Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

over a Leicestershire country, that will make a sportsman's heart bound with joy. In the next, we have all the mysteries of horsing, driving, and building, public vehicles explained; and the astonishing rapidity of modern travelling is amusingly set off by the introduction of an old gentleman of the year 1742, who, after a nap of a century, à la Dodswell, woke in Piccadilly, and, wanting to get home to Exeter, was shoved into the Comet, and lost his hat and wig by only looking out of the window, as the coach was flying over Hartford Bridge Flat. In the last part, the uninitiated are instructed in the secrets of what is denominated "the Turf," as well as in the names of its patrons. In this portion of his work, NIMROD acts the part of a bold critic, and fearlessly exposes the unworthy practices of the Race-course, which, if not remedied, will level it with the "Ring." For example of the Doncaster St. Leger Race, of 1834, he says-" that it was a robbery, there is not to be found a man in all his Majesty's dominions, unconnected with the fraud, to deny."

:

The volume is got up in Mr. Murray's usual style of elegance.

Miscellaneous Papers on Scientific Subjects, written chiefly in India. By T. SEYMOUR BURT, Esq. F. R.S., Captain Bengal Engineers, and late Major of Engineers in the Spanish service. London, 1837. Printed for the Author, and sold by Wm. H. Allen and Co.

Tam Marte quam Mercurio, may be Major Burt's motto. To his professional pursuits, he unites a taste for literary antiquities and for scientific inquiries; in the latter, he has developed some new and ingenious theories in the papers included in this collection.

Sequel to Sematology; being an attempt to clear the way for the Regeneration of Metaphysics; comprising Strictures on Platonism, Materialism, Scotch Intellectual Philosophy, and Phrenology; Brougham's Additions to Paley; Logic at Oxford and in the Edinburgh Review, &c. By the Author of "An Outline to Sematology, or an Essay towards establishing a new Theory of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric." Unpublished Copy.

1837.

THE author of this rather singular work (Mr. B. H. Smart) has manifested in it a perception of some of the fundamental principles of metaphysics; but it is written in too loose a manner, and is withal too imperfect to do much towards its object, that of "renovating" the science. Mr. Smart has some formidable opponents in the two great Reviews, and Lord Brougham, whose "Scotch Philosophy" he thinks" wholesome miasma."

un

Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott, Bart. Vol. I. Edinburgh, Cadell.

London, Murray, Whitaker and Co.

THIS is the first volume of a biography which promises a rich harvest of amusement to the admirers of the great magician of the north. After Mr. Lockhart (in obedience to the instructions contained in Sir Walter's will) had made some progress in his personal history, an autobiographical fragment, written by him, in 1808, was found in an old cabinet at Abbotsford, bringing down the account of the incidents of his life to 1792; with notes added apparently in 1826. This fragment forms the introductory chapter of the volume, and it shows that the writer, with the modest confidence of genius, felt assured that "his literary reputation would survive his temporal existence." This piece contains some very interesting details of the early life of Scott, but it is very far from superseding the more extended narrative which Mr. Lockhart is working out of a prodigious opulence of materials.

The volume brings the biography of Sir Walter down to the year 1804, when he published his Sir Tristrem. It is rich in correspondence, anecdotes, and traits of character, in the various literary men with whom Scott came into contact, Leyden, Ellis, Wordsworth, Hogg, &c. &c., whose letters to Scott are given, as well as his own. The history of his early publications is also curious. In short, we end as we began, the biography will prove a rich treat.

Tales by Lord Byron. Two vols. London, 1837. Murray. Two more volumes of this cheap and truly elegant little edition of Byron.

Marcus Manlius; a Tragedy. BY DAVID ELWIN COLOMBINE. London, 1837. Bentley. Spartacus, or the Roman Gladiator, a Tragedy. By JACOB JONES, Esq., Barrister at Law. London. 1837. Ridgway.

BOTH these plays are founded on incidents from Roman history; both are respectably written, but, we fear, neither will produce much effect either on the stage or in the closet.

A correct Report of Sir Robert Peel's Speeches at Glasgow, January 1837. London, Murray.

