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/ssactsengr0607 and id is 1 raw text is: M. D. A. N. T. BOHOO V. MIRZA J. KUDR [1865] X MOORE IND. APP., 251
equity, is a strong argument that it was not for his interest to do so. He could
only have set aside this purchase by Hickey, Bailey, and Co., on the terms of writing
back the sum for which he had received credit as the proceeds of the sale to them,
and by taking to the shipment to England, with its loss or profit as the case might be.
And there seems to be-no reason why this particular shipment of sixteen bales should
have escaped the common fate which on the evidence we must take to have befallen the
other consignments of silk which were shipped from Calcutta about that time, and
have realized a profit, instead of resulting in heavy loss. It may be added, that the
point is not distinctly taken in the Appellant's case. On the whole, their Lordships
see no sufficient ground for re-opening this account in respect of the item of
Rs. 10,000.
[251] The only remaining question is that of the interest to be allowed. The
Sudder Court, in the exercise of the discretion given to it by Act. No. XXXII. of
1839, has given interest from the date of the commencement of the suit, at the rate
of 12 per centum per annum. There was evidence that the account current between
Hickey, Bailey, and Co. and the Appellant bore interest at the rate of 10 per centum
per annum only; and on that ground the Sudder Court reduced the interest allowed
by the Zillah Judge before the commencement of the suit. Their Lordships are of
opinion, that the same consideration should have determined the rate of interest to
be allowed from the date of suit, and that the amount of this should also be calculated
at 10 per centum per annum.
The order, therefore, which their Lordships propose humbly to recommend to Her
Majesty as proper to be made on this appeal is, that the interest allowed from the
date of suit to the date of payment be reduced by the difference between 12 per
centum and 10 per centum per annum, and that in other respects the decree of the
Sudder Court be affirmed. But having regard to this alteration in the amount
decreed, and to the other circumstances of the case, they will also recommend that
each party do bear his own costs of this appeal.
[252] MULKAH DO ALUM NOWAB TAJDAR BOHOO,-Appellant; MIRZA JEHAN
KUDR, NOWAB MIRZA, ZUMAN ARA BEGUM and RUFAATOONISSA
BEGUM,--Reepondets * [March 3, 4, 1865].
On appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oude.
Lex loci of the Province of Oude.
The principles of law, as well as the rules of procedure of the Punjab Code of
1854, were introduced into Oude in 1856, on its annexation to the British
Crown, to be adopted as the basis of the administration of the law in that
province, and to be applied so far as they appeared to the Judicial Com-
missioners appointed for the administration of justice there not to be un-
suited to the circumstances of the country, except so far, as they were founded
upon local custom, varying the general law, whether Hindoo or Mahomedan,
when the Code was not to be applied to Oude.
The Punjab Code of 1854, cl. 10, sec. VI., declares that: -. By the Hindoo
and Mahomedan law, the dower of a married woman, if not entirely paid
up at the time of marriage, is claimable by her at any subsequent time,
and especially in the event of a divorce. Among Mahomedans it is usual,
as a safeguard against capricious divorces, to stipulate for an amount of
dower far beyond the means of the bridegroom to pay. Such contract, if
enforced by a Court, would ruin a Defendant who has divorced his wife,
without reflecting on the liability to which he was subject. Still, although
* Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-The Right Hon. the Lord Kings-
down, the Right Hon. the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, and the Right Hon. the Lord
Justice Turner. Assessors,-The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel, and the Right Hon.
Sir James W. Colvile.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0607&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)