the recovery of $900, alleged to be due on a promissory note; $62 interest; and $95 costs. Judgment was given in favour of plaintiff, with costs.
Counsel: Mr. Ranald G. MeDonald and Mr, C. G. O. Anderson, - for Defendant had not repaid the principal and had only paid $90 interest. Since February this year,
all.
enigen had paid no interest at The Judge:—These people go through all sorts of ceremonies but forget what we would deem most important, namely, to see that the signature on the promissory note is witnessed.
Plaintiff's statement was borne out by Natha Singh, who said that the notes were in bundles of $100 each and that he had witnessed the whole transaction.
Defendant deposed that he hed borrowed only $200, from plaintiff in May, 1929, at his (witness's) home in Gordon Road and one Kartar Singh was present. He (defendant) wrote the promissory note himself and signed it. The signature on the note which had been produced was his but the body was not. On the note he had written, the sum of $200 was written. He had left some space at the top of the sheet of paper on which he had written his undertaking to repay and then had written his own name, after which he had written the body of the note and signed it again. The interest was at the rate of two per cent. a month and he had paid up to July, this year. Witness did not know Natha Singh and had not signed any document in Natha Singh's quarters. He was. prepared to repay $200 to plaintiff.
He knew nothing of the body of the note which had been written by plaintiff and alleged to have been signed by him and had never plaintiff; Mr. Tycho Wing, foreseen it until he had arrived. in defendant. court. He pointed out that both Plaintiff stated that, on March the top and bottom of the sheet of 8, 1931, he lent $900 to defendant, at the vote of one per cent. interest a month. In the previous month, whilst at prayer at the Gurdwara, defendant approached him for a loan and it was arranged that he should call on plaintiff at the police station where the latter was quartered. Defendant did not turn up but plaintiff, who had the money on his person, later met him in the street and they went together to the quarters of one Natha Singh, where plaintiff handed over the money to defendant, through Natha Singh, and defendant signed a promissory note produced), after both he (defendant) and Natha Singh had read it over. paper on which the promissory note was written had been cut off.
This statement was borne out by Harter Singh, after which counsel argued at length and judgment was given for plaintiff.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.