The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday August 3 1914

That the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court at Chingleput and by the Madras High Court in this case was irregular and misconceived cannot be questioned specially where the High Court puported to declare the infants Wards of Court and appointed the father their gpardian with no other end in view than that of extending the period of their minority. [...] That is really the substance of the decisions of Le High Courts in India to the effect that Act VIII 1890 did not repeal the general jurisdiction of istrict Courts to entertain suits relating to the tardianship and custody of minors and we should sorry if the judgment of the Privy Council iould be understood as definitely negativing tat jurisdiction. [...] The Plaintiff brought a suit to recover damages from the Secretary of State for India in Council in respect of two orders made by the Collector of Ganjam by one of which a local agent working under the Assam Labour and Emigration Act 19ot was suspended and the depUt maintained by him closed to recruiting while by the other the local agent was dismissed and also for alleged defamation of the Plain [...] That even if the suit had been brought against the members of the Madras Government at the date of the order and this Court had jurisdiction to entertain such a suit it must have failed on the ground that the publication having been made by such Government in the execution of its duty and without exceeding it is absolutely privileged. [...] The result of the transaction was an abstration from the Plaintiff's security of property worth from 120 000 to f30 000 without a particle of advantage to the Plaintiff and to the direct benfit of the Defendant.