HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0267 and id is 1 raw text is: RANEE H. DEBIAH V. RAJAH PRAN KISHEN SING [1857] XI MOORE, 152
mination of the appeal. These terms were complied with; but the parties having
compromised, the appeal was not further prosecuted. The Appellant now pre-
sented a petition, praying that the Order granting leave to appeal be dismissed,
and the recognizance vacated.
Mr. Elderton, in support of the petition.-Their Lordships rescinded the Order
granting leave to appeal, and discharged the recognizance entered into on behalf
of the Appellant. The Appellant to apply upon a certificate fron the Council Office
to the Court of Exchequer to vacate the recognizance.
[152] ON APPEAL FROM THE SUDDER DEWANNY ADAWLUT, BENGAL.
RANEE HURROSOONDREE DEBIAH,-A ppellant; RAJAH I'RAN
KISIEN SING,-Resondent * [May 9, 1857].
In circumstances showing conflicting and opposite decisions by the Sudder Court
upon the same question at issue, between the same parties, an appeal treated
under the Statute, 8th and 9th Viet., c. 30, sec. 2, as abandoned for non-
prosecution, was restored upon terms of paying costs and undertaking to
lodge cases forthwith, and to lodge security or a Bond in England, to the
amount of £500.
Where an appeal has been treated as abandoned by Statute, 8th and 9th Viet.,
c. 30, sec. 2, their Lordships have no power to grant leave to institute a new
appeal: only a discretion to allow the original appeal to be restored.
This was a petition to restore, or, in the alternative, to admit a fresh appeal,
which had been treated as abandoned, under Statute, 8th and 9th Vict., c. 30, see. 2,
for non-prosecution within two years. The petition stated that leave to appeal to
England had been granted by the Sudder Court on the 18th of January, 1848, and
that the transcript of the proceedings arrived and was registered at the Council
Office on the 7th of November, 1850. That an. agent had been appointed in England
in the month of May, 1852, and that the agent attended at the Council Office on the
24th of that month, with a view of proceeding with the appeal, and was informed
that the Respondent had appointed agents in this country on his behalf, and that
he immediately put himself in communication with them to join with him in
paying half the expense of printing, when the Respondent's [153] agents informed
him that they had no remittances from India to enable them to do so, but promised
to join when they received sufficient remittances. That the Appellant's agent in
consequence delayed taking a copy of the transcript proceedings till the 3rd of
February, 1853. That the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut of Bengal, on the 12th of
May, 1856, in another suit in which the same question was raised between the same
parties, had held, regarding the family usage as to, the division of the Rai in
dispute, directly in opposition to their decree made in the suit now appealed. That
on learning the result of this decision, the Appellant's agent prepared the transcript
for printing in the month of January, 1857, when he became aware for the first
time, that on the 24th of December previously, the appeal had been treated as aban-
doned under the provisions of the Statute, 8th and 9th Vict., c. 30, sec. 2. That the
Appellant was desirous of prosecuting the appeal and bringing the same to a hear-
ing, and that the delay was caused by no wilful intention; and the Petitioner prayed
that the appeal might be restored, or that special leave to appeal against the judg-
ment of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut might be allowed to the Appellant.
Mr. Wigram, Q.C., in support of the petition, asked for an order for special
leave to appeal.-[The Right Hon. Dr. Lushington: I very much doubt if the appeal
is not lost, under the Statute, 8th and 9th Viet., c. 30, sec. 2, or that it can have been
intended that their Lordships should have power to grant leave to institute a new
* Present: The Right IHon. Lord Wensleydale, the Right HOn. Dr. Lushington,
the Right. HOn. Sir Edward Ryan, and the Right lion. Sir John Dodson.
653](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0267&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)