( ৩৪৬ ) & into, or the work was to be performed, or that of the district wherein the delinquents reside, or to which they may decamp’ y A 2 Such cases may be prosecuted either in the district in which the agreement was executed, or in that in which the defendant resides Calcutta Court, 18th March, Western Court, 27th May, 1842 © No 1330 1841 The following questions relative to the law of appeal in criminal cases, under Act XXVI Act XXXI of 1841, referred by the Session Judge of Tirhoot, were both answered in the negative Y 1st Supposing a party to appeal, the amount of whose punishment clearly gives him that right, can the Session Judge interfere with another sentence in the same case which falls within the limitations prescribed by Sections 8 and 9 Regulation IX 1793 • 2d Supposing the party having an undoubted right to appeal, to fall or neglect to do so, can another party in the same case, whose punishment falls within the limitations specified, be permitted to appeal.” Calcutta Court, 20th March, Western Court, 20th May, 1842 No loël $829 The Judge of Dacca having directed the return of a document written on lieg \ plain paper in order to have a stamp affixed, which the revenue authorities were of opinion did not require a stamp, it was held, on a reference from the former Officer, that as the law vests the revenue local authorities and the Board of Customs, Salt and Opium, with the power of determining points of the kind mooted a deed declared by such authority exempt from stamp duty, must be received by the Courts Were Calcutta Court, 1st April, Western Court, 15th idem, 1842 ψ No ljó2 i84 | 1Ield on a reference from the Session Judge of Sylhet that appeals under Act Αυί Ν Υ ΑΙ XXXI of 1841, are not admissible unless preflrred within one mosth from the date of sentence or order and that in this respect the law leaves no discretion to the appellate authority Calcutta Court, 1st April , Western Court, 28th Idem, 1842 No 1333 ] b•ᎪᎺ The following letter involving a reference as to the proper construction of Αιt 1\ Act IV of 1840, in regard to certain cases of dispossession was addressed by the Officiating Magistrate of Budaon to the Seviou J udge of Bareilly and by him forwarded to the Nizamut Adawlut for the Western Provinces I have the honour to forward for your inspection some cases” of dispossession under Act IV of 1840 All these cases you will observe are disputes between Zemindars and Kutkemadars not for the possession of defined portions of land but for the right of management and collection of rents of estates Having great doubts whether the act was intended to apply to sueh cases I have to request your opinion on the subject I also forward three casest of a like description decided by my predecessor, in which possession has been awarded to the Kutkenadars on the ground of their 1 * Plaintiff, Thansing and another, W. Hurkuru Sing 2 Plaintiffs Motes and others, Vs Poorun Purkar Sing 3 Plaint ffs Ranee Sukhawud, I s Dowlut Sıng 4 Plaintiffs Motee and others, Vs Poorun Purkar Sing
- 1 t Plaintiffs Permanund, J's Gungaram and others
Plaintiff Bukshoolla, and others, Vs Kumalooddeen Plaintiff Sudasookh Lal, Vs, Chowdree Ubdool Allee [গহর্ণমেন্ট গেজেট ১৮৪২ । ১২ জুলাই
