on that night exceeded 15,000; all who were present declared that the splendour of the procession, of the ornaments of the hall, and of the entertainment altogether, exceeded what they had ever witnessed.

The invitation given by the Maha Rajah to Lord Clare was for the purpose of making firm the claims of friendship which have bound the Hon'ble Company and the Gaikowar's State from the beginning, and which the Maha Rajah, up to this day, has laboured attentively to preserve and strengthen, of which Lord Clare appeared to be entirely satisfied. On the 28th November, his Lordship invited the Maha Rajah to return the visit, as is usual, at his Lordship's tent, where he received the Maja Rajah at three o'clock in the afternoon, with great courtesy. His Lordship presented the Maha Rajah with a serpaich of precious stones, a pearl necklace and rich dress, two horses, and an elephant, an ambarree, and a valuable English sword, with a golden handle; he also presented Row Saheb, the son of the Maha Rajah, with a sirpach of precious stones, a pearl necklace, and dress; and he gave to the dewans and sowcars and other persons attending upon the Maha Rajab, amounting in number to about 200, to some serpaichs and rich dresses, and to the others a dress according to their rank, and to the custom.

In 1820, when the then Governor of Bombay, the Honorable Charles Mountstuart Elphinstone, visited Burroda, he paid his respects to the Maha Rajah Seeabjee Row Gaikowar Behadoor, in a courteous and friendly manner; the friendship between the two states, that of the Honorable Company and of the Gaikowar, was cemented and increased; Lord Clare has, in like manner, shown a disposition to cultivate a friendly intercourse with the Maha Rajah, according

to the subsisting treaties, and has, by so doing, encreased the good name and reputation of the Honorable Company and of himself in all parts.

In past days, some unfaithful persons, enemies of the Maha Rajah, appear to have poisoned the ear of Sir John Malcolm, the late Governor of Bombay, who too readily listened to the grossest falsehoods regarding the Maha Rajah Gaikowar. In Sumbut 1886, which corresponds with parts of the English years 1829 and 1830, when Sir John Malcolm came to Burroda, he, without examining into the foundation of these falsehoods, declined to accept the invitation of the Maha Rajah, or to inquire into the grievances of which he complained, or the violations of the engagements of the treaty on the part of the Honorable Company; all this had afflicted the Maha Rajah with great grief and perplexity, which Lord Clare, soon after coming to Burroda, greatly alleviated; his Lordship was kind enough to receive personally from the Maha Rajah, while at Burroda, an account of the grievances and oppressions of which he complained, and gave him hopes that these matters would, at length, be inquired into with fairness, and redressed according to justice and the faith of the treaties, and it is understood that he has left upon the mind of the Maha Rajah the most satisfactory impression of the courtesy of his manners, his excellent character, his good understanding, and fairness of his intentions. On the 30th November his Lordship proceeded towards Auzmere, to meet Lord William Bentinck, after which Lord Clare is soon expected to return to Burroda, when the Maha Rajah is said to be confident that every thing will be restored to the desirable footing on which it stood in the time of Governor Elphinstone.

To the Honorable Sir Charles Edward Grey, Knight, Chief Justice, and the Honorable Sir John Franks, and the Honorable Sir Edward Ryan, Knights, His Companions Justices of the said

Court.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF A POOR SUBJECT HUMBLY SHOWETH,-That your Lordships petitioner, most respectfully begs

leave to bring to your Lordships notice, that he has heard and believes that two Christian officers attached to the Supreme Court, by oath, hare, since a long time, monopolized the duties of translating into English the Bengalee and Persian documents, &c. that are produced to the said Court on any cause; and filled their own pocket to the complete seclusion of

all; this system, (your petitioner begs to say,) seems now injudicions, and quite inconsistent to the nature of the present age, though it was not deemed so about twenty years ago, for then very few persons were found among the natives who could understand the English, Persian, and Bengalee, in a competent manner; whereas now there are many sufficiently qualified in those languages.

