The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday May 23 1904

The remarks of Prinsep J. are as follows :— "But the suit so far as the adjudication of the Plaintiff's title is concerned cannot as I understand the law be consdered as res judicata in the present proceedings inasmuch as the parties are not the same the Plaintiff having in this case joined with the tenant Defendant who disputed his title the person under whom that tenant professed to ho [...] P. C. applied and that the Judge presiding at the Criminal Sessions of the High Court had power in his discretion to accept the commitment and to proceed with the trial of the prisoner. [...] P. C. the Court of the Subordinate Judge is subordinate to the District Judge notwithstanding that the subject-matter of the litigation in the former Court involves more than Rs. [...] The Company was sued for £189 for work done and materials supplied by Sanderson as he alleged at the request of the Copany the request being made by the Defendant Hope the Agent and who was the architect in building the theatre. [...] And the judgment states " even if no actual agreement could be inferred the letter of 7th March cmpled with the expenditure of time work and money by Plaintiff consequent thereon and resulting therefrom in the belief that the option extended to the end of the month'operates in equity to prevent the Defenant from assorting that the option expired on16th March.