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/ssactsengr0604 and id is 1 raw text is: MAHOMED B. H. KHAN V. S. N. BEGUM [1860] VIII MOORE IND. APP., 136
him application had first been made for directions by the Captain of the Belleisle,
and he sought advice of the Defendant, accepted the advice which was given in good
faith, and could not have been withheld without breach of duty; and if so, the
character of the act cannot be changed by the change of opinion subsequently mani-
fested, or by the censure whch it was thought right to inflict upon the agent.
This case was disposed of in the Court below in a very learned and elaborate
judgment, to which their Lordships have given the full consideration it deserves,
though they cannot accede to all the conclusions of that judgment. The appeal
has been very ably argued at the Bar; but their Lordships have not thought it
necessary to review and distinguish the many cases cited, either in the judgment of
the Court below or in the argument. It seems to them that when the legal principles
to which they have adverted are applied to the facts of this case, its decision turns
on a very plain and elementary point: it is essential to an action in tort that the
act complained of should, [136] under the circumstances, be legally wrongful as re-
girds thb party complaining; that is, it must prejudicially affect him in some legal
right; merely that it will, however, directly, do him harm in his interests, is not
enough. Cases are of daily' occurrence in which the lawful exercise of a right
operates to the detriment of another, necessarily and directly without being action-
able. The present case appears to their Lordships to be no more, and they will,
therefore, humbly advise Her Majesty that the judgment of the Court below ought
to be reversed, and that the costs of the appeal should be borne by the Respon-
dents.
[Mews' Dig. tit. COLONY, III. APPEALS TO PRIVY COUNCIL, 3. Lea'e to appeal;
tit. TORT. I. GENERALLY. S.C. 13 Moo. P.C. 209; 3 L.T. 160; 9 W.R. 149;
See Palmer v. Hutchinon., 1881, 6 A.C. 623; Mogul S.S. Co. v. McGregor,
1889, 23 Q.B.D. 613; (1892) A.C. 25; Trollope v. London Building Trades
Federation (1895), W.N. 29, 45; Alkn v. Flood (1898) A.C. 1; Leathem, v.
Craig (1899) 2 I.R. 667; affirmed in H.L. s-ub nom. Quinn v. Leathem (1901),
A.C. 495. As to special leave to appeal in civil cases, see note to Rete-
meyer v. Obermzller, 1837, 2 Moo. P.C. at p. 125.]
MAHOMED BAUKER HOOSSAIN KHAN BAHADOOR,-Appellnt; SHURFOON
NISSA BEGUM,-Reapondenta * [Feb. 3 and 4, 1860].
On appeal from the Supreme Court at Madras.
By the Mahomedan law the legitimacy of a child of Mahomedan parents may be
presumed or inferred from circumstances, without any direct proof
either of a marriage between the parents, or of any formal act of legitima.
tion.
In the absence of evidence or circumstances sufficient to found such a presump-
tion, or inference, a claim by a party as. a legitimate son to share in an
intestate's estate dismissed.
The question in this case was one of legitimacy, and related to the right of the
Appellant to three[137]-eighths of the estate of Shasavar Jang Bahadoor, deceased.
The parties were Mahomedans, and inhabitants of Madras, and the Appellant
claimed as the brother of the deceaded. The case of the Respondent, the infant
daughter and only child of Shasavar. Jung Bahadoor, was, that the Appellant was
not his legitimate brother, but was the offspring of a slave girl, brought up by one
* Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-The Right Hon. Lord Kings-
down, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, the Right Hon. Sir Edward
Ryan, the Right Hon. The Lord Justice Turner, and the Right Hon. Sir John Taylor
Coleridge. Assessors,-The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel, and the Right Hon.
Sir James W. Colvile.
P.C. vIII. 481 16](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0604&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)