ALTHOUGH these admirable addresses have now lost their novelty, they deserve to be treasured up as containing masterly expositions of the subjects, and especially for their comments on public affairs and public men Judging from the number of editions they have already passed through, their effect must have been great.

Letter to the President of the Royal Geographical Society of London on Antarctic Discovery. London, 1837. Murray.

THIS letter is a result of the announcement of an expedition to the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, fitting out in the United States, and the writer urges Sir John Barrow and the Council of the Geographical Society to take the lead in promoting a British expedition of Antarctic Discovery, by bringing the matter before Government, or by urging private enterprize. He points out the advantages of such an expedition in a scientific point of view; its probable commercial benefit, in seas peculiarly our own; the positive accessions to our geographical knowledge to be derived therefrom; and the loss of credit to this country, if we allow another nation to bear away the palm of discovery in the South Polar seas, which have been explored by a British navigator (Capt. Biscoe) so late as 1831, who sailed over 47° within the Polar Circle, meeting with comparatively few obstacles, and discovering land in long. 68° stretching far to the N. E. and S. W.

The Churches of London: a History and Description of the Ecclesiastical Edifices of the Metropolis. By GEORGE GODWIN, jun. Architect; assisted by JOHN BRITTON, Esq. F. S. A., &c. London, 1837. Tilt.

THREE Parts of this elegant, acceptable, and very cheap work have appeared, and they do infinite credit to the artists and authors. Each number (price ls.) contains two views of a church (the two first of St. Paul's, the third of St. Bartholomew the Great), with historical and antiquarian matter. The engravers are Le Keux, Challis, and Turnbull.

The Shakespeare Gallery. London. Tilt.

THE best of these female portraits seem always those we see last-the work improves upon perfection. Parts VII. and VIII. contain some fine pictures. Lady Macbeth is, perhaps, too theatrical a portrait.

Finden's Ports and Harbours of Great Britain. London. Tilt.

PART V. of this magnificent national work, consists of the following subjects:Hull, an exquisite picture; Whitby; Flamborough Head; Hartlepool; and Burlington Quay, admirably finished by Stephenson.

A History of Quadrupeds. By THOMAS BELL, F. R, S., FL. S. London. Van

Voorst.

THE Seventh Part of this elegant scientific work, occupied with the Rodentia, shews that Professor Bell's new functions have not interfered with the spirit and diligence he has hitherto devoted to it.

The Edinburgh New General Atlas of Modern Geography. No. I. Edinburgh, Johnston. Glasgow: Weir, and Lumsden and Co.

THIS is a grand work,- to consist of Fifty-six Maps, imperial size, coloured, in fourteen numbers, embodying all the recent discoveries.

(1)

ASIATIC INTELLIGENCE.

Calcutta.

LAW.

SUPREME COURT, May 10.

Rajah Burrodacaunt Roy and others, v. Bissnoosoonderee Dabee and others. The Court delivered its judgment in this case, which involves an important point in the doctrine of hypothecations.

The Chief Justice.-It appears that two native zemindars, Sreecaunt and Gopeynauth, being in pecuniary distress, in 1795, and their estates being about to be sold by the government for the arrears of revenue, applied to Doorgachurn Mookerjee to procure for them a loan of Rs. 52,000. This sum Nemychurn Mullick, at the instance of Doorgachurn, agreed to advance; Doorgachurn negotiated the whole transaction of the loan by Nemychurn Mullick, and it was agreed that a mortgage of the lands of pergunnah Mullye and the other pergunnahs should be given as a security, and also a bond and warrant to confess judgment. This mortgage and the bond and warrant are dated 17th November, 1795. Nemychurn Mullick advanced the whole Rs. 52,000; but the sum actually paid to Sreecaunt and Gopeynauth was only 44,600; the balance 7,400 was retained by Doorgachurn Mookerjee. On the 16th September, 1796, without any previous demand of payment, judgment was entered upon the warrant; and on the 17th September, the day stipulated for the repaying of the mortgage-money, execution issued, and the mortgaged pergunnah Mullye was, on the 14th November, 1796, sold by the sheriff to Nilimoney Holdar for Rs. 27,800. The sum endorsed on this writ, and which the sheriff was directed to levy, was Rs. 57,893. On the 15th February, 1797, Sreecaunt and Gopeynauth paid to Nemychurn, on account of the balance still remaining due, Rs. 20,000. The sum endorsed on the writ not yet having been satisfied, a second seizure was made of pergunnah Syedpore, property belonging to Sreecaunt and Gopeynauth, but which was not included in the mortgage. The pergunnah was sold for Rs. 40,000, and purchased by Doorgachurn Mookerjee, in the name of Sibchunder Mookerjee. In about three years after, Doorgachurn purchased of Nilmoney Holdar, pergunnah Mullye, at nearly the same price that it was sold for by the sheriff. After the sale of Syed pore, Sreecaunt was thrown into goal, and shortly after his release, in 1801, he died, leaving Bannycaunt his heir, who is alleged to have been at that time about 12 years of age. These facts are not disputed on either side. In 1805, the validity of