Your petitioner also heard that sometime ago, when government felt desirous to get the principal parts of Sunscrit Poorans, and several other Persian works translated into English, this was done through the assistances of several natives of Bengal consisting chiefly of a few of the Hindoo college students, at the head of whom, as your petitioner believes, was Baboo Ramcomul Sen; moreover, there are several learned Missionary Gentlemen, both in Calcutta and at Serampore, and among whom some are the most cleverest men in the Oriental languages, and upon some of whom your petitioner believes the charge of translating regulations was vested by government for some considerable time, therefore if your Lordships will be pleased to divide the duties of the translation, besides the two monopolizers, either between the missionary Gentlemen, or some of the ablest men,whether Hindoo, Moosulman, or Christian, after due examination as to their abilities, it will infallibly afford a greater or more proeminent facility to the suitors or the parties concerned in any suit in carrying on with their suits, as the proposed system, as your petitioner thinks, would afford the parties free liberty to apply

to any of such translators to get their pa pers translated, without any restriction as is now experienced. By the foregoing remarks your petitioner does not wish that the charge of translation be snatched away altogether from the said two officers, (the Monopolizers,) who have since a long time been fed by the suitors or the parties uninterruptedly; but he only means to say, that the said two officers, owing to their different, other engagements, besides the duties of the translation assigned to them, and upon various other causes, which, are not necessary to mention here. they do not, or at least cannot, duly attend to the requisition of the suitors or the parties at a more proper time; and this puts the suitors, &c. into an unnecessary trouble and expense, for in such cases they are obliged to apply to the said Court for further and further time, and which is nothing but expensive and troublesome to them; besides some of the native suitors or the parties may. now probably be found competent enough to translate any Bengalee or Persian documents into English without the assistance of others, or without being subject to any trouble, expense, or inconvenience, so your Lordships ought to consider the above mentioned points, and modify the very old system in some way or other, if possible; or if it appears fit to your Lordships to afford greater redress to the suitors or parties, as your Lordships have already done so on many other occasions in their be half.

And your petitioner shall ever pray.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 14, 1832. Nothing particular was done in this Court. Sir John Franks sat for a few minutes to hear motions of course, which were very few in number.

MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1832.

Michael Myers v. The United Company. This was a bill filed by Myers, praying an account of certain goods furnished to the United Company during the Burmese war, to which the defendants demurred, upon the ground, that Myers, if the allegations in his bill were true, had no right to avail himself of equity,

for he could prove his claim at Common law.

The Advocate General and Mr. Cochrane were heard in support of the demurrer, which was overruled without calling upon the opposite side to reply.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1832. Luckhunarain Mookerjee & Another versus Charles Carey.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as the managing members of a Hindoo family, against the defendant for the recovery of Sa. Rs. 3,681, amount of a bond granted by the defendant to the plaintiffs Testator. Witnesses were

examined in proof of the defendant being a resident of Calcutta at the time of the filing of the plaint in the action, and of the due execution of the bond by the defendant. and a verdict was given for the penal sum mentioned in the bond.

In the goods of Brigadier Sir Alexander Macleod, deceased.

Several witnesses were examined this day in proof of the two wills found after the decease of the Brigadier; one of them being regularly executed and the other unexecuted. It is the intention of the counsel engaged to establish the two papers, and after the examination of the witnesses are closed, to argue on a future day the merits of each.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1832. There was nothing done in Court this day; the only case ready on board of causes was the argument of a Plea to a bill; but which, owing to the absence from Court of Mr. Cleland (we believe thro' indisposition) was postponed to Monday next, and the Court rose at a little after 12 o'clock.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1832.

In the goods of Sir A. Macleod, deceased. Several other witnesses were examin. ed this-day, in further proof of the two testamentary papers found after the decease of the Brigadier.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1832.

The Court was occupied all day in hearing the arguments of the Advocate General and Mr. Cleland in favor of the last and unfinished Will, of the late Brigadier Sir Alexander McLeod; and those of Mr. Turton and Mr. Dickens against it, and in favor of the Will dated in 1828. The decision of the Court in this case will be given on Monday next.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1832.

