The Calcutta Weekly Notes Law Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the English Law Courts Monday May 1 1911

Two preliminary objections were taken by the Defenants namely (1) the Society was illegal at common law as being in restraint of trade and (a) that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action which was a proceeding "instituted with the object of directly enforcing " what was in effect an agreement to apply the funds of the Society for the benefit of a member. [...] And in truth the decision of this Court and of the House of Lords in the former action between the Plaintiff and the Defendants involves the same principle. [...] It cannot be disputed that even after verdict and judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs in a libel action it is the right and the duty of the Court of Appeal to consider whether the words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in the sense of a personal imputation upon the Plaintiffs 'not. [...] The question of remoteness of damage in this case was really the same as the question whether the damages were capable of estimation The authoity nearest the present case was Watson v. The Ambergate Nottingham and Boston Railway Copany (15 Jur 448) ; but unfortunately the Judges in that case differed and finally the decision was' given on another point. [...] The result of the evidence was that the Council made no provision for the disposal of the contents of the cesspools when taken out by Hook.