‘PARSEE miÉST' BPAIåTÆRI. , ®; 0 I Sip------------------------pT3- *• ’S 'fe?***-. , • ■ 1 J- • * em ; - g? a iw FULL REPORT GE TI1E SELåjfr jff^ mPH ijsW " r* i V \ ISjW" |j|gyg*jK; v . åt ajT JOJ#f-HEii^ORA'B}feEy MAI>HN Mj ■■ P® 1 I I \å IPBBPWWBBMIW ....., . i ^p^ES|Y’S:. oopJ:# bommt, ': / l i 'V**' r<'2. T F^hI Nd^ofe^sJH^jpooRJi-:: ,* .| jj ieiiaiLiifi^iføsruj .^.vportt-i-nr-oj a i Ær 1 • a m| i a li ■ ilH f! i a : Jjfcorat«n»’t-- _ | |;|| •, ., i JRFIr jrx . M.»n*y 1 , "'jL' HMÉtt ffr mlW :• '(Stf*'"*1'- *'•' V' * . ' • --' p'.W- , ;•/ §yf ± ' ‘ . ■ . . H y iJBSPB* % *fc ■■ •*• • 18 -, -~~r- $ i -i&h ■^HHB|; ■ 1111 SÉM TEE PRIEST DEFAMiTIOl-f .CASE FULL REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF JAMSÉTJEE JSORABJEE MADCftf IN AJESTY’S HIGH COUR^ AT BOMBAY, FOE DEFAMING O VWKGJEE SHAPOORJEE SUMA&A: [From verbatim Notes of the Shorthand Reporters of the cc Bombay Gazette.3*] 93omtag: PUBLISHED BY DORABJEB EDFLJEE TATA, 1870. INDE#. --------y Pbeface............................. \ Indictment.............................................................. m ^ ^ * J&K 1 he Case for the Persecution ...................... ....................... ^ Mr. McCulloch^ opening Speech ........................................ 7 Evidence of Sorabjee Cursetjee ................,................5 14 __ o ^ The Letter containing the Libel.... o* *..............................16 Evidence of Merwanjee Manockjee SeJ^a................................. 3 22 ,/ * HorLmsjee Bomanjee Wadi^^............................. 26 „ 9 Sorabjee ^hapoorj§e Bengalee) .................. 35 •Nowrojee Furdoonjee...................................... 38 stoor Peshutonjee Byramjee SunjanaX*.............^..... 39 Cow^^jQaf Bhiccajee Massanee .............................. 48 Nowctfjee Shapoorjee £Jgnjana, the Prosecutor ............ 49 The Case for the Defence ......................................-........... 60 ‘ ^£5i Mr. Serjeant Atkinson^s Speech ....................................... 60' Evidence of Papajee................................................... 64 „ Nowrojee Hormusjee Dl^odie............................ 76 „ Mahaboob ............................................. 78 „ 1 Rustomjee Sorabjee .„!................................ 83 G-oolam Ahmed ........................................... 84 Case in Rebfttal.......................................;................... 90 Evidence of Rustomj ee Ruttonj ee Attia............................... 90 t „ Bduljee Manockjee Daboo............................... 95 „ Ruttonjee Pestonjee .................................. 99 • • „ Shapoorjee Cursetjee ............................... 101 iv INDEX. Page ByfdeixCv'of LJaba Sooba ................................................ 102 „ Salem Mahomed Ismail ....................................... 105 „ *R. Wain^right..............................................! 108 „ Me^rwanjee MaA ockjee Bhangreewalla .......................... Ill „ Ismail IJ-ussool '., ,...................................../..... 116 „ Burjorjee Byramjee.......................................... 121 „ Hormusjee Shapoorjee Powree ................,.................... 123 „ Dinshaw Shapoorjee ......................................... 124 „ Nowrojee Shapooijee Sunjana recalled........................ 126 3> Papajee recalled ......................*.................... 127 The AIvLess for the Defence ...................................... 127 The Reply for the Prosecution .................................*.............. 138 Tlie Judge's' Charge.......................................................... 154 The Verdict ............................................................177 Leave to file an ...... ...............C..........v........ Sentence..........*...... — M —. ...........................* ..*....y?....... 178' PREFACE. An extraordinary trial for libel,, in which it' Iras attempted to lower the reputa- tion of a Parsee priest, took place in Her Majesty^ High Court of Judicature at Bombay in November 1869. The circumstances which gave rise to it« were briefly these. -• On the occasion of the funeral obsequies of the late Mr. Maneckjee Merwanjee Setna, who died in the month of May 1869, his eldest son,'■•Mr. Merwanjee Maneckjee Setna, set apart out of his immense wealth the sue). . of Es. 5,000 for charitable purposes. The main object of- this benefaction was to create a fund to be thereafter applied to the in aintenaKt^of * the office of High Priest of the Parsees of Bombay. Mr. Merwanjee Setna considered that this high office had not been held by any generally recog- nized priest since the death of Dustoor Eduljee Darabjee Sunjana, who had been elected to the post by the whole community of Parsees of Bombay, * The subject, having b^en freely discussed in pi&^c prints, attracted the attention of Mr.* Cowasj.ee Jehangeer Re&dymoney^ who thereupon submitted aNs^morandum for the consideration of the leading members of the Parsee ccfemunity/e^jjessing his approval of the measure ihk|Q far as regards the appointment or election of a High Priest, but refusing to assent to the raising of a fund for the maintenance of the office, its emoluments being, he considered, already very large and needing no increase. Moreover, he was firmly of opinion, that, considering the character of the priesthood generally, such a fund would only induce them to be lazy and to disregard the sacred duty of their calling; whereas if they were left to their own resources, the public would have the benefit of their services. Before proceeding further, it should be mentioned that in every large community of Parsees there is usually ohe priest who is acknowledged as Dustoor, or head of the priesthood. On the death of the last Dustoor, his successor happening to be an infant, the office remained in abeyance; and in the meantime anothér priest, a member of the Jamasp Assa family, who had settled in Bombay, was setaip as a Dustoor by a few of his friends. When the successor of +he late arch-priest came of age, he was recognized by a large majority of the Parsees to be the Dustoor of Bombay, though the friends of the Dustoor from, Nowsaree had continued to acknowledge him, and now acknowledge his successor, as their spiritual head. Up to last year vi PREFACE. there wr.s (\lo mm'fest ill-will between tlie two rival Dusfcoors or their respective partis ans. "Biit ike agitation caused by Mr. Merwånjee Maneckjee Setnaand Mr. Co vasjee Jehangeer Readymoney, led the leading members of the Parsee cormmftiity* to consider the advisability of recognizing one or other of the Dustoora. Several ] private meetings of* a few leading -Parsees , were held at Mazagon Cattle, and though the details did not transpire, it was well known that the feeling expressed there and that of the public generally wa#s in ftivour of Dustoor Peshutonjee Byramjee Sunjana, and that Dustoor Jamaspjee Muncherjee Jamasp Assana had little or no chance of obtaining the jiead office. The friends of the latter then began to be alarmed, and, in >rder to lower the rival priest in the estimation of the public, disseminated various false reports affecting his character. A good*cause is often harmed by the imprudence of some of its supporters. So in this matter, some injudicious friend of the Sunjana family,*under the signature of P. E. P. (A Religionist), published^ letter in the* Yezdanperest of the 5th August 1869, charging Khoarshedjee Jamsetjee, a mobed.in the PatelFs Agiary in Poona, and a near relative of the Jamasp Assa family, with . irreligion, in having maijjied a woman who was not* a Parsee, and asserting that ^ the consequence of ttøit marriage had*been his excommunication at Nowsaree, The letter container1 ^ff*extract lo that effect from a pamphletjpaiblished in , 1862, an& purposing to give a history of the Jamasp As^vfamily. Jj} is very < much to be deplored that such a charge was made, \nough not n^acjp by any one connected with the Sunjana family, or with their knowledge or consent, but by some indiscreet friend of theirs. This letter seems to have aroused the indignation of a partizan of the Jamasp Assa family, who, carried away by ur^due zeal, published a letter in the Sunday Review of the 15th August 1869, under the somewhat long signature of (cc The Spear that drives out the unknown contrivances of the wild Sunjarias’’), which constituted the libel complained of in Court* The gist of the libel was that Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, the brother of Dustoor Peshutonjee Sunjana, some fifteen years ago, had kept a prostitute at Wassind, had children by her, and that he had taken food prepared by a Mahomedan cook,—charges grossly libellous as regards the office Qf a Parsee priest, (vide pages 16 to 19 of the Report). ^ On the publication of this scandalous libel, Mr. Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, considering the low character, position, and limited circulation of the paper, intended to take no notice of the scurrilous letter. But a few ofPEEFACE. YU his friends, among3t them two or three men of position. actøseÆ him to pro-' secute the libeller, notwithstanding the comparati/e. obscuri^ of the news- paper which circulated "the libel; and being suspended fiom oflB.ce by his brother, the High Priest, he had no choice left but to proceed with the matter criminally. The preliminary inquiry having been conducted in the Police Court, the case was committed to the Sessions, Thes^ pages pourtray the trial at full length, for which the compiler is indebted to the two European - shorthand Reporters of the Bombay Gazette, Messrs. J. Faichiiey a^ad J. Smith. The result of the tri&l, after a patient and protracted inquiry before the present Chief Justice, the Honourable Sir Michael R. Westropp, Knight, and a Common Jury, was that the prisoner, Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun, was sen- tenced to nine months* simple imprisonment on the criminal side, an^ a fine of two thousand Rupees, with an alternative of six months* further imprison- ment. * The learned Judge, in pronouncing sentence, passed severe strictures on - the conduct of the prisoner. In the course of his observations, his Lord- , ship said:—“You have charged Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana with acts which, if he were guilty of them, would ruin him in his profession of priest, and you must^have been perfectly well aware that that tv ^uld have been the * result if those char^^which you made were true. You ^id your utmost that they ^sljould" be believed. You have not shown the slightest tinge of remorse for your conduct. You persisted in an attempt to justify that libel, and to prove that it was true, and you have greatly enhanced your guilt by suborning at least three witnesses to come forward here and swear to tire- truth of that which was utterly false. As an example to all who may be disposed to follow your steps, I sentence you to be imprisoned for nine months, and further to be fined Rs. 2,000, and in default of payment of that sum you undergo a further period of imprisonment for six calendar months. The imprisonment will be simple imprisonment, as the law does not admit of rigorous imprisonment. I wish to add that I think the proprietor of the newspaper who opened his columns to such a letter as that which this man has been found guilty of publishing, has in a great measure shared the discredit attaching to the publication of such a letter.** The result of the trial, therefore, has been that Mr. Nowrojee and the Sunjana family have not only been able to clear themselves of the blot that was cast upon their character, but have earned a public reputation for purity of conduct in following their profession, and their claim upon the respect of Vill PREFACE. ■ tlieir supporters ij..'ow greater than ever. It is not for the compiler to say in what light th3 opposite party—that of Jamasp Assana—appears before the public. If an instance of the unseemly exhibition that party has made were required, it ^ould be found in the evidence of the courtezan Papajee, who confessed to the amazement of all Zoroastrians that she wa*s kept in Poona in Hegrabajg, a bungalow belonging to Khan Bahadoor Dustoor Nusserwanjee Jamaspjee Jamasp Assana, a near relative of Dustoor Jamaspjee M^nchéVjee Jamasp Assana, of Bombay. This statement has not been con- tradicted up to this day, though it so seriously compromises the character of the Dustoor of Poona. And while in Bombay, Papajee was lodged in a bungalow at Parell, which was previous to the trial in the occupation of •Dustoor Jamaspjee Muncherjee Jamasp Assana, of Bombay, and his friends ! ' Agctin,. Dustoor Jamaspjee Muncherjee Jamasp Assana occasionally visited the Court while the trial was going on, ohus manifesting the interest he took in the matter. Against the conviction and punishment of the prisoner, Jamsetjee Sorab- jee Madun, a petition signed, not by any leading members of the Parsee com-' munity, but by Nusserwanjee Ardaseer Cursetjee^Wadia, Dustoor Jamaspjee * M.uncherjee Jamasp Assana, Jaffer Sulliman, Cursetjee Bajunjee Dustoor, Muncherjee Hormrgjee Cama, *Meeajee Ahmedbhoy, Ardaseer Dosabhoy Moonshee, Munc^jrjee Bomanjee Punthuckee, Dhunjeebnoy Framjee Patell, • and .several others, was presented to Government, praying fcw xnercy on behalf of the convict. Considering, however, the circumstances disclosed at the trial, and the remarks of the learned Judge who presided, Government lemsed to interfere with the just and appropriate sentence of the High Court. For this information the compiler is indebted +.0 the columns of the well- informed Bombay Gazette newspaper. The trial, which lasted five day», seemed to excite considerable interest, as crowds of Parsees daily thronged in Court to witness the proceedings; so much so, that on one occasion an "unpleasant encounter occurred between some spectators and the Sheriffs officers, which led to a separate complaint before the learned Judge, who, however, after hearing the evidence on both sides, dismissed the case for want of satisfactory evidence. v w Bombay, June 1870. DORABJEE ED.ULJEE TATA. THE PARSEE PRIEST DEFAMATION CASE. Full Report of the Trial. (By the Reporters of the “ Bombay. Gazette.” ) At tlie Bombay Criminal Sessions, held on 24th November* 1869, before the Honourable Mr. Justice Westropp, JamSetjee Sorabjee Madun was friaced at the bar charged with having published* a l^bel against Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana. Mr. McCulloch and Mr. Starling (instructed by Messrs. Dallas and ■Xo.) were Counsel for the prosecution; Mr. Serjeant Atkinson and Mr. Perozshaw Merwanjee Mehta (instructed by Mr. Pestonjee Dinshaw) for the defence. On the case being called, and the defendant answering to his name, Mr. Serjeant Afåi^ison made an application that the accused should not be reqs^d to go into'The dock, but should be allowed to sit behind his Counsel, so as to give instructions during the trial. The Judge granted the application. The Clerk of the Crown then read the charges to the accused. The following was the INDICTMENT. First.—For that he, on or about the 15th day of August, in the Christian year 1869, and within the jurisdiction of the 1. With intent t° harm the re- High Court of Judicature at Bombay, with putation oi prosecutor, published, . ° ^ &c. that he kept a prostitute. intent to harm the reputation of one Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, by words intended to be read (to wit> by means of a certain letter caused by him to be inserted and published in a certain Gujarati newspaper called the “ Sunday Review/* which appeared and was published on or about the 15th day of August aforesaid), made and published an imputation concerning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana (to wit, that the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana had theretofore kept a prostitute) against the form of the Indian Penal Code, iii such case made and provided. 1 p c Scconcl.--}. Lo, for that lie, the said Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun, on the . day and year aforesaid, and within the jurisdic- 2- With intent, ^c., published, tion aforesaid,with intent to harm the reputation &c. that prosecutor had begotten „ • i -kt oi ^ • i sons and daughter «by a. certain *of tlie said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, by prostitute whom he had kept. words intended to be read (to wit, by means of the said letter so caused to be inserted and published byjiim as aforesaid), ‘made and published an imputation concerning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana (to wit, that the said Nowrojee Sha- poorjfre Sunjana theretofore had begotten sons and daughters by a certain prostitute whom he had kept) against the form of the Indian Penal Code, in such case made and provided, Thirél.—Also, for that he, the said Jamsetjee Sorabjes Madun, on the day and year first aforesaid, and within the jurisdic- 3. With intent, published, tion aforesaid, with intent to harm the reputation &c. thfft*prosecutor had know- of the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, by iusrlv an,I willingly partaken of ^ tended to be read (to wit, by means of meais prepared by a Alussaiman . co8k. the said letter so caused to be inserted and published by him as aforesaid), made and pub- lished an imputation on the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana (tø wit, that the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana theretofore had knowingly and willingly* partaker» of meals prepared by a ]\J us Oilman co*>k) against the form of tht Andian Penal Code, in such case made and provided. Fourth.