Asiat.Journ. N. S. VOL.22. No.85.

these transactions was first questioned, in a bill filed by Bannycaunt and Gopeynauth, against Nemychurn Mullick and Doorgachurn Mookerjee. The bill sets forth the facts; charges a fraudulent contrivance of Doorgachurn, by which he retained the Rs. 7,400, and prays that the defendants may be decreed to come to an account on the footing of the mortgage and monies really lent; that they may pay over the money they have received above the money lent; that the sale of pergunnah Syedpore may be set aside, and that Doorgachurn may pay over the rents and profits received for Syedpore. The answer of Nemychurn Mullick, filed April 1805, alleges that he advanced the whole Rs. 52,000 on the securities stated in the bill and security of Doorgachurn Mookerjee; denies all knowledge of what passed between Doorgachurn and the complainants, and of the tin, lead, &c. ; paid the full amount to Loll Beharry Bonnerjee (Rs. 52,000), by order of complainants, and took his receipt: does not know whether Doorgachurn kept back 7,400; admits Doorgachurn is his intimate friend. The answer of Doorgachurn Mookerjee, filed April 1805, states that he agreed to procure for complainants the loan; admits the whole of the negotiation for the loan carried on by him; denies he ever appeared as principal in the business; admits he procured the money and became security for the repayment; that complainants agreed that Rs. 7,400 should be allowed defendant for becoming security; denies the tin and lead transaction; gave defendant an order on Loll Beharry for Rs. 7,400; denies that Mullye was sold to Nilmoney Holdar on his account; asserts that Nilmoney Holdar was himself the purchaser ; after three years, defendant purchased from Nilmoney Holdar; denies the offer of settlement and 10,000; admits purchase of Syedpore for 40,000; surplus paid to complainants, Interlocutory decree, 19th June, 1806. Master's report, 11th of November, 1807. Final decree, 3d of February, 1808: defendant to pay principal and interest, or 7,400 and 16,527. Defendant to pay to complainant 48,724balance of amount of rents and profits of Syedpore from the time defendant got possession; after deducting 81,625, purchase money and interest, and 68,468 the amount of outstanding debts, defendant to re-convey pergunnah Syedpore. From this decree there was an appeal to the Privy Council, which appeal was dismissed in 1817. Before I proceed to consider the nature of the present suit, I think it better to mention what I conceive to have been decided in the suit relating to Syedpore.

(A)

