In his address, Mr. K. E. Newman, for the defence, stated that this was a case-where there was an absolute direct conflict of evidence and whatever His Lordship thought of the merits and demeanour of the various witnesses, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the person on whom the onus of proof rested.
His Lordship then remarked that he was quite satisfied that the burden of proof rested with Mr. Newman's client. Continuing, Mr. Newman stated that in this case the documentary evidence, which was the sole evidence of existence of that debt, had not been produced and that it rested upon the plaintiff to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. This he had not done nor had his story been substantiated in any way. He had also not proved that the defendant's story was incorrect.
For plaintiff, Mr. Ranald McDonald, in fetorring to a statement made by Lamport at the previous hearing that he had paid $1,300 to Hari Singh for the good name of his school and his Own good name, stated "Has anyone heard more rank hypocrisy than that as it rolled off his tongue?"
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.