—Ak/o, for that he, the said Jamsetjee Sorabje^ Hadun, on the day v and year aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction 4. With intent, &c., published, aforesaid, with intent to harm t^c reputation S»Udrenabrg^Ub"him rf'S of tlle ,sakl Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, by womb of a prostitute, and while words intended to be read (to wit, by means of keeping such children had per- ^ ga‘c| }e^er so caugec[ to be inserted and pub- lorineil the ceremony oi navjod. ... . lished by him as aforesaid), made and published fin imputation on the said Nowrojee Shapoorjeø Sunjana (to wit, that the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana theretofore had kept children begotten by him of the womb of a prostitute, and while keeping such children had performed the ceremony of navjod) against the form of the Indian Penal Code, in such case made and provided. Fifth,—Also, for that he, the 3aid Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun, on the day and year aforesaid, and within .the juris die- &c5' tha? prosecutor" had^feet tion aforesaid, with intent to harm the repute- guilty of such conduct, as a Par- tion of the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, * word, intended to be re*d (to wit, by X». municated by the other Parsee of the said letter so causewd to be inserted and mobeds or priests. published as aforesaid), made and published an imputation concerning the said I^owrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana (to wit, that the said Nowrojeee Sliapoorjee Sunjana liad theretofore been p"a\ty suoli con- duct, as a Parsed mobed or priest, as would render him liable to be excom- municated by, the other Parsee mobeds or priests) against the form of the Indian Penal Code, in such case made and provided. Sixth—Also, for that he, the said Jamsetjee Sorabjeo Madun, on the day and year aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction 6. With intent, &c., published, aforesaid, with intent #to harm the reputation &c. the letter as sut forth in the . n • on - • a i body of the count. of the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee bunjana, by words intended to be read (to wit, by métms q£ the said letter so caused to be inserted and published as aforesaid), made and published an imputation Concerning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, in the words and to the effect following;—that is to say : Further (he) writes that about fifteen years ago a member of the very same (Assa) family, named Khoarshedjee Jamsetjee, who is now acting as a mobed in tl?e PatelPs Agiary in Poona, was married to a girl of the* womb of a woman of a «different religion, in consequence whereof he (Khoarshedjee) was excommunicated by the mobeds of Nowsari, By writing this insensible (remark) in this manner,, he has endeavoured to lower the character of the aforesaid offenceless family* We say, that should that story be true the aforesaid Khoarshedjee has not 'Hone so knowingly, but he has done it under the influence of the symbols, or the usage and pm?tice, of the* Zoroast/ians. Kow we know that as the above writer has endeavoured to do good to himself by talking disparagingly of that poor family, he is in the same way ashamed to expose the truth respect- ing the Sunjana family* J>ut (people) like Peshutonjee could no* have fotgotter^ that about Jive years ago^^on the first day of the Gåtha, a Parsee, named Burjorjee Pestonjee, performed the nayjod (ceremony) of his two sons in the atashbeheram (fire-temple) of the Wadiajee, in which nayjod ceremony Peshutonjee removed his panthaki (family priest)., and performed that cere- mony in company with his own brother Nowrojee (meaning thereby the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjanc*), in consequence of which the said panthaki (family priest) .spoke in a loud voice at that very place as follows: “ What an oppression (this) is! while the aforesaid Nowrojee” (meaning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana) “ was carrying on the ‘ contract work* at the village of Wassind, he kept a prostitute ; he got sons and daughters by her, partook of meals prepared by a Mussalman cook; and further,, he comes here to the fire-temple, puts on the appearance of a dustoor, and deprives me of my right. What! is he to keep children born by the womb of a pros- titute, and perform the ceremony of nayjod ? and am I a panthaki (family priest) not to perform it V9 and so forth. In consequence of his saying' so in that assembly, Peshutonjee, while reading the third chapter of the patet (prayer) with his very pure dustoor Nowrojee (meaning thereby the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana), got up and went and sat on a hindoora (seat) that was there for performing ceremony, aud* lamented over that blemish !!!4 A detailed accourt thereof ought to have been made known by the above writer for the information of his readers. Now, should thi^ story be true, it throws a great deal of reflection on our community, because daughters born of the womb of such unworthy (persons) would live in the ways of those who are under the influence, produced by sucking her milk, and carry on the pro- fession of a prostitute, and they would, at the same time, be considered as tøie progeny of—--------!! This is not a trifling matter;—against the form of the Indian Penal Code, in such case made and provided. • Seventh*—Also, for that he, the said Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun, on the day and year aforesaid, and within the juris- 7. Having reason to believe *.• n 'it • i -i t x-i - that the imputation would harm dlctl0IL aforesaid, having reason to believe that the reputation of prosecutor, pub- the imputation in this count hereinafter men- lished, &c. that prosecutor kept a tioned h & reputation of the said prostitute. .... Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, by words intend- ed to fc&4*ead (to wit, by means of the said letter so caused to be inserted and published as aforesaid), made and published an imputation concerning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana (to wit, that the said Nowrojee Shapoor- jee Sunjana had theretofore kept a prostitute) against the form of the Indian Penal Code, in such case made and provided. Eighth.—Also, for that he, the said Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun, on the day and year aforesaid, and within the juris- ' 8. Having reason to believe. r * i i • ' ± i r j. &c„ published, &c. that prosecu- d,ctl0n aforesaid, having reason to believe that tor had knowingly and willingly the imputation in this count hereinafter men- Mus^alman^cook^ prepaie(i a tioned would harmj;he' reputation of the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, by words intend- ed to be read (to wit, by means of the said letter so caused to be inserted and published as aforesaid), made and published an imputation concerning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana (to wit, that the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana theretofore had knowingly and willingly partaken of meals prepared by a Mussalman cook) against the form of the Indian Penal Code, in such case made and provided. Ninth.—Also, for that he, the said Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun, on the . day and year aforesaid, and within the juris- 9. Having reason to believe, , " . n 1 v &c., published, &c., that prosecu- diction aforesaid, having reason to believe tor had kept children begotten that imputation in this count hereinafter titute™ and whileTeepi^ S mentioned would harm the reputation of the said children had performed the cere- Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana,bywords intend- mony of navjod. ^ ^ read (to wit, by means of the said letter so caused to be inserted and published as aforesaid), made and published an imputation concerning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana (to wit, that the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana theretofore had kept children begot- ten by him of the womb of a prostitute, and while keeping such children5 had performed the ceremony of navjod) against the forir/cf the' Indian Penal' Code, in such case made and provided. Tenth.—Also, for that he, the said Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun, on the day and y ear * aforesaid, and within the juris- &cl0pubXl l“atprobSecutoe; dictiou aforesaid, having reason to believe that had begotten sons and daughters the imputation in this count hereinafter men- had\ept;tam l3r0.st*tute 'vllom tioned would harm* the reputation of the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, by words in* tended to be read (to wit, by the said letter so caused to be inserted «and published as aforesaid), made and published an imputation concerning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana (to wit, that the said* Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana theretofore had begotten sons and daughters by a certain prostitute whom be had kept) against the form of the Indian Penal Code, in such case made and provided. Eleventh.—Also, for that he, the said Jamsetjee Sorabjee Maclun, on the . * day and «rear aforesaid, and within the juris- 11. Having reason to believe, n , . j -i t ,1 , &c., published, &c. that the pro- diction aforesaid, having reason to believe, tjiat secutor had been guilty of such the imputation in this count hereinafter ruen- qonduct. 'as a Parsee mobed or .. ,1 , „ ±1 priest, as would render him liable tloned would harm the reputation of the said to be excommunicated by the Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, by words intend- othei mobeds or pTiest*,. (to wit, by the said letter so caused to be inserted and published as aforesaid), made and published an imputa- tion concerning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana (to wit, that the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana theretofore had been guilty «of such conduct, as a Parsee mobed or priest, as would render him liable to be excommunicated by the other mobeds or priests) against the form of the Indian Penal Cod^ in such case made and provided. Twelfth.—And also, that he, the said Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun, on the day and year aforesaid, and, within the jurisdiction aforesaid, having reason to believe that the imputation in this count hereinafter mentioned would harpi the reputation of the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, by words intended to be read (to wit, by means of the said letter so caused to be inserted and published as aforesaid), made and published an imputation con- cerning the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana in the words and to the effect following;—that is to say: Further (i.e) writes that about fifteen years ago a member of the very same (Assa) family, named Khoarshedjee Jamsetjee, who is now acting as a mobed in the PatelFs Agiary in Poona, was married to a girl of the womb of a woman of a different religion, in consequence whereof he (Khoarshedjee) was excommunicated by the mobeds of Nowsari. By writing this irisensible (remark) in this manner, he has endeavoured to lower the character of the aforesaid offenceless family. We say, that should that story be true the aforesaid Khoarshedjee has not done so knowingly,r but he has- done;it tfi^der the influence of the symbol or the usage and prac* tice, of the Zoroastrians. I^ow we know that, as the above writer has endea- voured to do good to himself by talking disparagingly of that poor family, he is in the same way ashamed tp expose the truth respecting the Sunjpna family : but (people) like Peshutonjee could not have forgotten that about five years ago, on the first* day of the Gåthå, a Parsee, named Burjorjee Péstonjee, performed the n^vjod (ceremony) of his two sons in the atashbeheram (fire- temple) of the Wadiajee, in which navjod ceremony Peshutonjee removed his panthaki (family priest), and performed that ceremony in company with his own brother Nowrojee (meaning thereby the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana), in consequence of which the said panthaki (family priest) spoke in a loud voice at that very place as follows : “ What an oppression (this) is! while the aforesaid Nowrojee(meaning thereby the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana^ u was carrying on the e contract wcrk9 at the village of Wastind^he kept a prostitute; he got sons and daughters by her, partook of meals prepared by a Mussalman cook * and further, he comes here to the- fire-t$mple, puts on the appearance «of a dustoor,» and deprives me of my righff. What!. is he to keep children born by the womb of a prostitute,, and perform this ceremony of navjod ? and am I a panthaki (family ^ priest) not to perform it ? ” and so forth. In consequence of his saying so in that assembly, Peshutonjee, while reading the third chapter of the patefc (prayer) with his very pure dustoor Nowrojee (meaning thereby the said* Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana), gc& up and went and sat on a hindoora (seat) that was t^.ere for performing ceremony, and lamented over that blemish !!! A detailed accoufit thereof ought to have been made known by the above writer for the information of his readers. Now, should this story be true, it throws a great deal of reflection on our community, because daughters born of the womb of such unworthy (persons) would live in the ways of those who are under the influence, produced by sucking her milk, and carry on the pro- fession of a prostitute, and they would, at the same time, be considered as the progeny of—;----!! This is not a trifling malter;—against the form of the Indian Penal Code, in such .case made and provided. The accused pleaded not guilty; and the following jury was then sworn for the trial of the case :— Mr. Charles Banks, Foreman. „ George Remington, „ Fredrick George Lear, ,, Alfred Haveliar, „ Thomas Randall, „ George Brooks, Mr. Francis Ramos, ,, Charles Powell, ,, Gemimano De Souza, ,, Jamsetjee Nusserwanjee Tata, „ Bhasker Bapoo Joshi, „ Ramchunder Jagoonathjee. The charges were then formally read over to the jury, and the case pro- ceeded to trial. oTHE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. Mr. McCulloch opened tlie case for the prosecution, and, in doing so, said : May it please your Lordship and Gentlemen of *the J*iiry,—The accused is charged, as you have just heard, with having published a libel against the prosec-utbr in this case, who is a Parsee priest. But before I mention to you what are the facts of the case, and read the libel tq you and com- ment on it, it would perhaps be as well that I should very shortly state what is the position of Parsee priests, and explain the arrangements with reference to them in the Parsee community. It appears that in the Parsee community the priesthoo^d is hereditary—men are born priests ; but it does not follow that they exercise the function of priests, that is left to the discretion of each man: he may, if he likes, dedicate himself to the priestly office, or enter into trade like«any ordinary man. Having done the latter, he may, if he so choose, revert to the priesthood ; but when he has engaged inr tra&e it is necessary, before he can revert to the priesthood and exercise priestly func- tions, that he should go through certain ceremonies, and after performing these it is open to him to recommence his priestly functions, in the same *way as if he had never left the priesthood. The» priests are divided into three • classes : there are mobeds or priests who perform external services; mobeds ^ who perform in-door or more sacred ceremonies; and then there is a third c?lass—dustoors, or high priests—of whom there is one in each large community of Parsees, such as in Bombay and Surat. * In every large community of Par- sees there is usually one priest who is acknowledged as the head of t»he priest- hood, as the high priest or dustoor. Up to a period some twenty-four years ago that was the case in Bombay. But on the dustoor* s death—the member of his family who would naturally have succeeded him being an infant—the* office remained in abeyance, and was not actively assumed by any other person. In the meantime, another dustoor from Surat came to Bombay, and was ac- knowledged by some as dustoor. When the son of the late dustoor grew up, his friends considered him to be dustoor, so that since that time there have been two dustoors in Bombay—the friends ox the son of the late dustoor still regarding him as the dustoor of Bombay. Still, that circumstance has not been attended with any ill-will. Each side continued to recognize its own dustoor until last year, when it seems the leading gentlemen of the Parsee community thought it advisable to hate only one recognized dustoor; and in the course of this year there has been a little movement among the com- munity with reference to the recognition of one or other, and, as may be supposed, each party has taken steps to advance the claims of the dustoor it supports. They, themselves, have not been particularly active, but their friends have taken^it up, and a considerable discussion has been going on as to which of these gentlemen should be the recognized dustoor. These two rival dustoors, if I may so call them, belong to different families,—the Sun- jana and the Jamasp Assa family,—and in consequence of these dissensions8 and diffefenc£sr‘ol*opinion in tlie community, it seems there has been some correspondence in the native newspapers about these gentlenfen; and as in all these questions it often happens with partizans, it seems somebody— with whom 1 am instructed to say the Sunjana family have no connec- tion, but some one who appears to have been an injudicious friend—insert- ed a letter in the papers, in which he asserted—rightly or wrongly" I don't say—that one of the opposite side had married a lady who was not a Parsee, ^nd that the consequence of that marriage had been his excommunication at IJJowsftri. It seems to have been a pity that such a charge was made, but it was