I think that decree has found that Doorgachurn Mookerjee fraudulently retained the Rs. 47,400, that he fraudulently caused the pergunnah Syed pore to be sold for a debt not really due, in order that he might at an inadequate value become the purchaser. What other conclusion can be drawn from a decree directing him to refund the money, which in his answer he alleged was given to him for becoming security for the rajah to Nemychurn Mullick, and also setting aside a sale by the sheriff, to which, if fraud was not apparent, there was no ground on which its legality could be affected? The conclusion I draw from this decree and the evidence is, that throughout these transactions, Doorgachurn Mookerjee was fraudulently endeavouring to take advantage of the necessitous condition of the rajah, in order to possess himself of both pergunnahs, Mullye and Syedpore, at an inadequate value, and that he was successful in his attempt, and did purchase those pergunnahs at a sum below their value at the time. The appeal being dismissed in 1817, Bannycaunt died on the 27th of February, 1819, and on the 22d of February, 1828, the present bill was filed by Rajah Burrodacaunt Roy, an infant of ten years, by his next friend, against the present defendants. The complainant is the sole surviving heir of the mortgagers of pergunnah Mullye, and files his bill against the representative of Doorgachurn Mookerjee and Nemychurn Mullick. The prayer of this bill is in substance a prayer to redeem the pergunnah Mullye, and to adjust the account arising therefrom between the parties. The real question which arises, on the pleadings and evidence in this suit, is, whether the complainant has a right to redeem his mortgage. Before I enter upon this, I think it is right to state, that I think this case must be decided by Hindoo law, and by that law only. It is true that the instrument, by which this property was conveyed to the ancestor of the Mullicks, is, in form, an English conveyance; but I cannot, in a case between Hindoos only, think the form of the conveyance can regulate the law which is to be applied to the rights of the parties taking under it; and, unless it does, this court must decide between Hindoos according to their own law. The first question then is, what interest did this deed convey to Nemychurn Mullick, according to the Hindoo law? The Hindoo law, applicable to this subject, will be found in the 3d chap. of Mr. Colebrooke's Digest, Title, Pledges, Hypothecation and Mortgages:" "a pledge is called Bundha, and divisable into four kinds, moveable or personal, and fixed or real; for custody only, and for use, unlimited, and limited as to time; with a writ ten contract, and with a verbal attested agreement." Now what species of pledge must the present be considered? It is

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

clear that it is fired or real; also, it is a pledge for use, it being defined, that a thing which is not probably injured by use, is a pledge for use. Is it limited or unlimited as to time? The instruments of mortgage are in form English deeds of lease and release. Now, according to the English law, although a day of payment is fixed, the equity of redemption continues primâ facie open until actual foreclosure. In p. 141 of Colebrooke, the sage subjoins the distinctions respecting the period of the pledge, limited and unlimited,”— unlimited subject to redemption at pleasure, that is, to be released at no specific time; limited to be released at a specific time, In p. 143, examples are given: “a loan is now received by me, and a pledge is given; paying the debt at the close of the year, I will redeem the pledge; else this pledge shall be your absolute property." This is limited as to time. But in case the agreement is in this form: "whenever the debt shall be discharged, then only shall the pledge be released," it is unlimited as to time. The latter is the meaning, I conceive, must be put on this instrument; and consequently, what Nemychurn took under this deed, was a pledge of fixed or real property for an unlimited time. If such is the interest Nemychurn took under these deeds, the next point for consideration is, whether from lapse of time, adverse possession, or the relief already granted by this court, in a suit setting aside the sale of Syedpore, the present complainant is barred of all right of redemption, and that this bill should be dismissed? Now it is clear, according to Hindoo law, that a pledge for use for an unlimited time is never lost to the owner. Thus in p. 185, it is said: "a pledge to be used for an unlimited time is not forfeited, even though unredeemed for a thousand years." The authorities are many in support of this position, in the chapter to which I have referred. In Sir Thomas Strange, 1 vol. 292, who cites as his authority Menu, it is stated prescription runs in other cases, titles being gained by long possession and lost by silent neglect; but his property in a pledge is never lost to the owner by any lapse of time, while it remains as such out of possession." And see also the case of "Parvuttee v. Sooruj," 2 vol. Borradaile's Rep. of Sudder Adawlut of Bombay, where, after a lapse of seventy-five years, it was held, that the heirs of the mortgagor were not barred of their right of redemption, though the property had been re-mortgaged; the zillab judge, Mr. Anderson, holding that the law of mortgage was, that the mortgagor could always recover his proporty on payment of the sum advanced. The Sudder judges, Mr. Romer and Mr. Ironside, confirmed this decree. No mere lapse of time, therefore, would bar the plaintiff's right of redemp

