The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday June 23 1919

The action was brought for breach of a Charter-party in the name of Lipdgren who was described as the " Charterer." The Rspondents claimed that Lundgren was an agent on their behalf but the Appellants denied the agency and contended that evidenCe was inamissible to prove the agency. [...] It was contended that the term " charterer " was meant simply to describe a particular peson who was to carry out the provisions of the Charter-party and that for the working out of the rights and obligations under the Charteparty it was essential to treat the person so described as a persona designata. [...] On the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal the learned Counsel for the Appellant appeared and asked for an adjourment. [...] The.Defendants contested that the suit was not maintainable as all the heirs of the orginal tenant were not impleadedand that the amount of rent was not higher that what had been entered in the record-of-rights. [...] But the Defendants-Respondents on the other hand contended that the suit was not maintaiable in the absence of all the heirs of the original tenant (15 C. W. N. 191 ; 24 C. U. J. 371 and 22 W. N. 280 referred to) and that the amount of rent was not res judicata in this suit (6 C. W. N. 589 ; 5 C. L. 3. 92 referred to) : held—That the landlord was bound to sue only the heirs in possession of the