No. XIX. OF 1827, SEC. 3 ......420 RE-TRIAL.-See CONFESSION, 2.
3. Where an agreement between
a mortgagor and mortgagee con-
tains a stipulation that the mort-
gagor should, at the time of re-
demption, make good the losses
arising to the mortgagee from
the default of tenants, which it
had been agreed the mortgagee
might put in, in case the mort-
gagor made default in payment
of the rent agreed upon for the
term of the mortgage; such an
agreement is not a lease, or the
counterpart of a lease, within the
meaning of Reg. XVIII. of 1827
Sec. 10, cl. 3, but is a contract
of indemnity against losses to be
incurred after the determination
The statement of a Judge, who pre-
sides at a criminal trial, is, upon
a case reserved under the 25th
clause of the Charter of the High
Court, or upon a case certified
by the Advocate General under
its 26th clause, conclusive as to
what has passed at
passed at the trial.
Neither the affidavits of bystanders
or of jurors nor the notes of coun-
sel or of short-hand writers are
admissible to controvert the state-
ment of the Judge.
It is in the discretion of the Judge,
who presides at a criminal trial,
whether or not he will reserve a
point of law for the opinion of the
High Court, and such discretion
will not be reviewed by the High
Court, sitting as a court of review
SUIT TO SET ASIDE ORDER.- TERRITORY, CESSION OF-See
See LIMITATION, 1.
Semble.-Non-direction by a Judge
is not a matter upon which the
Advocate General should grant a
certificate under clause 26 of the
Letters Patent.
In considering whether a Judge
has misdirected the jury, the
tenor and general effect of the
whole summing up should be
looked at, and if, upon the whole
summing up, the court is of opini-
on that substantially the proper
direction has been given to the
jury, it will not interfere, though
the Judge has omitted to direct
the jury expressly on some im-
portant point.
Whether abetment to murder by
sorcery, illum, or other impossible
means, is an offence under the
Penal Code.-Quære.-Reg. v.
Pestanji Dinshá
Dishonest removal of salt natural-
ly formed in a creek, which was
under the supervision of an
officer belonging to the Customs
Department, constitutes theft,
the salt having been legally ap-
propriated by such officer. (Per
BAYLEY and WEST, JJ.)
But removal, for one's own use
from a creek, of such salt not
legally appropriated, constitutes
no offence either under the
Indian Penal Code or Acts
XXXI. of 1850 or XXVII. of
1837, though under Sec. 7 of
the latter Act, made applicable
by Sec. 8 of the former, the salt
removed becomes liable to deten-
tion. (Per LLOYD and KEMBALL,
JJ.) Reg. v. Mansang Bhavsang.74
...75 THIRD PARTIES.-See EJECTMENT.
A surety, who executes a secu-
rity bond (in Form No. 82 of TODA GIRAS.-See LIMITATION, 4.
the High Court Circulars) un-
der Sec. 36 of Act XXIII. of TREATY OF NANKIN
1861, is liable for the fulfilment
of the decree, not only of the
Court of Regular, but also of TREATIES BETWEEN FRANCE
that of the Court of Special Ap-i
peal. Nárayan Dev v. Gajánan
Dikshit...
LANDLORD AND TRIAL BY JURY.-See CONFES-
TENDER OF STAMP DUTY AND TRUSTEES.-See INSOLVENCY, 2.
TENDERING.-See WRITTEN STATE-
|