In the Goods of Sir Alexander Macleod, Deceased,

The Chief Justice delivered judgment in this case, and stated that he believed there would be some difference on the bench, though in cases of the present nature, it would have been better if the

Court were unanimous ; but however as delay was of seme moment to the parties interested, he would deliver his opinion at once. His Lordship observed, that the party promovent had propounded a paper written in 1831, bearing no attestation of the Testator, and without date, and this they alledged was a revocation of the will duly executed by the Testator in 1828; that Will was in evidence to have been regularly and solemnly executed, and, in his opinion, was never cancelled; if it was, there ought to have been an express revocation, for it was certain that the Testator did not intend to allow both the papers to stand for his will. By law it was necessary that the paper so propounded, in order to make it a final revocation, should contain the final disposition of the Testator, but here the tenor of the paper showed an intention to alter the will of 1828, circumstances having occurred in the interval upon to ground that supposition, such as the sister of the deceased having died, and the natural daughter, who had incurred the Testator's displeasure, being reconciled, so that some provision was to be made for her. The deceased, had he lived 8 or 10 days, would have most probably made a new will, aud in the absence of that, the Court must take the will of 1828 as containing the Testator's fixed aud final disposition of his property. There were circumstances from which the paper propounded could not be reckoned as a final disposition, the omission of the name of Mrs. Sutherland, to whom the Testator had left 1000 in his first will, and spoken of her in that will in terms of gratitude, and nothing was shown to diminish that regard towards her, although her name was omitted in the paper as a legatee, as well as that of Mrs. Dalzell. The will of 1828 it appeared was kept in a place where the Testator kept his valuables, and the second will was not found till the day after the Testator's death, amongst a heap of old and loose papers. If this will be taken as a final disposition of the Testator's effects, the question arose, why was it not signed by him, and kept in a place of security? Placing the will of 1828 in its proper repository was conclusive that the Testator did not cancel it; and if the Testator really intended to execute the paper propounded, why did he not place it in as secure a place? Therefore, taking the circumstan

ces of the case into consideration, he was of opinion, that the promovents had failed to prove that the paper written in 1831, contained the final and formal determination of the Testator, and, therefore, it ought to be rejected, and that probate granted of the will of 1828.

Sir John Franks coincided with his Lordship.

Sir Edward Ryan dissented with the other Judges, holding that it was clearly established, that the paper written in 1831 was the draft of a will, and if the Testator had lived a few days he would have fairly copied and executed it, such being the case, the Court ougat to take that paper as the last will of the deceased.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1832.

Mookerjee versus Judge.

The greater part of the day was occupied in arguing the plea filed by the defendant, in this suit; the substance of which was, that the defendant having obtained judgment at common law, its proceedings ought not to be ransacked in a court of equity, without collusion or fraud being charged to warrant such a conclusion, but mere want of consideration was no ground for such a proceeding. The Court allowed the plea with

costs.

Sre Kissen Doss v. Francis Hasted.

This was an action to recover the amount of two drafts, one for Rs. 33,246 and the other for Rs. 5,000, drawn by the defendant on Messrs. Palmer and Co. in 1829, accepted by them, and negociated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a banker at Benares, and the defendant, who is an indigo planter near the same place, had occasion to raise money in the manner already stated, for the purpose of carrying on his factories, the title deeds of which were in the hands of Messrs. Palmer and Co. Before the drafts became due, which was in April, 1830, the house of Messrs. Palmer and Co. failed, and the defendant entered into negociations with the plaintiff for the settlement of his claims, by a mortgage on some of his factories; which however was never executed, in consequence of the plaintiff having declined the arrangement, he having heard that they were already encumbered.

In

March, 1831, the defendant made a final settlement with the assignees of Messrs, Palmer and Co. and received from them the title deeds of his factories, which he made over to Mr. Hurry, who now carries on the concern.

The Chief Justice thought the plaintiff's case had not been sufficiently made out, though he would not pronounce a nonsuit till the counsel had had an opportunity of being heard. Judgment was accordingly deferred.

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 8, 1832.

In the case of Sre Kissen Doss versus Francis Hasted, noticed in our paper of Wednesday, the plaintiff was nonsuited.

THURSDAY, FEB. 9, 1832.

Sir John Franks, on taking his seat this morning on the bench, intimated to the bar, that he had received information, of the severe indisposition of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, which would necessarily oblige him to be absent for a few days, and that, therefore, the case, which was partly heard yesterday, before his Lordship, must stand over till he was able to attend Court. His Lordship further added, that if counsel wished it, all motions of importance might as well stand over, till a future day.

The Court proceeded to try the remaining causes, in the term board, four in number, which were devoid of any interest, and occupied but a short time ;the Court rose about one o'clock.

