The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday June 17 1907

the judgment-debtor was sent to the jail the Superintendent finding that there was no specfication of the nature of the imprisonment either in the Judge's ordet or the warrant enquired of the Jeldge whether the imprisonment was to be simple or rigorous. [...] The recent Caloutta ease of Banwari v. Sheo 10 C. W. N. ccxliii f5llows the Allahabad ruling and further holds that in the absence of evidence as to the hour of receipt by the Magistrate of the order official acts must be presumed to have been done at the earliest part of the day. [...] The important element whereby to determine' whether he to the servant of one person or the other is which of two persons had the control of him in the conduct of the business." In the present case the 'Defendant had the cotrol and possession as the owner the bargain of purchase having been complete.. [...] On the disposal of the appeal by the District Magistrate affirming the conviction of two out of the three Appellants the Deputy Magistrate on the 16th January passed orders on the appliction of the complainant directing that no further steps should be taken against the Petitioners as the principal accused had been punished. [...] 2. In Rule 5 of 1906 amending the last-mentioned rules (b) which was published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 28th February 1906 Part I page 352 and in the Eastern Bengal and Assam Gazette of the 10th March 1906 Part III page 220 cancel the words "The local laws" and substitute therefor the words "with the exception of the Central Provinces Court's Act II of 1904 the local laws." 3. The