Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Kopasan vs Shamu And Three Ors. on 25 April, 1884
Equivalent citations: (1883) ILR 7 Mad 440
Bench: C A Turner, Kt., Brandt


JUDGMENT

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Brandt, J.

1. The alleged document, if it were in existence and produced, could not be received in evidence except on payment of a penalty, but it cannot be produced, and there is no provision for levying a penalty. Secondary evidence of the contents of the document cannot, therefore, be admitted–Marine Investment Company v. Hariside L.R. 5 H.L. 624.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

73 queries in 0.366 seconds.