In the case of Strettell v. Omachurn Bonnerjee, for debt, a question arose as to the legality of sustaining the action in the name of the plaintiff, on account of the insolvency. Mr. Turton, the plantiff's counsel, said that he believed it was the practice in England, where one partner was solvent, and the other insolvent, for the former to use the name of the latter conjointly with his own, in the recovery of debts due to both parties, subsequently making over to the assignees the insolvent's proportion of the same. Sir Edward Ryan cited authorities to prove that such was not the case, and that such a suit should be instituted in the names of the solvent partner, and of the assignees to the estate of the insolvent. Mr. Turton thought, that, under

Proprietors of the Howrah Dock v. C. S. Hadow.

This was an action brought by the Plaintiffs to recover the sum of Sicca Rupees 674, being the amount of their bill for the repairs of the Defendant's boat. The Defendant pleaded a tender of Sicca Rupees 400, and issue being taken by the Plaintiff's for the balance, the cause came on for trial this day.

Mr. Cleland opened the pleadings, and Mr. Turton stated the case for the Plaintiffs. The Advocate General and Mr. Clarke appeared for Mr. Hadow.

Mr Ambrose, late foreman, employed in the dock, and the person under whose superintendance the boat was repaired, was examined at great length.

From the evidence of Mr. Ambrose it appeared, that the boat in question was purchased at the sale of the Bridgewater's stores in June, 1830, by Mr. Hadow, at which time a conversation passed between him and the Defendant, in which he distinctly said that the expenses of repair would not exceed Sicca Rupees 200. admitted having, a day or two subsequently, received the following note from Mr. Hadow, together with the articles therein specified.

He

Calcutta, 16th June, 1832.

J. AMBROSE, ESQ. Dear Sir, I have desired my sircar to deliver over to you the following articles 1 yesterday purchased for my boat, viz. Lot 14-A cutter, 89, an Union Jack. "101-A bolt of canvass, 102 a ditto.

104-A ditto, 105, a bag containing A quantity of twine.

386-eight boat breakers,

With these materials supplied, be good enough to say for what sum you will undertake to put her into thorough repairbuild a light house upon her, schooner rig her, paint her green with the ploughshare and coulter on her bows-and make her in every way a good and handsome boatalso say how soon she could be ready for

To this no reply was given, nor did he remember that when he afterwards saw Mr. Hadow in the office of Mr. Currie, any conversation passed about the expenses of repairing the boat, but matters went on till she was finished, when on presentation of the bill payment was refused.

Witness examined the bill, and admitted that it was made from the daily book of the yard kept by himself, and that all the materials charged were given out by bim for the repairs of this particular boat, and he believed they were all used, and that all the charges were fair and reasonable, according to the port rates, (i. e.) according to the usual charges of the New Howrah Dock Company-he said the reason that her paint might not have pleased Mr. Hadow was, that she was repaired in the wet season, and that being a very old boat it was not thought advisable to remove her from where she lay, so that she was during the whole time, (about three months,) exposed to the weather, and the paint, of course, subject to be washed off by the rain.

This witness, in his cross examination by the Advocate General, stated, that the New Howrah Dock Company consisted of Messrs. J. Cullen, R. Brown, and John Armstrong Currie; that the two former gentlemen were merchants and agents in Calcutta, and had nothing to do with the management of the Dock Yard; that the latter was the managing proprietor, but that he was a retired military gentleman and not brought up to the line of business he was now engaged in, nor was he much conversant with boat building; — that he (witness) never in any other instance had made a contract for the propri. etors on his own responsibility, but that when any body asked him his opinion of what would be the amount of a job, he never hesitated to state, as he had done in this instance, what he thought would be the cost; that he had never in any way whatever, until after payment of the bill had been refused by Mr. Hadow, stated what had passed between them to his employers; that CaptainCurrie bad,however, repeatedly seen the work going on upon the boat, but that no inquiries were ever made how it was to be charged for; that upon the bill being returned he had told Captain Currie that he said to Mr. Hadow the expenses would be about 200 Rupees.

The bill was again handed to witness, and after being reminded, that he had sworn to the correctness of it-the fol lowing, amongst many other items, were brought to his attention.