made; and it was made, not by the Sunjana family, or by any member of that family; nor with their knowledge or sanction,,but by some injudicious friend. It was stated in that letter that a member of the Jamasp Assa family had married a lady not of the Parsee sect. This allegation aroused a partizan of that family, and he was so indignant that?, instead of writing to tlie papers to say it was a pity such,personal matters should be introduced, he, unfortunately, was led by his indignation to write and publish in a native newspaper the letter which constitutes this libel: and I will now read to yoti the letter which he, under the influence of his excessive indignation, considered himself justified in writing. I must mention, that the gentleman with regard to whom this libel is published is the brother of the Sunjana dus- ’ toor, and he is also a priest,—a man who at one period of his life appears to have been engaged in trade as a contractor at Wassind, but who reverted to the priesthood, went through the hecessary ceremonies, was re-admitted to the priestly office, wand has for the last fourteen years been assisting* his brother in one of the large fire-temples in Bombay, during whjch time not a single word has been uttered against him until this letter was published. On the 15th Xugust last this letter was published, and with regard to that there will be no technical difficulty of proof; for it appears that the editor of the paper, when he read the letter, naturally felt that it was a singularly daring charge, the publication of which would lead to some proceedings being taken; and as he would not take the liability, he insisted on the author writing a letter acknowledging the authorship, and agreeing to take the responsibility of the publication. That letter will be put in evidence, and the editor will tell you the prisoner is the person who wrote and published the libel. That is not disputed, and there will be no question regarding it. Here is the letter. There is a previous part of it argumentative and of no consequence : but then the writer goes on to comment on the letter which some one had written as to the lady not being a Parsee. The letter says :— “What an oppression (this) is ! while the aforesaid ISFowrojefe” (meaning the saidNowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana) “ was carrying on the f contract work9 at the village of Wassind, he kept a prostitute; he got sons and daughters by her, partook of meals prepared by a Mussalman cook; and further, he comes here to the fire-temple, puts on the appearance of a dustoor, and deprives me of my right. What ! is he to keep children born by the9 womb of a prostitute, and perform the ceremony of navjod ? aftd anf I a pan- thaki (family priest) not to perform it ? ** and so forth. In consequence of his saying so in that assembly, Peshutonjee, while reading the third chapter of the patet (prayer) with his very pure dustoor Nowrojee (meaning thereby the said Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana), got up and went and sat on a hin- doora (seat) that was there for performing ceremony, and lamented over that blemish!!! A detailed account thereof ought to have been made known by the above writer for the information of his readers. Now, should this story be frrue, it throws a great deal of reflection on our community, because daughters born of the womb of such unworthy (persons) would live in the ways of those who are ui^der the influence produced by sucking her milk, and carry on the profession of a prostitute, and they would, at the same time, be considered as the progeny of——-!! This is not a trifling matter.** Now, gentlemen, that is the letter which the accused published concern- ing this priest, and yon will see* from tkat with what he chargesITim. He says, that at a ceremony which took plarø about five years ago, prosecutor was accused publicly in the temple, when he was performing his duties th«i;e as a priest, of having kept a prostitute, and of having had children by her, and naving polluted himself by eating food cooked by a Makomedan 4 cook : and with regard to these charges, even if they stood without 'any explanation, you would see they are charges which, as against a priest of any ‘community, are libellous, That they are not intended as a joke is clear from this letter. There is no pretence that^ it is a jocular reference : the author himself says that it is not; for h^ says, “ This is no trifling matter. ** _3.nd, in addition to that, we will call before you some of the most respectable of the Parsee community,—gentlemen who are , probably very well known to you as distinguished members of the community,— and they will tell you that these are undoubtedly grave charges as against a priest, and that in their community they do not treat as a joke or a trifling matter the fact that a man had been in the habit of consorting with a prostitute or eating food prepared by a ilahomedan cook. Now I could understand hearing some one say, “ Oh! what does it matter who cooked the food : ** but we are not to look at this matter from our standard, but from the point of view of the community to which this prosecutor belongs, and especially of the elder members of that community. I believe .some of our witnesses, who are of high education, will tell you they don*t think much of that charge as to the food, and that it would not hurt the prosecutor very much in their estimation: but they will tell you that though they personally entertain that enlightened idea many in the community do not, and that when such a charge is made the priest would be suspended. And the result, from the evidence of these gentlemen, and of tiie dustoor himself, who acted in this matter, is, that the moment the priest was charged with being guilty of these acts, the dustoor on hearing of it, felt himself bound to remove him from his office, and 2pc10 R prevent kim frorøperforming the religious offices for which, by the practices of the Parsee community, ^ priest is required. Therefore, it will be unneces- sary for me to say anything more as to the seriousness of the charges : a serious charge wafc,intended, to ,be brought against this man, and the result is, in point of fact, that he is now prevented from discharging his priestly functions, and that if these charges are true he can never be permitted to resume his dutjes as a priest. The Judge—May I ask whether it is intended to be said for the defence th&,t the allegations in this letter are true ? Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Yes, my Lord, I do; a^d I also am ready to say that, even 011 my learned friend's own showing, it could not be a libel at all. The charge of incontinence has been decided over and over again, not to be ’libellous, even when made regarding a minister of the gospel. Mr*. McCulloch—My learned friend will have an opportunity of address- ing the jury afterwards. * The 'Judge—I wished to know if these allegations are persisted in, for if they are not persisted in of .course I would suggest this is a proper case for an apology; but if they are persisted in I cannot make any such sugges- tion. ♦ 1 r * Mr. McCulloch—Now, gentlemen, with reference to what my learned friend has just said, that charges of this sort are not libellous, I will venture- subject to what his Lordship will say—to suggest to you that it is a matter of very slight importance what the charge may be/vif the result of it is to * deprive a man of his living. If a man, intending to do injury to you, makes a charge the effect of which will be to turn you out of office,—it matters little what that charge may be,—it is a libel; and in this case it has had the effect of causing this man to be suspended during the present inquiry; and it is, therefore, a libel if falsely and improperly pablished, and deserves your serious consideration. I will say nothing more with regard to the grave character of the libel. I am satisfied you will feel convinced on the evidence that this is a serious charge, and has operated in a serious manner on the interests of the prosecutor. There is one matter to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the justification^ the publication of such a statement; because, though such a thing may be injurious to a man, it may be a public duty for some one to state it, and in so discharging a public duty a man is not guilty of an offence and not deserving of punishment. Tk&k appears to be a clear statement of the law on that point. I^am not about to say a word on that well-worn subject,—the rights of the Press ; that is a question which does not arise in this case at all. You stre all aware of the immense advantages of full and free discussion of public matters, and I don^t wish to say anything on that point, but only to point out what the law has11 said as to the publication of libels. After kaving detiåied ®a libel, the* definition of wKicli it will be unnecessary for to trouble you with, the first exception contained in the Penal Code is, that it is not defamation to say anything which is true concerning any person if it be for the public good that that be published; and it goes on to say, “ whether or not it be for the public good is a question of fact; ” that is to say* it is a question for you to decide. Now, assuming that all this is tvue,— that this man did keep a prostitute, and did eat food prepared by a Mussalman cook,—it will be for you to say was it for the public good that it should be stated- in the newspapers. It may have been very desirable to mention these charges to the superior of the temple, so that, if the prosecutor had‘'been guiltyj he should have been removed from his office; but was it desirable to publish this fact fourteen years after its occurrence, and Cipwards of five years after .it is said to have became known ? It is not stated that iihad been recently* discovered, but it is stated that five years ago the charge was publicly ntade against him; and it is for you to decide whether, even if these charges were true, it can be for the public good thftt fourteen years after the circum- stances are said to have taken place they should be published in the ndtas- papers against this man—who was not a person asking a public appoint- ment, and in whom the public are not in any way interested. That is a I question you w^ll have to (Jecide; artd, in deciding*, it will be necessary to see what motives influenced this man in publishing this libel. He, himself, tells you he does not publish it for the information of the public, so as to put the community on its guard against this priest, and to prevent an unworthy man continuing in office ; but Jje says the friends of the Sunjana have published a report concerning my friends, the Jamasp Assa family, and said that one of them has married a lady that is not a Parsee. Now I will say something* on their side; and in order to injure the rival dustoor I will tell you something about his brother much worse than they have said about us, and show that the connections on the oneQside are just as bad as on the other.” Now, is that any public motive ? Because the dustoor's brother was said to have been*, guilty fourteen years aga, was that any proper reason to humiliate the dustoor by publishing this in a newspaper ? The Judge—Was your client a person who was a candidate for any priestly office in an election, 01* anything of that kind ? Mr. McCulloch—No, my Lord; nothing of the sort. There was this dis- pute : his brother and the head of the other family were, in a manner, rivals. There is no election; it is a matter in which the heads of the community dis- cuss whom they shWLd recognize, and it is 110 doubt to humiliate the Sunjana family that this was published. It amounts to this : “ Oh, you are going to appoint this Sunjana: look to his brother, what a scoundrel he is ! Is that a fair argument, gentlemen ? Even in an election at home, where things art* 12 r carried rathej* far; supposing- a gentleman was a candidate for a borough, in England, would it be a legitimate argument to say, “ Don't eject him, for his brother is a scoundrel \ ” The Judge—there not a^statement in the letter—I read it somewhat hastily, and it is obscure—is there not a statement that the dustoor employed this man as an assistant ? Mr. McCujjLOOH—Yes, my Lord ; he has been acting for fourteen years, rtill this letter was published, as assistant to the dustoor in the temple. No\tf, gentlemen, that is a question of fact that the law leaves you to determine,—' assuming that the charges are all true,—was there a justification foi’ the pub- lication ? But the question whether they were true is most important; for if you find they were not so, then he had no right, under any circumstance, or for any reason, to publish them : and I am satisfied you will be convinced they are false and unfounded. Now that is a question on which I wish to ask his Lørdship if it is desirable fo leave the evidence to be called in rebuttal, or to call witnesses at once to disprove it. Your Lordship is aware from the depositions we will have the evidence of the people in the temple, and are prepared to contradict the statement that anything of the kind alleged took place. The necessity for calling these witnesses depends on- what my learned friend finds people 011 his side prepared to swear to, and on that I would ask leave to reserve ‘Lhe evidence,0 and to call' my witnesses afterwards, if necessary. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I can relieve the case entirely of that. I intend to ask no questions as to what took place at what j.s called the navjod cere- mony in the temple. I merely go on the truth of, and policy of publishing, 6fche general statement. The Judge—On, first, the truth of the statement of keeping a woman and eating food prepared by a Mussalman cook; and, second, the necessity for publishing that ? 0 Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Just so, my Lord. The Judge—That will relieve you, Mr. McCulloch, of the necessity of proving, in the first instance, that this occurrence did not take place at that time. Mr. McCltlloch—But it must not deprive me of the opportunity of saying it is a falsehood. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Then I must put my learned friend to tho proof of that. Mr. McCubloch—I will show that the whole is a deliberate falsehood. The whole of this letter almost consists of a detailed dramatic account of a13 scene in a fire-temple, in which my client is represented as b^in^stopped by these charges, and his brother, who was engaged at the ceremony with him, as sitting down and lamenting* over what he had heard. He tells us that the o o panthaki said “ while Nowrojee was carrying on the f contract work' at the village of Wassind, he kept a prostitute; he got sons and daughters by her^ partook of meals prepared by a Mussalman cook; and further, he comes here to'the fire-temple, puts on the appearance of a dustoor (high priest), and deprives (me) of my right. What ! is he to keep children born of the womb of a prostitute, and perform the ceremony of navjod ? and am I a panthaki (family priest) not to perform it V* And then he says, that in consequence of the panthaki saying so in that assembly, “ Peshutonjee, while reading the third chapter of the patet (prayer) with his very pure dustoor Nowrojee, got up and went and sat on a hindoora (seat) that was the^e for performing cere- monies, and lamented o^er that blemish !!!" Now I say, that from beginning to end that is a lie. I will call before you every person who was present at that ceremony (for the names are# pointed out here), and I will prove that it is a lie from beginning to end. T]*ere is this little foundation, that the family priest of the gentleman upon whose two sons the ceremony w«ts to be performed came forward and said he wished to take part in the cere- mony ; but the father wished the dustoor to perform it, and said to the mnthaki: “ Never mind ; you will have your fee, and the dustoor will per- loria the ceremony/' This was agreed *to3 and, instead of Peshutonjee turning round and lamenting', the ceremony was proceeded with. Every person who was present will be called to prove that this account js false from beginning to end, and that there was not a charge made, lior a word spoken, as to the reputation of the prosecutor on this occasion. That is an important part of the libel; and if the defence cannot prove it, and I can prove that it is a deliberate lie, what becomes of the man who goes and pub- lishes this detailed account of what never took place ? My learned friend is in this position, that, as he cannot prove it, he would let it pass unnoticed : but I cannot let it pass that this man published a statement which pretended to relate a conversation in which the prosecutor was accused of gross offences against morality, so that his own brother stopped the ceremony and lamented over the blemish in the family;—in a family one of the most distinguished in Bombay;—one fit to occupy the head position of the community. That constitutes the substance of the libel; and yet my learned friend says he is not to ask a question as to whether it is true. But I ask you, gentlemen, is not this man to be punished for publishing this deliberate falsehood, and publishing it for the purpose of showing that the dustoor and his family are not respectable, for the purpose of injuring them before the public ? If you find that this is fals%—and they are not attempting to say that a word of it is true—it will be for you to say what importance you will attach to any attempt to establish the rest of the libel. My learned friend says he is to u f prove tjiat xaj cjient, when he was living at Wassind, kept a prostitute and ate food prepared by a Mussalman cook ; and, with regard to tha-t, I would ask his Lordship to permit me to reserve any defence on the point as to whether he lived with a prostitute. We don’t know how they are going to attempt to prove it. The prosecutor will Le put in the box, and he will deny it. Wassind was a station on the railway, and almost every one in connection with the station will be witnesses ffor us as to the propriety of the prosecutor’s life, and as to the fact that be never had anything to da with any prostitute. The Judge—It strikes me the proper mode would be to give permissian to give rebutting evidence. