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.
