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 July 15 1912

AGAIN WHILE THEIR LORDSHIPS NOTICE THE allegations of the defence as to the cause of the disturbances they at the same time ignore the allegations of the Plaintiff noticed in Fletcher 101 J.'s judgment that " as the Defenda when he arrived at Jamalpore on the morning. [...] that he committed an error of judgment." That his Lordship did not go more fully into the allegations of the Defendant as also of the Plaintiffs with regard to the causes of the ill-feeling between the Hindus and Mahomdans at Jamalpore was because his Lordship had held in an earlier part of the judgment that " the reasons for the origin of that state (of feeling) were not material to be consid [...] It seems therefore unnecessary to discuss what took place on the evening of the 27th of April or to go more minutely into the question of the excitement or the cause of the excitement and the state of feeling btween the Hindus and Mahomedans at that time IT HAS INVARIABLY HEWN THE PRACTICE OF THEIR Lordships of the Judicial Committee not to intefere with the concurrent findings of fact of [...] So it is gariously their Lordships of the Judicial Comeirtee who are in' error in describing the alternative defence made before the Courts here as the " real defence " and basing on this view of the defence unmerited reflections on the High Court.' The injustice of the remark becomes all the more glaring when we find that at the end of their judgment their Lordships accept the decision of the F [...] 167 of the Bengal eTenancy Act meant the " actual date of the sale " and " not the date of the confirmation of the sale." That the words " has notice" in sec.