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—My learned friend would have the right to con- tradict my witnesses, bi^t I give him notice that he must abide by contradic- tion : he must not prove his case by driblets. My learned friend knows he may c^ll witnesses to contradict what mine say, but he must lay his case on the rules of‘eVidence. I shall object if 5ie intends to go into any new case, , The Judge—I cannot conceivb from what he says that it is his intention £o go into any new case. What he says amounts to this : it lies with the party who says certain allegations are true to prove that they are so; and when he in his evidence produces proof in that behalf, it is open to Mrr McCulloch, for the prosecutor, to show, that the* charge is i\ot true. 1 Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Yf>s ; but he must contradict only. The Judge—By way of contradiction only. By way of showing that it is not true, and, I take it, if he show it is not true that is contradiction. There is the very simple question—“ Ay” or “ No”—did he keep a prostitute ? Mr. McCulloch—That being the case, and it being obvious now, from the course the trial will take, that it will be necessary for me to address the jury again, I will not trouble you further at this stage. I will shortly tell you what the evidence will be. I shall pro^e the publication of the libel, and then I shall call before you gentlemen of the Parsee community, who will give evidence as to what the effect of the statement would be on the charac- ter of any priest; and after that it will be for my learned friend, if he can, to justify the publication of the statements, some of which are even now admitted to be incapable of proof; that is to say, they are untrue. The following witnesses were then called for the prosecution :— Mr. Sorabjee Cursetjee, Proprietor of the “Sunday Revieiv” Examined by Mr. Starling. Q. Previously to 15th August, did the defendant call at your office ?— A. He called 011 the 12tli August last. 15 Q. Did lie bring a letter with him in Gujarati ?—A. N#: he wrote the letter*in my office. Q. Is that the letter he wrote in your office (showing, exhibit A)?—> A. Yes. Q. What did defendant say to you when he gave yoti that letter ?— A. He said, “ It is for the public good, and you muSt insert it.” Q. Did you read it ?—A. Yes. Q. And asked him to write another letter ?—A. Yes. Q. He wrote that letter f (handing witness exhibit C)—A. Yes; that is the letter. [On the suggestion of Mr. Starlftig, Mr. Curnin, Deputy Clerk of the Crown, here read the English translation of^he portion of the letter containing the libel.] Q. And did you insert this letter in your paper?—A. Yes. Q. On 15th August ?—A. Yes. Q. Is that a copy of your paper of 15th August ?—A. Yes. Q. In the letter “ B ” ttere is a person mentioned under the name of Nowrojee. Do you known to whom that refers ?—A. I know now, but I did not knov before. Q. But at the time you had the paper handed to you, did you know who was meant by Nowrojee ?—A. No. Q; You say you know now. Who is meant ?—A. The Parsee priest. Q. What is his full name ?—A. Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana. Q. Is he the prosecutor in this case —A. Yes. Mr. McCulloch—Perhaps the whole of the letter had better be read. The Judge—I think so. Mr. Starling tben read the whole of the letter which appeared in the Sunday Review of 15th August under the signature—“ The Spear that drives out the unknown contrivances of the wild Simjanas.” It was as follows:—16 Translation of a letter printed in the columns of the cc Sunday Review a^Gujarati Newspaper, of the \hth August 1869. * CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor oe the Sunday Review.” i^iB,—In tlie Yezda,nperest-[ (newspaper) of the 5th day of August, in the English (year) 1869, two groundless letters, published in favour of Peshii- tonjee Sunjana, under the names of a “ Well-wisher of the Nosakaras,”J and A Religious Man,” have exhibited a vain and vindictive spirit against the family of Jamasp Assa. P (It) is certain that ignorant people cannot bear to see the learned; and the unscientific, the scientific; and when such a person/ with a foolish intellect, cannot surpass his opponent (in) arts and sciences,he. thinks his success lies in falsely slandering and in speaking ill of him. The position of the Yezdanperest’s correspondent exactly corresponds with tl?at of the bazaar dogs, (who) on seeing officers, bark (at them) from a distance; and sensible readejs will undoubtedly believe, that as dustoor Peshutonjee and his supporters' stock of wisdom, (inculcating) pure (and.)^, solemn counsel, has become exhausted, they have come within the limits .1 u ^ t • I (definition) of disappointed defamers, and (they) are obtaining satisfaction for themselves by uttering false-words (allegations), with hot fumes of mad- ness, against their opponents. By doing so, they never become triumphant; but a bitter obligation has devolved on me of punishing such dealers in offen- sive (matters). The above writer of the letters in the Yezdanperest (newspaper) states as follows : The Nosakara modeefs (priests) have been saying, after giving instances, that a sect has been formed separate from them every one hundred years ; (and) that, in like manner, it appears that the time for form- ing another sect has now approached again; but that the only regret is that that sect will be formed by the members of the family of Jamasp AsS‘a, and (that) the blame in respect thereof will rest upon the present living male members of that family.” Thus, should persons like Peshutonjee, in con- sequence of an enmity towards a family, see their strength in instigating the poor simple athornans (mobeds) with such dirty motives, by means of writing false reports, then certainly they have cheated (their) own consciences; because, from the time of dustoor Jamasp Assa till the present (time), this family has * The greater portion of this letter is so badly and confusedly ^written, that in many places it is difficult to comprehend the drift of the writer; and the translation will, by reason of the above defects, be found confused in some parts. ■ c t Yezdanperest means a worshipper of God. X Inhabitants of Nowsari. 17 i not taken any measures at all for forming any separate sect whatever^in the community of hi» own Nowsari (religious) order, but positive measures for forming such sects have been taken by the family of Sunjana; and the reason thereof is simply this, that these Sunjanas do not belong to the real Nowsari (religious) order, but these Sunjanas have been draggéd into the Nowsari (religious) order in their endeavours to get themselves adopted (into the said order): so that, in the same manner, as any person born of a particular male descendant of any (religious) order can command as nJuch respect as his original true religious order, in that same manner no other person who has been adopted into that religious order, or his male descendants, can, look upon him as commanding the same respect. Nowin Bombay-, during the ceremonies of inaugurating the Shanshai atashbeheram (fire-temple) of Sett Wadiajee, deceased, the deceased du(stoor) Eduljee Sunjana treated ‘sthe Nowsari religious o^der with great contempt, and formed a separate sect. During the above ceremonies, many Parsees and athornans (mobeds) of this place expressed (their) several opinions to the aforesaid dus&dbr to make use of the authorities of Navari *( Nowsari) in the above ceremonies,, and that, too, to such an extent, that even Sorabjee, the brother of the afore- said dustoor, expressed such an opinion, as follows: “ Should (you) com-s mence sucli sacred ceremonies as (those of) the atashbeheram (fire-temple), by causing to be sent for, from Nowsari, at least a couple of mobeds of the * b^ushneoom order, together witli their “ alats” f from that place 'tt will not only be said that you gave respect to the Nowsari religious order/but this* atashbeheram (fire-temple) will also be said to be in accordance with (that of) the Nowsari religious order, and thereby the athornans (*mob£ds) of Nowsari will also show theii^willingness to make their sons “navars”J (and) “maratabsi” in this atashbeheram (fire-temple)/’ &c. &c. Although (matters) were thus explained (to him) on more than one occasion, the said dustoor, Eduljee Sunjana, having turned his head away from thousands of people of his own party, and having got into passion, replied to all the persons who gave (him) the said explanation onfy in the manner as follows : “ What do the Now- sari people know ? Are their brushneooms and alats in a pure state?" &c. &c. Having uttered such words, the inauguration of the ceremonies of the afore- said atashbeheram (fire-temple) was performed with the alats and brushneooms in Bombay that had originally come from Nowsari; and having finished the said ceremonies, he, with a view to keep up (his) boasting words for forming a sect separate from that of the Nowsari (priests), threw a veil of negligence (or confusion) over the guardians of all the daremehars (fire-temples) here connected with the Nowsari mobeds; and he having got them to make null * Certain religious rites and ceremonies, t Certain materials used in religious ceremonies. X Priests wlio have undergone certain rites and ceremonies. 3 p c *18 and void tfce brushneoom, together witli the alats of all the Nowsari mobeds connected with their daremehar (fire-temple), new brushneooms of the atashbeheram (fire-temple) were caused to be performed, and tyrannical powers were exercised to cause new alats to be used (which has not been used only by one (per son),* Sett Manekjee Meharwanjee, deceased, in his own daremehar (fire-temple)). The said Sunjana dustoor carried his extreme tyranny to such an extent, that, having caused some alterations to be mgfde even in the rceremonies like (those of) pavmahal, (he) raised (his) very .re- vengeful hand against the Nowsari religious order. Thus dustoor Sunjana, kaving considered the Nowsari religious order as false, has annulled their brushneooms. Their alats have been decided as false!! and their ceremo- nies have been upset!!! Several instances of which remain in existence even up to this time. r r Du(stoor) Eduljee Sunjana, by very hard and strong measures, took a very active part in making the sons of the Nowsari athornans (mobeds) of •this place “ maratabs” in the said atashbeheram (fire-temples) in Bombay; but leaving ultimately failed therein, he got into a devilish passion, and placed* Ms 'foot on the bellies of the said^ poor and indigent mobeds of Nowsari and robbed them of theirtrights. For instance, although it was an established right 4 of the said mobeds only to divide and" enjoy the money (realized) from the income^derived) from the asodad* (presents) made to the aforesaid atashfce- lieram (fere-temple), he, for thejpurpose of verifying his obstinate views and his tall talk, under the pretence of the objection relating to making maratabs, misapplied »(the money) when he could not appropriate it to his own use; that is to say, he caused the money (derived) from the whole of that income to be sent to the house of its (the fire-temple;s) guardians !!! From this, the sensible readers have probably perceived that, about half a century ago, dustoorEduljee Sunjana, not having acted according to the advice of the inno- cent counsellors belonging to his own party, in commencing to lay the founda- tion of the ceremonies of the atashbeheram (^re-temple) of this place, and not having availed himself of the support of a couple of brushneoom mobeds with alats from Nowsari, a wide separation took place, and has continued to exist up to the present (time) between the Nowsari religious order and (the priests of) the Wadiajee^s atashbeheram (fire-temple); and a living instance of it is as follows : If a “ varasia” (bull) belonging to either of the two (parties), namely Nowsari religious order and (the priests of) the Wadiajee^s atashbe- heram (fire-temple), happens to die, then, until another new bull is put in his place, the business of (performing) the ceremonies of “pavmahal,” together with that of performing brushneooms, is stopped; but on the occasion of ------------------------------------——----------------------c * Meaning deprived them of their means of existence. 19 such a decease, they do not make use at all of one another’s (bull) and alats. Thus^ although, an actual division has been caused by the people of Sunjana, the above writer, having given to his handful of readers a refer- ence to a prophecy to the effect that “ a sect will be formed every one hun- dred years/’ has attributed the same to the people of the family of Jamasp Assa. To *what extent, then, has that writer proved (himself) an offender by" doing so ? • * Again, the above Writer, with his spiteful, dirty, and false writings re- specting the family of d(ustoor) Jamasp Assa, gives a reference to (his) patron- ized pamphlets, and makes known (to the people) that (C mobed Jamaspjee Was excomunicated from fche (Parsee) community (of Nowsari).v Having written to this effect, and having spoken ill of the pious elders of dustoor Jamaspjee of this (place), that ignorant (man) has' served (his) object of lowering them (in public estimation). But, with regard ta his such mean contrivance, he ought to know that tile aforesaid Jamaspjee was p^t ex*- communicated fromhis own religious order, but that the said d(ustoor) Eduljee, Sunjana, who is descended from (the time bf) his elders, by an act of adop- tion, Was far removed from the Nowsari religious order. To take part in the » disputes connected with the inauguration of the Kudmie and Shanshai atash- ^heherams (fire-temples) in Surat, the aforesaid Eduljee Sunjana, deceased, went fVom Bombay to, Surat. He did no£ go by the Nowsari way, but-went direct by the Kariawari way; and when (he) returned to Bonyay, he. marched (back) direct by the same way. I still hold back my pen from (giv- ing) the reason why it so happened, and from exposing the conduct» of the aforesaid Peshutonjee^ elder§ (who have) become denizens of Paradise. But should the good fortune of the reading population be powerful enough to learn the same; and should (persons) like Peshutonjee or his supporters, iu order, perhaps, to draw a favourable picture of themselves, (or) in order to use false and bad language against the members of the above pious family (who have become) denizens of Paradise, hereafter again make use of their pamphlets containing stinking writings, then, the great God willing, it will become my painful duty to expose the facts relating to the said Peshutonjee’s elders or to his Sunjana family also. Therefore, for the purpose of abandon- ing such evil speaking entirely, I consider the following admonition appli- cable to the parties on both sides;— (In Persian language m the people of attaining their own objects, they should use good (and) becoming words towards their opponents and all other people. They should not by their own obstinacy speak falsely of the errors of any innocent (person) and (or) any of his elders, or else it will be known (by the public) that they themselves are the bearers of their own mistakes* For instance, there is a saying of the learned professors, as follows * u (In Persian language and Gujarati character.) A Couplet.—*It is not proper to be persistent in any word j ar>d to catch hold of the mistakes of great men, is a mistake on the part of, the person catching hold (of them). (In Gujarati.) That is to say: It is not proper to^be persistent in any word; and ^to catch hold of the mistakes of great men, is a mistake on the part of the person catching hold (of them)* s ‘ “ A Well-wisher of the Nosakaras (■£. e. inhabitants of Nowsari), a corrt's? pondent Qof the Yezdanpcrest (newspaper), transfers (the responsibility of) vthe* prophecy regarding the creating of the people of Meharjee Rana, ^dustoors in Bojnbay, to the Ten Settias who have come forward to create a dustoor here. Respecting the sons of the dustoors of this yAsbce, he wishes to say, as follows :—“ Unfortunately.. . (they) are not åt present learned enough (to be) worthy of that (dustoor’s) post*** This contrivance is like that of the animal “ stag.” The horns of the stag are shed every year, and if they are not shed, the stag himself breaks his own horns, by striking" (them) against some tree or hill, and he then walks about with (his) head lowered down* In like manner, as to how useful the family of Meharjee Rana is, for being created dustoors at this place, he himself, about thirty years ago, caused the same to be ^xposed by his own Nowsari people through the medium of u newspapers/* Therefore, the aforesaid writer ought firmly to bear in mind, that where “lions” and leopards fight, the safety of such dogs and jackals consists in keeping (their) tails lowered down, and thus gaining (their) object. Written by the’Spear that drives out the unknown contrivances of the wild Sunjanas* • No. 2246. (A true translation) NAKAYAN DINANATH, * Second Translator* High Court, Translator*s Office, 23rd November 1869< * A blank in the te-sts 22 Mj% Serjeant Atkinson not being desirous of cross-examining, the witness left the box, Mr. MerWanJEe Ma^ockJee Setna, Merchant. c Examined by Mr. McCulloch. r < Q. I believe you are the proprietor of the oldest Parsee fire*tettlple in the island of Bombay ?—A. Yes. Q. That temple was built by your ancestors I believe ?