KASIM AHMED JEWA Vs. NARAIN CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a pure question a fact. Their Lordships see no reason to disturb the judgment of the Court from which the appeal is brought.

(2.) It does not appear to their Lordships necessary to go into the affirmative case made by Mr. De Gruyther. It is enough to say that in their Lordships opinion the judgment of the Chief Court of Lower Burma is right, and their Lordships agree with it for the reasons which they have given, and which it is not necessary for their Lordships to repeat.

(3.) With reference to the two clerks, their evidence is not sufficient to support the defendants case. The evidence is extremely weak. They say it is customary to endorse on a promissory note the payments made on account. There is no endorsement on the promissory note, and there is no corroboration of their statement, which is positively denied on the other side.