INDEX OF THE NUMBERS OF THE CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.

ADDENDA.

Page 4 To note (b) add see 1 Bomb. H. C. Rep. 16.'

"

6

note-As to the irrecoverability of interest exceeding principal see 1 Bomb. H. C. Rep. 47 where Sausse, C.J., citing Manu chap. VIII çl. 151, Vyavahára Mayúkha, chap. V, sec. I, Steele's Summary of the Laws and Customs of Hindú Castes, p. 78: Vachespati Micra in 1 Coleb. Dig. 63 and 1 Strange's H. L. 299, observed, "Thus the Rule of Hindú law is simply this, that no greater arrear of interest can be recovered at any one time, than what will amount to the principal sum; but if the principal remain outstanding, and the interest be paid in smaller sums than the amount of the principal money, there is no limit to the amount of interest which may be thus received from time to time."

15 note-see S. A. No. 27 of 1862, explained infra pp. XII, and 446. 21 note (c) insert after (c) 1 DeG. F. & J. 226.'

23 note line 4 after appeal' insert 1 DeG. F. & J. 226.'

line 20 add According to Hamilton v. Mills 29 Beav. 198,
Evans v. Salt cannot now be treated as law.'
27 The decision in this case appears erroneous.
Frauds, like the law of limitation (Ruckmaboye v. Lulloobhoy
The Statute of
Mottichund, 5 Moo. I. A. Ca. 234) or set-off (Macfarlane v.
Norris, 2 B. & S. 783) is a law relating to procedure, having
reference only to the lex fori, Leroux v. Brown 12 C. B. 801 ;
and the Statute of Frauds is as little part of the lex fori in
the Mofussil as it is of that law in France.

45 The first point decided in this case is overruled infra p. 363.
49 note-add " Vyavahára Mayúkha, chap. IV, sec. V, § 25.'
58 note-add Raja Haimun Chull Sing v. Koomer Gunsheam
Sing, 2 Knapp P. C. 211.

62 The decision seems wrong. After 1848 the first defendant's husband had nothing to sell, and the second defendant consequently took nothing under the transaction in 1853. The doctrine of laches is inapplicable.

70 add to NOTE Gossip v. Wright,' 9 Jur. N. S. 592.'

81 add to NOTE

99 add to NOTE

in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.' Now see Act XVIII of 1863.'

101 as to receiving oral evidence, see 4 Moo. I. A. Ca. 441.

To note (a) add 'and see M. S. D. 1860 p. 50 ibid. 1861 pp. 6, 43.'

162 add to NOTE Grell v. Levy, 10 Jur. N. S. 210.'

168 To the report of S. A. No. 53 of 1862 add 'NOTE.-The first point decided in this case was affirmed on 12th March 1864 in S. A. 486 of 1863, present Frere and Holloway, J J.'

182 add to NOTE The adopted son inherits to his collateral as well as his direct relations by adoption. Sumboochunder Chowdry v. Narraini Dibeh, 3 Knapp P. C. 55.'

,, 183 add to line 13: He observed "that in two reported decisions of the Sadr Díwáni 'Adálat of Calcutta, suits on adjustments supported by oral evidence were not sustained,"