—A. Yes, Q. You know the family of the Sunjanas ?—A* Yes. Q. Peshutonjee Byramjee Sunjana is head of that familyy is he not - A. At present he is. Q. And he is recognized by rtlany of the Parsee' community as dustoop* f „ or high priest of the community, is he not ?—A. Yes. Q. Apart from his being dustoor of the community, he is head priest of the Wadia fire-temple k—A, He acts as dustoor of the fire-temple as well. Q. And that is å different appointment ?—A. Yes* Q, You know the prosecutor in this case is the brother of Peshutonjee \L Byramjee Sunjana ?—AT Yes: but I am not personally acquainlecr with him. c Q. And you know that he is a brother of the dustoor Peshutonjee ?— A. Yes. Q. You know also the family of Jamasp Assa ?—A* I do. Q. Who is head of that family ?—A. 'Jamaspjee Muncherjee is head of the family in Bombay. Q. Yes; but there are other heads of the family in Surat and Poona A. Yes. Q. Is Jamaspjee regarded by certain people of the Parsee community as dustoor ?—A. Yes. The Judge—As general dustoor of the community ?—A. Yes. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. It is usual for the Parsee community to have one acknowledged dustoor ?—A. Yes. Q, Now Eduljee Sunjana was the last generally acknowledged dustoor in Bombay some twenty-four years ago ?—A> Yes. Q. It is twenty-four years since he died ?—A. Yes. * The Judge—He was acknowledged dustoor by the whole Parsee com- munity of Bombay ?—A, Yes. By Mr» McCulloch—Q. And the dustoor Peshutonjee Sunjana is his nephew and heir; is he not ?—A* Yes. 23 Q. I believe Peshutonjee was an infant when Eduljee clied ?—A. Yes : lie mast have been. Q. Now, since that time, has it been uncertain in your community who was the acknowledged dustoor—some holding Dy Peshutonjee, and some by Jamaspjee ?—A. Yes* Q. Now till last year, I believe, very little notice has been taken of this difference, and nobody has paid much attention to ft ?—A• Yes^ till last year. Q. Well, for the last twelve months you have been discussing t amongst* yourselves the propriety of agreeing upon which was the dustoor ? —A. Yes. Q. The settias of the community?—A. Yes. Q, Well, that has occasioned some amount of discussion between the friends and partizans of the different families ?—A. Yes. . ' Q. And there has been certain correspondence in the native' papers * about their respective claims ?—A. Yes. All sorts of rubbish has been written on the subject. .Q. Amongst the “ rubbish” I don't know whether you include this letter by the “ Spear that drives out the unknown contrivances of the wild Sunjanas” ?—A. I consider it so. Q. Did you see that letter?—A. It wa’S exhibited to me at the Police Court. * Q. And you read that lotter ?—A, Yes. Q. And whom do you understand the person Nowrojee named to be ?— A. I understand it refers to the dustoor's brother. Q. The prosecutor ?—A. Yes.. Q. Do you know that the3 prosecutor is an assistant priest in the Wadia temple ?—A. I do not know. Q. No ; not of your own knowledge. But what would be the effect of such charges as those contained in this letter being made against a priest as affecting his reputation in your community ?—A. If they were proved they would disqualify him from the rights and privileges of a priest. # Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. Q. When you read that letter you thought it a deal of rubbish ?— A. I meaft to say that during the past year all the things published on this sjibject were something like rubbish. Q. And this was part of the “ something like rubbish” ?—A. In my estimation : but that is a different thing.24 Q: Bilt^wlran you read it, yon thought it was calculated to do injury ?— A. It was calculated to injure his reputation as priest. Q. Well, have the kindness to say how you came to the conclusion that this ^vas'all rubbish ?—A. I considered it all rubbish. The Judge—Pid you consider that part of the letter which contained the charges of having kept a prostitute and eaten food cooked by a Mussaiman as rubbish ?—A. I considered it was. J3y Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. And was it because you believed the facts to be not true, or because it was not calculated to do harm ?— 0 A. I cannot say whether the facts are true or not. Q. But what induced you to come to the conclusion that it was such rubbish ?—A. I think the dustoor and prosecutor ought not to have given any countenance to such stuff. (j.' It is such rubblish that tliey ought not to have taken any notice of it?—A. Yes. The Judge—Do you apply the term “ rubbish" to the whole of that epistle ?—A. Yes *. I think it is a malicious* letter, written to annoy the party. Re-examined by Mr. McCulloch. Q. ^You think the charge a serious one?—A. Yes; I-think it is. Q. And do you think it would be wise for the priest to allow a serious ® charge to be made against him in a newspaper and take no notice of it ?—A% The paper is held in so low estimation that I think no notice ought to have been taken of the letter which appeared in it. Q. Do you mean it is such a low class paper that people don^t attend to it ?—A. Yes. Q. It is a low class paper ?—A. Yes. Q. Now, supposing the priest has been actually suspended in conse- quence of this charge being made against him, don^t you think it would be necessary to take some steps ?—A. Yes. Q. Well, you have given us probably a right estimate of your own of that paper, but are there not a great number of people in the Parsee community who would be influenced by that paper ?— A. Yes, in the second and third classes of people. Q. Well, the ee second and third classes" of people, as you call them, are more numerous than the “ first-class peopled in all communities, so that more would be influenced by the letter ?—A. Yes. Q, Now is not it principally from the middle and lower classes that the priests, or mobeds, receive their fees ?—A, Yes.25 Q. I will ask you, in your own fire-temple would you ha"4e tfiHowsd this man to continue in tlie discharge of liis duties if charges like these had been made against him ?—A. No9 if they were made and proved. Q. But would you call upon him to disprove them ?—A. Yes. . Q. If you were told that one of your mobeds had been living with a prostitute, and ate food cooked by a Mussalman, wculd you call upon him to disprove it ?—A. Yes, either to disprove it or to leave. • Q. You have a head priest in your temple ?—A. Yes; but he is not a„ dustoor, he is head man of my temple. a ■» Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I do not object; but my learned friend is re-examining—beginning de novo. The Judge—No; I Ao not think he is» Mr. McCulloch—I am testing how fa*r the witness considered tlie letter' nonsense. The JcDafe—Yes : this opinion is one thing, and what he knew of the opinion of a great number of the Parsee community is another thing. Examination resumed by Mr. McCulloch—Q. If this charge had been made in the papers against one of the under priests in your temple, would not you have thought it the duty of the heaSpriest to inquire about it, and ask him vdiether it was true ?—A. De- cidedly. Q. And would you consider it the duty of your head priest to suspend the man till he cleared himself ?—A. Yes. By the Judge—Q. Do you consider it would have been his duty to do that if the charges only appeared in such a newspaper as this Sunday Review ?—A, Yes : it would be his duty to inquire, my Lord. Q. Even though the charges appeared in that paper for which you have such a contempt ?—A. It is my opinion, my Lord, that the paper is worthless and ought not to be counted upon. Q. But if it is your opinion that the paper is worthless, is it neverthe- less your opinion that, if such ^charges appeared in such a paper against an assistant priest in your temple,, it would be the duty of the head priest to suspend the man while inquiring into the charges made in such a rubbishy paper?—A. Yes; because the whole of nis interests are at stake. Qt But if it is merely said so by a newspaper which stands in bad odour with the Parsee community, you still think it would be necessary to suspend him ?—A. Yes. 4 p c oM.r. Hormusjee Bomanjee Wadia, Merchant, Examined by Mr. Starling. Q. You are a merchant, partner in the firm of Messrs, Hormusjee Boni&nje'b, Touchy & Co. ?—A. Yes. Q. And you are also one of the proprietors of the Hormusjee Bomanjee fire-temple?—A. Yes. • ° Q. That fire-temple was built by your ancestor?—A. Yes. the family, and see the ladies of the family ?-— A. Yes. * • ’ . • tJyAnd, therefore, it would be necessary that there should not bo* the slightest slur on his character ?—A. Yes. ° • And the mere fact of his name having been mixed up with such •a scandal as this would render it undesirable that he should be employed in that capacity?—A. Yes. Gross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. Q. You say, if I understand you rightly, that in every case some fee must be paid ?—A. Which fees do you mean ? Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Private or public ceremonies. The Judge—Private ceremonies. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I think public or private ceremonies. The Judgh—No; there has been nothing' said about fees for public ceremonies. Examination continued by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson— Q. Well, you said fees must bo paid. Is there any obligatory rule amongst you ? or is it voluntary on the part of the giver ?—A. The party who sends for the priest is obliged to pay certain fees* Q. What do you mean by obliged ?—A. Compulsory. Q. By what rule?—A. By usage. Q. So thai it is only he cruise it is usage ?—-4. Yet'c29 The Judge (to witness)—I don't know whether you have heard a phrase in use amongst Europeans—“ No penny, no paternoster.” (A laugh.) Mr* Serjeant Atkinson (to witness) — Q. Did you ^understand my question ?—A. Yes. ** s Q. When you use the words “ must ” and “ obligatory, ” you mean it is usual ?—A. Yes. Q. But still it is a mere gift or present—a gratuity?—A. lres. Q. And that is what you mean when you say “ must” or “ obligatory ” ? A. Yes. Q, Now let me understand a little more about the divisions amongst you. In the Parsee community the clergy are called mobeds and the laymen behedin ?—A. Yes. The Judge—Q. What would you call a man who, though not an officiat- ing priest, is yet entitled to become one ?—A. Andhia];oo:> Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Are the andhiaroos a caste amongst the Parsees?—A. Of course. * The Judge—Q. What do you mean ? I did not think there was any 3 caste amongst Parsees.—A. there is not caste amongst Parsees. Q. May a man who belongs to ^ prisstly family/ and has never ^ii gaged in secular occupation, at once, without any ceremony or purifica- tion, become an officiating mobed ?—A. No ; not without some ceremony. Mr. Serjeant Atkinso^—Q. Must not he undergo (he ceremonies of navar and maratab ? —A. Yes. Q. And not till he has undergone these two ceremonies can be perform any priestly functions ?—A. Yes. And there is another ceremony necessary before he can perform the priestly functions. Q. What is that ceremony called ?—A. Brushneoom. Q. And now he has a very long and tedious process of purification to undergo for nine or ten days ?—A. Yes. Q. Now supposing a person who has undergone all this purification, and becomes an officiating priest, enters into business, and then returns and asks to become ^gain an officiating priest, has he not to undergo the last ceremony, brushneoom ?—A. Yes. By the Judge—Q. And not the others?—A. No, my Lord; only the last one. J. Q, Supposing that while he was engaged in business he had lived with a conciibine, would he even be allowed to undergo the purifica- tions of brushneoom ?—A. Not for the sake of performing the more religious ceremonies. ^30 Q. If lie had lived with a concubine he would not be allowed to perform that last ceremony ?—A. He might; but withoufvany effect, for he would have no right to perform the priestly functions. By Mr. Serjeant ^ Atkinson—Q. Have you known any instance of such a thing occurring ?—A. Yes. Q. Then you take that to be a permanent disqualification ?—A. Yes. Q. Now supposing fchile he was engaged in business he had eaten food cooked by a Portuguese or Mussalman cook, could he be puri- fied in any way ?—A. Yes, by undergoing brushneoom ; but not for performing any religious functions. Q. Do I understand you to say he must in every case go through the third process^of purification?—A. It is optional for him. Q. Yes; but I am supposing him anxious to return to the priestly office ? —A. Not for religious functions. Q. Ifou have spoken of in-door and out-door work, will you have the kindness to explain w^iat you mean ?—A, In-door work is the performing of religious ceremonies; out-door work is only manag- ing or superintending the ceremonies. Q. Then he might be allowed to do out-door work, but not in-door reli- gious ceremonies ?—A. Yes* Q. Would not he be allowed to do out-door work without undergoing that purification by b'rushneoom ?—A. Yes. Q. Then you don’t look upon that man in the sense of a priest ?— A. Pie is disqualified from performing1 any religious ceremonies, but he can manage or superintend. By the Judge—Q. I don’t exactly understand }^ou. Are you speaking of a man who has resorted to secular occupation, or not ?— A. Yes, the man who has resorted to secular occupation. Q. Or are you speaking of a man who may never have resorted to secu- lar occupation, but who has defiled himself by eating food cooked by a Portuguese or Mussalman ?—A. In both cases. Q. Then what I understand you to say is, that in any case in which a person of the priestly qualities has partaken of food prepared by a Mussalman or Portuguese cook he could not be in any manner whatsoever purified so as to enable him to perform ceremonies as a priest, but he might be allowed to do out-door work ?—A. Yes. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson— Q. Then a man who has returned from secular work, and who has not undergone thia brushneoom, is not considered to bo a priest in the proper sense of the word ?— A. Of course he is a priest, 31 Q. Do you mean eligible to become a priest again, or an, officiating priest ?—A. Of course : unless lie performs tlie ceremonies lie cannot be called a priest. Q. Then it is a wrong term to apply to him ?—A. It is a general term. The Judge (to the interpreter)—He is either an andhiaroo or a mobed, and you had better perhaps put to him the precise phrase. What is the meaning of the word andhiaroo in the original ? > Mr. Ballajee (interpreter)—My Lord, I understand that andhiaroo and mobed mean the same thing. The Judge—That is not the testimony of the witness. [Some conversation ensned as to the meaning of the word, but no proper definition was given.] Examination resumed by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. A person who had formerly been a priest had gone into secular life, and h?d leturii- ed, but had not undergone brushneoom, would he be an andhiaroo? —A. Andhiaroo and mobed are general terms applicable to any member of the priestly family, whether officiating or not. Q. But who could not officiate as a priett ?—A. Could not perform reli- gious ceremonies. Q. Such a person could do the out-cioor work that Nowrojee the prose- cutor was doing when he was suspended?—A. It depends on the pleasure of the party whether he will employ such a man or not. Q. But he could do such work?—A. Yes. Q. Now on my left is a gentleman (Mr. Pcrozshaw Mehta) born a mobed or andhiaroo. He has not gone through any one of the ceremonies. Now, could he do the out-door .work Nowrojee was doing whed he was suspended?—A. Yes; but not the religious ceremonies. The Judge—I think we should not identify any person at the bar in that way, A person born in a priestly family would be quite enough. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—He gave me this permission, my Lord ; that is my excuse. The Judge—I had rather he had not. You can go on with your examin- ation. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Are you the proprietor of the fire-temple of which Nowrojee was out-door manager ?—A. Yes. Q. Is your consent at all necessary to the appointment or suspension of any one connected with that temple ?—A. Yes. Q. Did ^pu consent to Nowrojee^s suspension ?—A. Yes. Re-examined by Mr. McCulloch. Q. You know tlie cdremony of nahan ?—A. Yes: it is a common cere- mony. r r r Q. Is not ttat a ceremony which must bo gone through before a man can officiate even as an out-door priest ?—A. Yes ; even laymen undergo that ceremony. Q. It is a ceremony of purification ?—A. Yes. Cl. And is the ceremony of brushneoom also undergone by laymen for *' the purpose of purification ?—A. Yes. Q. Both by laymen and priests ?—A. Yes. Q. Do I understand you to say that if a mobed were guilty of living with a concubine, and underwent the ceremony of brushneoom, that t would remove his guilt &s a man, but would not enable him to be reinstated as a priest ?—Ak Yes. Q. Leaves him unqualified for*'ever as a priest?—A. Yes. Q. When lovely mobed stoops to folly, no charm will wipe his guilt away ? (Laughter.) No cei^mony will purify a priest who has Committed that offence so as to enable him to resume his office ?—A. No. € * # Q. Now do you know whether Nowrojee, before he went to Wassind and commenced secular work, had officiated as a priest doing out- door work ?—A. I am not aware of it. Q. You don’t know?—A. No. ^ «, Q. Then the position of Nowrojee before his suspension was this: he was doing ou.t-door work, but at any time, if he had chosen, he might have undergone the ceremony of brushneoom and qualified himself to perform in-door ceremonies ?—A. Yes. Q. If the charges made were true, could he have gone on acting in his out-door capacity ?—A. No. Q. But he might be purified from the offence of eating food cooked by a Mussalman?