tion. As to any title arising from adverse possession, it is clear that the sale, under the judgment, was invalid, whether the question is to be decided by English or Hindoo law: if by English law, it is clear law here, that an equity of redemption cannot be sold under a fi. fa.; and according to the Hindoo law, it is clear that a pledgee cannot sell or dispose of a pledge for use for an unlimited time, and the sale by the sheriff, under process issued at his suit, cannot give validity to such a sale. I am not quite satisfied on the whole of this evidence, that Nilmoney Holdar was a bona fide purchaser; but, if he was, what title could Doorgachurn gain by adverse possession, or those who claim under him, when he bought with full notice of the pledge, and that the pledgee had no right to sell? Sir Thomas Strange, in 1 vol. 291, says: "it is agreed that a purchaser being privy to the estate being in mortgage at the time, the transfer shall not avail him." In Mr. Macnaghten's translation of a portion of the Metacshara, pp. 201, 207, and also in Colebrooke's Digest, 2 vol. pp. 169, 190, 191, it is laid down that" He who sees his land possessed by a stranger for twenty years, without asserting his right, loses his property;" an exception to this rule is not propounded, except property connected with pledges, boundaries, &c. I do not, therefore, see, according to Hindoo law, what adverse possession there is in the present case that could be a bar to the complainant's claim. But one of the grounds which the Advocate-general mainly relied upon, in answer to this clain, was, that the matter in truth had been adjudicated upon; that the facts were all before the court in the suit which set aside the sale of Syedpore, and that the validity of the sale of Mullye was by that decree, in truth, established. I confess, I have always felt this the most doubtful question in the present case, and I of course feel the force of this objection the more strongly, as, in the opinion of one of the learned judges, it is thought a bar to the complainant's relief: certainly, in that suit, the whole of the facts of this were before the court, and they could have adjudicated upon the right to redeem Mullye, had the complainant sought such relief in his bill. The sale of Syedpore was set aside as unnecessary, as well as being fraudulent, clearly on the ground that, by the sale of Mullye, and the subsequent payment of the Rs. 20,000, the debt due to the mortgagee was satisfied, and on this footing the account between Doorgachurn and the complainant is taken. It is to be observed also, that, on the coming in of Nemychurn's answer, the bill is dismissed as regards him, and no relief is prayed as to Mullye. Does the omission to claim all the relief to which the party was enti

tled in that suit bar his right to relief for what he had omitted to claim, in any subsequent suit instituted for that purpose? In considering this question, I am of course taking it for granted, that he would have had a right to redeem Mullye, had he sought to do so in that suit at that time; I do not understand Mr. Justice Malkin to dispute this position. If the decree of February 1808 has determined the rights of these parties, then it might have been pleaded in bar to this suit: it being clear, that a decree determining the rights of the parties may be pleaded to a new bill for the same matter. Now, on a plea of this nature, so much of the former bill and answer must be set forth as necessary to shew the same point was then in issue. It seems to me that no plea could have been framed that would have been good in argument. The ques tion in the former decree was, the fraud in the sale of Syed pore, not the right of redemption of Mullye. The sale of Syedpore was held invalid, because no debt was due at the time of the sale; it seems to me not to have said that the sale of Mullye was valid, but only that, by that sale, the money had been paid, and therefore, at all events, no debt was due for which the execution could issue; but I do not see how, by any plea or averment, it could appear that, in the former suit, tle right of redemption was abandoned, and the relief now decreed on the ground of such abandonment. If that decree cannot be pleaded in bar, it seems to me that the proceeding in that suit was no answer to the relief claimed in the present. For the reasons I have stated, I am of opinion that this decree must be confirmed. I think it, however, necessary to guard against any erroneous conclusions that might be drawn from the points of Hindoo law, on which I have expressed my opinion. Although lands in the Mofussil, and without the local jurisdiction of this court, pledged by instruments of a nature similar to the present, would, if no degree of foreclosure had taken place, be primâ facie redeemable, and such redemption not generally barred by lapse of time; yet the present decision would not apply to any cases, where the mortgage had been foreclosed by decree; nor do I at present express any opinion here whether the law of redemption of lands in the Mofussil is, in any way, applicable to lands situate within the local jurisdiction of the court; and I am quite clear that it cannot apply to cases where there has been a decree of foreclosure; the court having, by an uniform course of proceeding, held that by decree the right of redemption in cases of pledges by Hin. doos, by instruments of this nature, might

in all cases be barred.

Mr. Justice Grant said that, having delivered his judgment at great length when

« ForrigeFortsæt »