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 January 17 1910

I stotfld say that what the law views as a fault entitling the person injured to damages is not confined to things hidden from the cye alone but is also extended to things hidden from the coprehension of the pef-son injured and also hidden from the combinatjion arising from the sight of and the knowledge of the propel ties of the things the sight observes. [...] On the 4th January 1909 on the appeal of the Respondents the Court of the Judicial Commisioner of Oudh came to the conclusion that the Will was not genuine and reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge. [...] Soo as sufficient to defray the costs of printing and transcribing the material portions of the record and on the 2nd of August 1909 the Judicial Commissioners rejected the petition on the ground that the time for depositing the money had been exceeded and although they thought they had the power to extend the time they were of opinion that the rule requiring deposit should be strictly enforced [...] In the High Court it was contended that the question whether the Defendants were the tenants of the Plaintiffs was res judicata by' reason of the decision in the rent suit so that the 'lower Appelate Court was not entitled to decide that the Defendants were the tenants of the Plaintiffs. [...] - The Court observed :—The decidsion in the prvious case could only show that the relation did not subsist at the time. of the suit or for the years for which the arrears had been ' C4iined The Court in the previous case could notclecitte whether the relation had existed before 'that 'period and it was the adverse decision in that case that formed the basis of the present action.