—A. Yes. Q. But it is a different question with a man who has committed for- nication ? Could he be purified so as to be able to do out-door work ?—A. No; not from fornication. Q. Then I understand your answer to be this, that if this "charge of for- nication was true, the priest must*be now perpetually prohibited from doing even out-door work as a priest ?—A. Yes. The Judge—Incapacitated is better than prohibited. Mr. McCulloch—Yes^ incapacitated. 33 By Mr. McCulloch—Q. Well, that out-door work is paid bj fees ?-— A. Ye$: the priest is a paid servant and receives fees. Q. But Nowrojee had an income from the temple, and also from the voluntary payments of those who employed him ?sA. Yes. By the Judge—Q. Is it part of the out-door work of the Parsee priest to carry the dead to the Towers of Silence ?—A* Yes. Q. And a man may do that without being able to perform^any in-door ceremony ?—A, Yes. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. The out-door work comprises the performance by a man of several out-door ceremonies ?—A. Yes. Q. What is the navjod ceremony? Do you know the Christian rite of confirmation ?—A. Yes. s Q. Navjod is something like confirmation, is it not ?—A. Yes. Q. It takes place when the children Are older than in confirmation ^with* us ?—A. Yes. Q. It is a ceremony which all children fhust undergo ?—A. Yes. The Judge—Yqu said it was like the ceremony of confirmation ? Mr. McCulloch—It seems, my Lord, I am wrong. kThe Judge—Is there not a ceremony when the child is named?— \ A. TeS. Mr. McCulloce[—The navjod is the tying of the sacred thread, is it not ?—A. Yes, The Judge—I will strike out this about confirmation. Mr McCulloch—Yes, my Lord. It seems to be a wrong analogy. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. Then after death there is a certain ceremony ?— A. Yes, for three days. Q. And he is incapable of performing that 1—A. Yes. Q. Well, there are three most remunerative ceremonies, are there not— births, deaths, and marriages ?—A. Yes. Q. And there are other ceremonies, are there not—the anniversaries of certain events ?—A. Yes. Q. There are monthly ceremonies after death, are there not ?—A. Yes. There is a ceremony after deati. for three days, and then there is the tenth day ceremony. The Judge—These are out-door work?—A, Yes. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. Well, the in-door ceremonies are very rare and occasional ? Excepting the attendance on the sacred fire, which, of course^ is daily, the ceremonies by regular priests are very rare ?—A. They are not very rare. They are not so frequent as the out-door ceremonies. 5 p c34 Q* Now you recollect your answer to my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Atkinson ? You say it is important that a priest should have a good reputåtion, as he sees the ladies of the family. Well, is it specially with regard to these ceremonies that his good repute is of value' to him T—A. It is. Q. My learned friend asked you whether a man who had been engaged 1 in trade, and had reverted to his priestly office without performing lorushneoom, could be called a priest. But whatever he is called, is it the fact that he exercises all the lucrative office of a priest with- out perfoiTaing brushneoom ?—A. He must perform brushneoofn. Q. To be an out-door priest ?—A. No. Mr. McCulloch—Well, that is what I ask you. By the Judge—Q\ Must a man have performed brushneoom in order to enable him to perform those ceremonies^you have just now men- tioned—the navjod, th^ death ceremonies (the three days and the tenth day), and the marriage ceremonies ?—A. He can perform these after his brushfieoom. Q. But you know Nowrojee had not undergone brushneoom ?—A. Then he could not perform these ceremonies. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. There are death ceremonies in the temple^*— A. Yes. Q.'Well, I don't want to know about that; but can he do all these other ceremonies without performing brushneoom ?—A. Yes. (£. And the only things he can't do, without performing brushneoom, are ceremonies in the temple ?—A. Yes. Q. Are you quite clear on that point ?—A, Yes. The Judge—Well, I have just taken this down : “ All of the former cere- monies already mentioned—navar, death ceremonies outside the temple, the three days' ceremony &nd the tenth day ceremony, and anniversary ceremonies—may be performed by a man who has not undergone brushneoom. There are death ceremojaies out- side the temple which he cannot perform/'—A, Yes. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—My learned friend suggests that this should be added : fyou ever write about his fitness or unfitness” ? And did you answer in the negative ?—A. Yes, that was the question asked ; and I understood it to mean anything referring *to the contro- versy going on about the office of *dustoor : ana I answered in the negative. Mr. McCulloch—I may mention that in the .newspaper, report that appeared on the following morning, the answer is reported in these terms: “I never wrote in the paper regarding Jamaspjee’s claim to be the dusjoor.” The Judge—Now, you are relying on the indulgence of the learned Ser- jeant. As he is silent, y<5u may speak. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. You have written to that paper ?—A. Yes. Q. On religious topics ?—A, Yes. t Q. And in the course of these comiAunications you may have mentioned the name of Jamaspjee ?—A. Yes; and I have similarly mentioned the names of my own friends. > Gross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. . * Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Now I had occasion to caution you in the Poice Court, ancl, I must caution you again. Mr. McCulloch—Well, I must cross-examine, my learned friend, if he* is to give evidence. (A laugh.) Mr* Serjeant Atkinson—Well! after reading a newspaper to £peak of my irregularity. The Judge—I am now reaping the consequence of allowing one laxity, by having another. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Have you written no letter in which the name of Jamaspjee Muncherjee was mentioned?—A. I did not say that. Q. Do you mean to say you had not written several letters in which the name of your rival was mentioned ?—A. You said so; and I denied it. The Judge—We had better have it a little more clear. He denies having said that he never wrote a letter to a newspaper in which this gentleman's name was mentioned ?—A. All that I ever intend- ed to deny, whatever was understood by others, was that I ever wrote a latter to this newspaper in which I touched on the fitness or unfitness of Jamaspjee Muncherjee for the office of dustoor. By Mr, Serjeant Atkinson—Q. You say your letters to that paper were always on religious subjects. Is that so or not ?—A. It is. 44 ioid jfou liave not written any letters to that newspaper regarding the dustoorohip, in which the name of your rival is mentioned ? —A. No. Q. Are yon aware that-the letters which you did write are still in exist- ence ?—A. The editor may have these letters. Q. Has it not been recently communicated to you that these letters are in existence ?—A, No : I never made any inquiry on the subject. Q. I don’t ask you if you have made inquiry on the subject. Have you not recently been informed that these( letters are in existence ?— A. I have not. Q. Yery good. cYou are not asked if you know: you are asked the question—Has it not bteen recently communicated to you that these letters are in existence ?—A. No : I have not been informed lately that these letters are in existence. Q. Now you have said that if a mobed eat food prepared by a Mussal- man cook, and became repentant, he might be purified. Is that so ? —A. Yes. ' Q. Suppose a man had kept and lived with a prostitute, and become repentant, could he bo purified ?—A. No. The Judge—I suppose you speak of a man of one of the priestly , families ?—A. Yes. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Do I understand that to be your own individual opinion, or the general opinion of your community ?— A. That is my opinion, as a dustoor, and according to a know- ledge of the basis of our religion. Q. You say it is your own opinion. I ask you is it the general opinion among the mobeds of the Parsee community ?—A. I do not know what is the general opinion of all the mobeds in the Parsee com- munity. Q, I don’t ask you what is the opinion of all the mobeds. What is the general opinion of the mobeds on the subject ?—A. I do not know, for I never made inquiry. Q. Do you, as dustoor, at the head of your profession, mean to give that answer to my Lord and the jury ? The Judge—Perhaps he considers himself entitled to dictate to them what their opinion ought to be on the subject. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Apparently he does. L The Judge—He may consider himself so entitled in his capacity of dustoor. That would account for it. 45 Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Well, I must go to the source of ljis information. Q. Is it anywhere laid down in your scriptures, sir ?—A. Yes. Q. Where ?—A. In Chapter XVIII. of the Zend-Avasta. [The English translation of Professor Speigle*s tr^nslation^in German was here handed to witness.] It is in paragraphs 123 and 124, here. , Mr. Perozshaw explained, in reply to the Court/that this was an English translation from a rendering in German. • The Judge—A translation of a translation, with a double chance of error. I cannot accept that: it is not official. You must prove it to be a correct translation before I can accept it. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Now you remember your brother coming from Wassind ?—A, Yes. Q. You knew at tjiat time that h<| had been engaged in secular busi- ness ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you know from him that he had not only been a contractor on the railway, but in hotel business ?—A. I knew from him that he had had a share in a hotel concern. * Q. Anji engaged in some contract about the railway ?—A. Yes. Q, He communicated to you that he had been in business at Wassind ? —A.k Yes. Q. Did your brother, before you allowed him to become an officiating, priest, undergo the purification of brushneooih. ? The Judge—He said he did not. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson-2-! know he did; but I want to know the dis- tinction between that and nahan. Witness—What kind of brushneoom do you mean ? Q. Did he undergo the purification of brushneoom—Yes or No ?—A. I don*t know. Q. Don*t you know that he did not ?—A. No : I don*t know that he did not. Q. You say that he underwent a ceremony of a lesser sort of brushneoom called nahan ?—A. I don*t profess to say that I know that it was performed in my presence or to my knowledge. Q. Well, how came you to assert he had undergone the purification of nahan ?—A. I don*t think I stated that he did. The Judge—Q. Perhaps it was on his return from Båssein ?— A. Not ohat I know of my own knowledge. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Well, do you know of any other know- ledge ?—A. He himself told me, on my asking him, that he had done so.46 Q» Timt was on liis return from Bassein ?—A. Prom both places, Was- sind and Bassein. Q. Then he had twice undergone it ?—A. Yes: so he informed me. Q. So ho informed jrou ! Then of your own knowledge you knew nothing ?—A. No : of my own knowledge I did not know, because it was not necessary I should. Q. Dic^you ever inow ait instance of a mobed, after the ceremony of navar, taking nahan ?—A. Yes, I have known instances* ^Q. Did you ever perform the ceremony of nahan on yourself?—A. JJo, because I had no occasion to perform it: I had never been en- gaged in any secular pursuits or occupation. Q/ Well you suspended your brother, you say. When did you suspend him ?—A. After the publication of this libel—about two and a half or three months agb. ^ • €?. How soon after you read thg letter in the newspaper ?—A. Immedi- ately. Q. And now, having suspended him, I presume you have not allowed him to officiate at your fire-temple since that time ?—A4 I have not allowed him to perform any religious ceremonies on my behalf in# my fire-temple. Q.^Has he not officiated as a priest since that time with your consent?— A. He has not. 'r Were you acquainted with a gentleman of. the name of Dadabhoy Manockjee Watcha ?—A. No: I don't know him. Q, Don't you know that your brother has officiated-------- The Judge—Perhaps you had better let him see Dadabhoy Manockjee. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—His brother, as I was about to show, officiated at the funeral of this gentleman. The Judge—Oh, then you can't produce him! (A laugh.) By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. That relation of Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy died lately?—A. Yes. Q. He died since you suspended your brother ?—A. Yes, Q. Don't you know that youi^brqther officiated or assisted at his funeral rites ?—A. I say he did not take any part in the performance of that gentleman's funeral ceremony. Q. Did your brother receive any fees or gratuities in respect of that funeral ?—A. He has not received any. Q. The 1st September, I am told, is the anniversary of your fire-temple. Is that so?—A, Yes. 47 Q. I need scarcely ask if you had some great ceremony* opi #the# last occasion, and if you were present ?—A. Yes. Q. Your brother was there ?—A. He was not. Q. You know I must ask you to reflect. Did not your brother on that occasion sit beside you in that temple ?—A. No. <3. Supposing your brother had eaten fopd prepared by a Mahomedan or Portuguese cook, and had lived with a concubine at Wassind, in your judgment was it for the public good that it should be exposed ?—A. Yes. Re-examined by Mr. McCulloch. Q. These various ceremonies in your religion are traditions, are th^y not, handed down from one to another among the psiests ?—A. Yes: I mean they are written tradition. Q. All the ceremonies ?—A. Yes. • Q. Is it not the case that the ceremonies are founded on various texts of* which th«re is a traditional exposition ? The text does not say that you are to do so and so, #but theVe is a doctrine founded on the text?—A. Yes: a doctrine is founded on each text, and ' explained by comments. By the Judge—Q. Are you going from ceremonies to doctrine^? The ceremonies are deduced from texts not set forth at length. Is that what you mean ?—A. Yes : the ceremonics are dednced from the text, but not set forth at full length; and some of the texts are lost. Q. Are we to understand that none of the ceremonies are to be found in the Parsee sacred writings set forth at full length?—A. Yes: none of them are set forth at full length. Q. As to the details of the ceremonies, you depend upon unwritten tradi- . tion ?—A. There are commentaries now extant which are founded on the original texts, which are lost, and the ceremonies are described at length in these commentaries, and are performed according to them. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. The dustoors are authorities, are they not, in the explanation of the doctrines of your religion ?—A. Yes. Q. There are two great sects in your community, are there not—the Kudmies and the Shanshais ?—A. Yes. Q. And their doctrines and practices are very different, are they not ?— A* Some of their doctrines and practices are different. Q. To which sect do you belong?—A. The Shanshais, 48 Q. Jf my learned friend happened to be instructed by a Kudmie, he, would have different ideas very probably as to purification and the effect of it?—A. Yes in some respects they would differ. The Judge—I may take it that Mr. McCulloch is the Shanshai and Serjeant Atkinson Is the Kiidmie ? (A laugh.) Mr. McCulloch—It comes to that. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Yes, my Lord. By the Judge—<5. Is the only difference between* the Kudmies and Shanshais the difference in the calculation of time ?—A. No. Q. Are the sacred writings as regarded by both sects the same-?— A. Yes, they are the same, but differently interpreted: and hefLce the difference. Cowasjee Bhiccajee Massanee, Priest. Examined By Mr. Starling. Q. Are you a family priest ?—A. Yes. Q. And about five yea*s ago were a panthaki to Burjorjee ^estonjee ?— A. Yes. . * Q. Were you present at the^ fire#-temple when the ceremony of navjod was performed on Burjorjee's two sons.—A. I was. Q. dL)id you read the libel in the “ Sunday Review}&?—A. Yes. ^Th» libel was here read.] Q. Is that true ?—A. It is all false, so før as it refers to me. It is also false as to what Burjorjee did after that. Nothing of the kind took place. Q. Will you tell the Court what did take place on that day ?—A. I said on that occasion that I was entitled to perform the ceremony; and the dustoor thereupon said I must consult my patron. My patron said I would get the fees to which I was entitled; and I did not then interfere with the ceremony. I was satisfied with that arrangement. There was no quarrel with anybody. The Judge—Q. There was no misunderstanding with Nowrojee ?—A. No. By Mr. Starling—Q. The'two brothers completed the ceremony ?— A. Yes. Q. Have you ever heard of any misunderstanding with Nowrojee before this was published in the newspaper ?—A. No. Q. There was a large number of people present at the ceremony ?— A. About fifty people. ' v The Judge—Serjeant Atkinson has already said he does not mean to suppor# that at all. 49 It being now five o'clock, Mr. McCulloch said—-Well, thei^ is lj the prosecutor to call new, and he would probably take uj) more time than your Lordship would care for. The Judge then dismissed the jury for the flight, remarking—'At ten o’clock to-morrow, gentlemen, we will resume this case. This not being a case of felony, or equivalent to felony, I may permit you to *sep"arate and go to your respective homes : but I must caution you not to «speak to %ny person Whosoever about this case, nor to have any transaction with any jj^rson about it, a$d not to let a^ny one speak to you about this case. Any bi^acli of that will be very serious to any one. The Court then adjourned for the day. 8E00ND DAY:—Thursday, 25th November 1869. Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, the Prosecutor. Examined by Mr. Starling. » Q. You were lately acting as assistant out-door priest to your^brother at the Wadia fire-temple ?—A. Yes. Q. For ho w long ?—A. Six or seven years. Q, And* during that time had you been doing duty and receiving the fees as out-door priest ?—A. Yes. Q, TJp to what time had you been receiving the fees for doing these duties-?—A. Up to my suspension, which recently took place in , ' consequence of the appearance of this article in the newspapers. Q. When did you first see the article in the newspapers ?—A. I saw it two on three days after its publication, I being a subscriber to that newspaper. Q. How«$oon after the publication .did your brother suspend you ?— A. I am not quite sure, but almost immediately. Q, From th£ time of your suspension to the present time, have you done any work as an out-door priest ?—A. No. Q. Now that letter refers to some letter which has been written against the Jamasp Assa family. Have you had anything to do with the writing or publishing of thart; letter ?—A. No. 7 pc 50 fl. cDicI you know at all as to who did write or publish it?—-4. I did not know. Q. Now that also gives an account of what is alleged to have taken place when the navjpd ceremony was performed on Burjorjee’s sons. Did anything of that kind take place ? The Judge—That has been contradicted over and over again. Mr. Starling—I am only going to take it shortly.] The Jupje—I don’t know why. It is admitted it cannot be upheld ;.and I don’t seo why the time of the jury is to be wasted in having this master repeated over and over again. I?y Mr. Starling—Q. Is it true that while at Wassind you kept a prostitute ?—A. It is fklse. Q. Ts it true that you, while there, ate meals prepared by a Mahomedan cook?—A. That is false. Cross-examined hy Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. Q. When you were at Wassind you were engaged in Secular work, were you not?—A. Yes. Q. You had some contract under the railway ?—A. ‘No. Q But you were engaged in some contract work ?—A. I was a firewood ^ merchant. Q. And a hotel-keeper ?—A. I used to purchase firewood and send it down to Bombay for sale ; and I had a partner, Jamsetjee Tamooljee, who kept a hotel there. I had a share in the hotel concern. Q. After your return from Wassind, it was your intention, I believe, to resume your sacred functions?—A. Yes. Qt Now, having been engaged in secular work, was it necessary for you to undergo any process of purification?—A. I underwent the ceremony of nahan, which lasts only for half an houi1, and is a very simple ceremony. The Judge—But the question was not whether you did undergo a cere- mony : the question ^vas whether it was necessary you should undergo a ceremony of purification before you resumed priestly work 1—A. Yes : it was necessary. But the ceremony of brush- neoom ------------- Mr. Serjeant Atkinson (to the Interpreter)—Don’t let him talk about brushneoom till I touch upon it. (To Witness)—Q. Do I under- stand you to say that you did undergo the process of purification called nahan ?—/Z. Yes,ol Q. Well, have you any objection, or is there any religious objection, to state to £S what that process is ?—A. No. Q. Well, then, will you have the kindness to state to us what you did ?— A. I had to turn over my sacred thread and to say o, prayer, and to eat a leaf of the pomegranate tree, and then tiatlie; that is all. p. Have not you to perform what is called neerung ?—A. Yes : I had to drink neerung, and apply it to my body before bathing. Q. But you don’t tell us all that you had to do. Don^t tell a half of it only.—A. Neerung is the urine of a particular desci\ption ofloull described in our religious boo’ks, which is collected an>L,sacetified in a particular manner. Q. And you did all that in half an hoilr ?—A. Yes. Q. Where was it doi^e ?—A. In my clvn house, Q. Was any one present when you did it ?—A. No ; nor was it necessary for any one to be present. , * Q. Stop a moment: don't go too fast, f understand you to say that no one was present?—A. No one was present. Q. Now*, sir,—I put it to you as a mobed,—is it not essentially neccssary for that purification that it should be done in the presence of a priest?— A. It is necessary for a-layman only to perform it in‘the presence of a mobed, but it is not necessary for mobeds to do it in the presence of a priest—they themselves being such :^/Out it is necessary to perform the ceremony. ' Q. Could not any layman, who underwent the purification in the manner you did, perform the out-door work at the temple which you were performing at the time you were suspended ?—A. No. Q. Now, sir, having undergone that purification, I presume you com- municated to the dustoor, your brother, that you had done so?—■ A. Yes. Q. Thén, if he has told us that he never knew you had undergone that purification, that is false ? Mr. McCulloch—On the contrary, the dustoor said he did. The Judge—He said he did not know of his own knowledge, but that this man told him he had done so. He did not enter into the details, which are not very pleasing. Mr. Serjeaift Atkinson—Then that is my mistake, my Lord. Q. How long is it since you were at Wassind ?—A. I went in November 1855, and returned in February 1857, Q. Wassind, I understand, is a village of small huts and has a hotel? — A, Yes. 52 Q. And you inhabited one of tliese small huts ?— A. I did. r r r Q. But you took some of your meals at the hotel with your partner?— * A. Yes; there being a Parsee cook of our own in the hotel. Q. You generally took your meals there ?—A. Yes, generally. 0 * r Q. During the day you were occupied in your secular labours, I presume ? —A. Yes. f Q. Apd in the erening sometimes you went out to moojras and nautch .parties, did you not ?—A. Not that I recollect. f Q. A ij't>ojra, if I understand, is a singing party; a nautch is a d^nce ' - or hop?—A. I do not know the meaning of the word moojra}* MrC Serjeant Atkinson—Oh, come now ; now, do ; do. Witness—-I hav(e no experience of that kind of thing, and I do not know what it means. ( Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Do you mean to tell my Lord and the jury that you don’t know 7^hat a moojra is ? Turn your face to the jury. (Witness at this time was facing the interpreter.)—^4. I do say that I do not know the meaning of the word moojra. The Interpreter (Mr. *Ballajee)—Moojra, my Lord, literally means a salutation or salaam ; but when a courtezan goes to a village, she a'ttenefs before the authorities, out of aspect towards them, «for the purpose of making her salaams and singing a short time : she is not paid for that; and it is called a moojra. ‘Mr.y Serjeant Atkinson—It is a musical entertainment, of course. Mr. McCulloch—It is a fee to the government of the place. (Laughter.) Mr. Serjeant Atkinson (to witness)—I don’t know what moojra is;” • Is that your answer ?—A. Yes. The Interpreter—In Bombay, my Lord, this word has a local significa- tion. When a courtezan is engaged to sing at a marriage ceremony for three or four days, she attends on the first day without being paid any money \ and that is called moojra—her first attendance by way of earnest. ‘ . Mr. Serjeant Atkinson (to witness)—-Supposing a courtezan holds a musical entertainment, and persons like yourself—or like myself (laughter) — were to go and pay a rupee, what name would you give to that entertain- ment ? The Interpreter—He says that may be called a bytak; the literal meaning of which is, a singing party. t The Judge—The witness says if Serjeant Atkinsoji paid a rupee------- Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Your Lordship will understand that if a musi- cal entertainment is given by a courtezan, and I go and pay a rupee for the tmlertainmenl, this is called a bytnk. 53 The Judge—I have got it down in this way : if Serjeant Atkinson paid a rupee for the privilege of attending a singing party, he would beeper forming what is called bytak. (Laughter.) * Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—No, my Lord. If a musical entertainment were given by a courtezan, and I paid a rupee, I should be attending a bytak. © The Interpreter—When a courtezan does not go backward and forward singing, it is called bytak. If she sit and sing, even at privat© respectable residences, when there is no money paid by the visitors at all^i is a bytak ; and these are sometimes held during the festivals, when it is u^ual for people to pay a rupee or two as visitors.' • By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Are not the words bytak and moojra synonymous terms?—A. I can't say. Q. Perhaps you caiY't say what is the meaning of “ nautch” ?—A. When any one dances, I suppose that is called a nautch. , » Q. Well, now, we will go to the Waksind nautches andmoojras. Did you , ever go to a bytak or moojra at Wassind ?—A. I may have attended a bytak-5 but I do not recollect. • Q. While you were there did you know a woman of the name of Papajee ?—• A. No : I do not recollect her. The Judge—He does not recollect to have seen or heard of any womans being there of that name ?—A. No. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Did you ever know a person t)fere 'of the name of Mahaboob or Chotebaee.—A. No. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Let Papajee and Mahaboob alias Chotabace appear. [Papajee here entered the Court, and approached the bar amid much excitement. Her face was covered with her purdah, referring to which] — The Judge asked—Is it for the purpose of identification that you produce her rolled up in that way ? (Laughter.) Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I will tyiveil her presently, my Lord. Q. You have seen that woman in the Police Office ?—A. You showed her to me in the Police Office. Q. Did you ever in your life see that woman before you saw her in the Police Office ?—A. Not to my recollection. Q. Did you ever keep that woman—live with her, cohabit with her, as your concubine ?—A. Nothing of the kind: I never kept her, nor cohabited with her as my concubine. Q. Nor was ever in her house or shed at W as sin d ?—A. No. [Papajee then withdrew, and Mahaboob^was next produced in Court.] 54 Q. Now lpok upon that woman, and tell me whether you ever in your life before saw her?—A. No : not to my recollection. [Mahaboob then withdrew.] Q. Now did you, while at Wassind, know a person of the name of Eduljeo Lukrawallah ?—A. I knew one Eduljee Manockjee; I don’t know if you'mean the same person. Q. Perhaps his nap;ie was Eduljee Manockjee Lukrawalla ?—A. He was called Eduljee Manockjee Daboo. He was a partner with me in trafse. The, J up£?E—Are you going to call him as a witness ? Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Yes. Th^rJudge—Then you had better produce him. Q. Did you know a person of tine name of Rustomjee Sorabjee ?—A. I am not quite sure ; but there was a man of that name, I believe, at the station at Wassind. [A Parsee, named Eduljee^ Manockjee, was here produced and shown tp witness]. Witness—The person I ^ am now shown is Eduljee Manockjee, who was my partner in trade. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—That is not my witness, my Lord. " i ^ * The Judge—Well, will you produce your man if he has any existence f s Mr/Serjeant Atkinson (to witness)—Do you know a person of the \ if not followed by special damage, is not actionable; and Lord Denman, especially in Ayre versus Craven, cites it for that propose. Perhaps the apparent discrepancy may be reconciled by supposing that in Parret versus Carpenter there was special damage; so that it might consistently enough be cited for either proposition. The Judge, after reading the passage from Mr. Starkey on the law of libel, said—In the case before us, as the evidence now stands, the prosecutor was engaged in an office which, at least, stands as high as an occasional reader, which is given here—at least as high as that; I should say a good deal higher—and was in receipt of an income, and also of fees ; and both the one and the other have been stopped by his suspension. Unless he can clear himself of the imputation, he is, according to the evidence now before us, liable to perpetual deprivation. If that be not special damage, I do not know what is.59 Mr. S&rjeant Atkinson—In what I have said, I have presented tihe case to your Lordship raUier in an abstract form, than with reference to the case more immediately before the Court. I carefully guarded* myself up to this point from alluding to the prosecutor's right to fees. I now con\e to his sup- posed right to fees, or, in other words, to the question of s*peciål damage, on \Hrich your Lordship now puts it. Special damage can only aiåse from a strict legal right to fees : there must be a legal pecuniary loss. The law, I repeat, t#kes no notice of any except a strictly legal pecuniary loss. It must be a well-defined, ascertained, recoverable pecuniary claim and deprivation* of it—nothing else will do. Now, what ar$ the facts of this case ?v What he receives, according to this evidence, are mere voluntary oblations—offerings 5>r gratuities ; and it has been over and ovef* again decided that no actipn will lie for a mere gratuity. The Judge—I know \Vhat you are thinking of; that i» the case of the Cathedral—the fees to the cryer. But, as it stands in this case, the fees must be paid, otherwise there is no paternoster. You remember the old saying, "No penny, no paternoster.^ As the evidente stands the fee must be paid, .otherwise the party 13 not entitled to have the ceremony performed. The* amount depends 011 the will and ability of the giver; but some fee must be • paid. That is the way these priests are supported : they have a small fixed income, and a right*to fees. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Do I understand your Lordship to lay down as law that the prosecutor, Nowrojee, could maintain an action for thesr!'fees ? The Judge—L will tell you what, Mr. Serjeant Atkinson, it seems to me Very plain that, regarding this man in his profession as a Parsee priest, if the •incontinency part of this libel be. true, it is professional ruin : and if that is not special damage, I do not know what is. I will not split hairs on the point. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—If your Lordship puts it in that way, it is useless for me to go further into the question of his rig’ht to recover any fees. The Judge—I think so, quite. We have had it from gentlemen who were called. One gentleman, an advanced Parsee in his views,—'.a gentleman of great intelligence and high education, Mr. Nowrojee Purdonjee,—has told us that if the charge of incontinency be true, it is professional ruin. I cannot help thinking that this is an attack on this lnan in his priestly capacity. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I do not deny that at all, my Lord; and I admit that it is a questian morally fatal to him, if it be true: but it is a question of law, not of morality. ■ The Judge—Of course, how far your evidence may alter it I don’t know. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I only thought it I’ight, my Lord, to put tj*e law of the caae before you as considered by the highest tribunal in the land. 60 iThe J,ui>ge—And you have done it in the best professional manner. 1 hope you don't think^I meant to speak sharply to you,r Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—No, no3 my Lord. The Judgte—But I tk£nk it Would not do in a case of this kind : for it is quite clear that.this man would be professionally ruined, if this were true. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—One word more, my Lord (I was about to allude to it). Does your Lordship think that this man Was at the time a» officiating priest ? Do you think that, after being engaged in secular pursuits, as proved, £e had been so purified* according to the established Parsee laws and customs, as to come within the category of*officiating priest ? T4e Judge—Se was, as a matter of fact, engaged in the duties of an out-door priest ; and the evidence stands unimpeached that he was sus- pended from thé exercise of that office. As to whether he had undergone sufficient purification or not, how far that may be an important question I leave for further consideration; but he ^as actually engaged in the discharge of 1 those duties, and nobody alleges that the ceremony was insufficient; even your 'own libel does not allege that it was so. But in consequence of the charges < in the libel—;of being guilty of incontinence, and eating food prepared by a Mussalman—he has been suspended from the discharge of his duties ; that is * ho^tf the evidence stands. The fact is, he is what, according to our lanjg*u||ge, would (be called unfrocked, He is a degraded clergyman, for the present, till he diears himself. C' i '1 THE CASE FOR THE o prove that my client’s conduct was that of a man and a gentleman, and to establish that he did his duty to his co-religionists and to the world at large by writing the letter he did. Let me briefly call your attention to the facts 'and circumstances under which this letter was written. It appeared in the Sufiday Be view of the 15th August. The Parsees, as you know, are divided into two gr^at divisions, v the Kudmies and the Shanshais or Rasmies. Amongst the Kudmies there is no dispute whatever about the office of chief priesthood, or dustoorship. ^ They constitute the smaller division of the two ; and there is, as I have* said, no difference of opinion amon'gst them on this subject. The Shanshais, however, were, and are, divided in opinion. One^ party took the side of tht\ Sunjana family, of whom the dustoor and his brotlier (the prosecutor) are distinguished members ; and another party sided with the Jamasp Assa family. A rivalry—- it may be a good deal of party spirit—arose, and existed at the time t-his>lette:r was written. This being the case, you may well suppose that there was a good deal of angry feeling; and, surely, you ihust have some little consideration for one sitting dow>n to write at such a time, especially when one knows thut* of all disputes religious ones engender the most bitter feeling. You must not, therefore, criticize this letter, written under such circumstances, with too scrupulous nicety;» as if no rivalry or pavty spirit had existed. You must judge of it according to the time, place, and other circumstances under which it was written- It appears that the dustoor himself, who was called before you, had written some letters to another newspaper. My learned friend got him to retract something—I should not say got him to retract; but the dustoor did retract something* he had stated before the Police Magistrate. o o Mr. McCulloch—I beg your pardon, he did not retract. The Judge—-Ho : I think he only corrected the deposition as taken down, and said that, in fact, he had intended to say so and so. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I am very glad, indeed, to be myself corrected, and I allow the dustoor also a perfect right to correct any error he may have committed. Mr. McCulloch—No : it was an error of the copyist. • Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Well, be it so. The dustoor had reason to complain : he has come here and given his explanation* These, then, were the circumstances under which this letter was written. There was a family dispute about the dustoorship ; and my client, the defendant, took up his pen, as the dustoor had dqne for himself and his own family. He himself admit- ted that there were letters in existence, though he said they were upon religious subjects. But, mark ! the name of his rival was mentioned; and 62 therefore you qannot lielp seeing that it was written when the rival parties had fairly entered the field of controversy, and had submitted their claims to the Parsee public, through the medium of the public press. At this time Nowrojee, the brother of the dustoor, had returned from secular employ- ment to resume Tfiis sacred functions ; and being in the position that he might, to say no more, have been adopted by his brother, and so become high priest. 1 It was of the first importance that the public should know what was #the character of the man. Even apart from the possibility or probability of , adoption by his brother, he was about to enter again upon the performance of sacred rites ; and I think you wiH? at once conclude that it was for the public goQd that the man*s character should be made known. My client thereupon wrote the letter in questio[i. And what does it state? It states two essential matters—‘that Nowrojee ha"d eaten food prepared by a Mussalman cook, and that he had cohabited with a prostitute. Was it not for the public good that this man—a member of the distinguished Sunjana family, Vith a1 possibility, nay probability, of being adopted by his brother, and so becoming (as the dustoor • himself had become by adoption) high priest—-was it not for the public good, and in the cause of religion, that these things should be made known ? And who Was to do that but one of the very community which was to be led by the priesthood—>by their « dustoor ? But we need not speculate further upon the question whether the publication was or was not for the public good; for all the witnesses* tBe dustoor Ljmself included, at on^e admitted that it was so. I repeat that the proprietor of the temple and all the other witnesses admitted, that, if the charges were true, it was for the public good^ that the offender should be exposed. Can you doubt that it is so ? I am sure, my Lord, that you will not. I am sure that if we establish the truth of these charges, you will consider the exposure of the affair made for the public good. It would be an insult to your Understanding, gentlemen, to address you further on that point. I must here notice one remark that fell from my learned friend, He said the defendant was not influenced by good motives in the publi- cation : he said he was influenced by malicious motives, his intention being to do an injury to the dustoor in order to promote the interests of his rival Jamaspjee. My learned friend has, I know, been recently on a visit to the Neilgherry Hills, enjoying the beauty of the scenery and the salubrious air there; and glad we all are to see hirq in his place again, restored to the vigour and freshness of his youth. It is clear to my mind that my learned friend took with him a book—Vfcry interesting and instructive, familiar to us all—by the name of “ Sam Slick.” I am sure that he has been reading that book!—I am quite sure of it; for in it old Blowhard, the skipper of ihe^Bald Eagle, says of old Sarsaparilla, the skipper of the Nantasket,'-~“He is a queer old dog, is old Sarsy. He’s a man of theory.. A theory is one of the finest things in all creation. An empty bag can’t stand straight; but a theory stands slick as* a63 bulrush, without any facts at all. Why, if folks will have facts, wh]r n,ot manu- facture 'em” Thp,t's just the passage my learned friend has been reading. Haying no facts to rely upon he manufactured 'em. If he did not manufac- ture them, on this improved plan, they must have “ growed," as Topsy thought she did. What fact is there to warrant the remark that he Vas influenced ’by any malicious motive against the dustoor ? Again, I would, ask, my Lord,— suppbsing him to have been influenced by the most malicious motives against the dustoor,—what has that to do with the present case ? *The dustoor is not the prosecutor ? If my learned friend had urged that my client was influenced by malicious motives towards Nowrojee, the prosecutor, in writing this letter, ♦ I could have understood it* But what does he bring forward to support him ,in this ? Here, again, he is busy manufacturing facts !—or th’py have “growed" in his fertile brain; for he says that what tiOok place at Wassind was brought before the* public assembled at the fire-temple five years ago. Supposing that to be so,—which is supposing a great deal,—is there * a scintilla of evidence to show that my client knew it when he wrole the letter ?—that my client was at the fire-temple*when the supposed meeting took ( place?—or even knew of it till the very moment he wrote the letter? Nci the slightest in the world ! What becomes, thpn, of the charge of malice toward Nowrojee ? Moreover, I call my Lord's attention again to this (for it cannot be too often repeated) : if I establish the truth of these changes, anJ that the letter was published for the* public good (which I undertake to do), it matters not by what motive the writer was influenced, because the truth of the matter and the benefit to the public by the publication ^re the sole criteria of legal justification. I hope, in consequence of my learned friend's remark, that his Lordship will point that out to you. Now* not to weary you with any further remarks upon the case, or upon the evidence for the prosecution, let me go to Wassind and to the defence. Nowrojee has sworn that he never saw the woman in his life before he saw her at the Police Court; and he says he never saw the sister till to-day. I shall call before you both of them: and they will be corroborated by other witnesses. You will hear from them that he attended moojras and nautches ; and although this innocent young man told you he did not know what a moojra or nautch was------ Mr. McCulloch—No : he did not say that. • Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I speak to gentlemen who will correct me if I am wrong. Can you, gentlemen, entertain any doubt of there being some mental reservation when he gave the answer he did give ? If I show you, as I can do, that he went there, and paid his money in the way I represented myself to pay, if I went there, you can have little doubt that, to other disgraces he has brought upon his family, he has added that of wilful perjury. It may be -that, if 1 establish the truth of these charges, it will be his ruin. I do 64 not conceal from myself tliat fact: considering his high family and the position he holds. Tt may, it will be, his ruin. But you cannot respect the person: you may regret the disgrace which he has brought upon himself and upon his distinguished family, but you will feel, lam sure, that, if I prove what I have undertaken to £>roVi3, the stern demands of justice must be satisfied; and your verdict will be a fearless one, whether for weal or for woe. The following witnesses were then called for the defence :— Papajee, Courtezan. Examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. Q.4 What is your name ?—A. Papajee Naikum. Q. You are now a married woman ?—A. Yes. Q. How long have you been married?—A. Ten or eleven years, <$. Some years ago did you reside at Wassind ?—A. Yes : about ten or twelve years ago I lived at Wassind. Q. Did you reside near the hotel there ?—A. Yes : J lived close to the hotel. Q. Do you know the name of the hotel-keeper at that time ?—A. Yes : I do. Jamsetjee was the-hotel-keeper. * Q.\ What sort of a house was it in which you lived? A shed, or large house, or bungalow ?—A. It was a hut. Wassind, being a village, " one could not expect to have a regular house there. Q. Who lived wTith you ?—A. My mother and my sister. Q. Was she your own mother, or a person you called your mother?— A. She was my maternal aunt, the sister of my mother; and, as she brought me up after the death of my mother, I called her my mother. Q. And is the “ sister” who lived with her the person who appeared in Court about an hour ago ?—A. She is the daughter of my maternal aunt— that is what I meant by “ my sister.” Q. Was this cousin, called Mahaboob, the person who lived with you there ?—A. Yes. Q. Where is the person you'called your mother?—A. My aunt is now at the village called Johwar, Hyderabad, Deccan. She was taken there, being ill. , Q. And if I understand you, she is not in a good state of health? What is her age ?—A. About fifty years. Q. If I understand you correctly, she is in illc health at the present moment ?—A, She is suffering from leprosy. 65 Q. You saw the person standing* where you stand now. Did ^ou^ever see thatjnan Nowrojee at Wassind?—A- Yes. Q. Pray, while you were at Wassind, how did you get your living ?—I mean what was your profession ?—A. I was a kusba,n—*a prostitute, and danced nautches. Q. Was Nowrojee ever in your house when you lived at Wassind ?— A. Yes. Q. Did you cohabit with him ? Mr. McCulloch—Don't lead. Q. How often did he ccfme to see you ?—A. He came twice or thriee to my hut. He came to me sometimes, and I went to him sometimes. Q. For what purpose did he come ?—A, To cohabit with me. Q. How long did the intercourse between you continue* ?—A. For four and a half months. Q. During the period of cohabitation did y«u become pregnant ?—A. Yes. Q. And who wa^ the father of that child ?—A. Nowrojee. Q. Wert2 you at that time accustomed to see other men?—A. I had been kept by him and was receiving wages from him, and was attached to him only for that' time. Q. How much did he give you ?—A. Rs. ?,0 per month. Q. During the time before you left Wassind, did you give any#mo«jras or nautch parties in^your house ?—A. Yes, both. Q. At these parties, men who go there give you a present of some money to come in, do they not ?—A. Yes; that is how I maintain myself. Q. That is the way, is it not, in which many of your profession do main- tain themselves ?—A. Yes. Q. Now, when Nowrojee came, did he come alone, or bring some of his friends with him ?—A. Sometimes he came with Jamsetjee, and sometimes with Eduljee.^ Q. Do you mean Eduljee Lukrawalla?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know the names of any other men who came with him to your nautch and moojra parties ?—A* Many Parsees that came through from Bombay used to come to moojvas and nautches at my place, but I don't remember their names now. Q. And sometimes these moojra and nautch parties were held at the hotel 'I—A, Yes. Q. Was Nowrojee there ?—A. Yes. • Q. And Eduljee also ?■■—A, Yes. 9 pc 66 Q. And other friends of Nowroiee ?—A. Yes. * r * ^ Q. And did you receive money on these occasions when you went away from your own house ?—A. Yes. Q. Do I understand you to say that he used to sleep with you in your shed?—A. Yes: some nights he slept at my hut, and sometimes I went to his place. Q. Tq. the hut wjiere he lived ?—A. Yes. Q. How far was that shed from the one in which you lived ?—A. Quit© close. ft. After you became pregnant, you left Wassind?—A. Yes: I received an invitation from the Rajah of Johwår. Q. You were sent for, for the purpose of singing ?—A. It was to perform nautches there during the Holee festival. Several singing women were called there. Qr. You returned afterwards to Wassind?—A. Yes. I thence went to Bhewndy, Callian, and Tanna, and afterwards returned to Wassind. Q. When you returned to Wassind was Nowrojeec there ? —A. Yes. Q. Did he return to cohabitation with you ?—A. Yes. Q. And your nautch and moojra parties were renewed, were they ?—■ A. Yes. Q\ The child was born åt Wassind, was it not ?—A. Yes. *Q. *And afterwards died ?—A. Yes. Q. How long after the birth of your child was the cohabitation with you ?—A. After the first forty days were over he renewed his visits for cohabitation. Q. And how long did he keep you after that ?—A. A few days. He afterwards returned to Bombay. Q. After that, I believe, you asked him to pay your debts at Wassind ?— A. Yes. Q. And he refused ?—A. He did. Q. And from that day, till you saw him in the Police Court, you have not seen him ?— A. No. t Cross-examined by Mr. McCulloch. Q. When did you first go to Wassind?—A. From whsre ? Q. From anywhere? unless you were born in Wassind?—A. About ten . or twelve years ago. I came from Aurangabad first to Wassind, Q. At Aurungabad you had been living as a prostitute, I suppose ?•— A. Yes; I was born of a family of kusbans.67 Q.^Who brought you down to Wassind ?—A. I came therg of mj own accord. I left my country, went to different places, and came to Wassind. Q. How long had you been in Wassind before you met Nowrojee ?— A. About a day or two. Q. Did the people you call your mother and sister come with you at that time?—A. Yes. Q. Where did you come from—direct from Aurungabad to -Wassind a day or two before ?—A. I visited different places on the &ay from Aurungabad to WassincF; but I came direct from Aurang- abad to WassincL Q. But where was the last place you were staying at ?—A. I do not remember the#name of that village. Q. Well, how long did you stay at that village ?—A. It might be two or three days. Q. And how far was that village fron» Wassind ?—A. About ten or eleven coss. Q. How, did you come these ten or eleven coss ?—A. In a bullock gharry. Q. In one day,?—A. Yes; or in twp daj'S. Q. Where did you stop the night before you came to Wassind ?—-4. I may have stayed at Shapore. Q. Well, I want to know. I asked the last place, and you said you did not know. Whereas the last place you stayed at before you came into Wassind ?—A. It might be either at Kurlee or Kussara. Q. Now, where did you meet Nowrojee for the first time ?—A« At Was- sind, in my hut, at a moojra or nautch party. Q. And what had you been doing a day or two before you met him ?—■ A. I was performing nautches and moojras there. Q. After you met him, you say he took you into regular keeping ?— A. Yes: two or three days after I became acquainted with him he kept me—took me into his keeping for fixed wages. Q. Did you remain in the same house ?—A, Yes. Q. With your aunt and cousin ?—A. Yes. Q. In one room ?—A. There were three rooms altogether in the hut—one on each side and one in the centre. I slept in one of the side rooms, my cousin slept in the other, and my aunt in the middle room. The middle room was also used as the visiting room. It was a thatched hut. Q, Was your cousin also living as a prostitute ?—A. Yes.68 rQ.r Now, you say, you remained for four" and a half months after you knew Nowrojee ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you remain at Wassind the whole of that time ?—A. Yes. Q. Well^how long did you remain away ? You say you went to a Nawab, How" long did you remain away ?—A. I was away altogether two months before I returned to Wassind. Q. Huw long after your return do you say the child was born ?—A. About ' a fortnight or twenty days : in fact, the child was born about seven or eight months after I became pregnant. Q., How long after Nowrojee left did you continue at Wassind V— A, A fortnight, or a month. Q. And wereyoti supporting yourself by prostitution during that time ?— A, Yes: my cousin was kept by Shapoorjee, who is dead, and I only performed nautches and moojras. Q. Did you know a troop sep6y at Wassind ?—A. No. Q. Are you sure of that ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you know a man named Cullian Khan ?—A. No. Q. No one of that name ?—A. No. , Q. Do you mean to say that $,11 the time you wetre at Wassind was within a year?—A. I do not recollect if it was a year, or*a year and a quarter, or «a year and a half. Q. And, with the exception of the two or two and a half months you were at the Nawab's, do you mean you lived continuously at Wassind?—A. Yes; but I visited Tanna, Callian, and Bhewndy before I returned. Q. During that year, or year and a half, that you say you were at Wassind, were you visiting about the country ?—A. Yes. Q. Apart from the two months during which you were engaged in this Nawab's business, were you in the habit of living at Wassind during all that year, or year and a half, or were you going away and visiting places from time to time ?—A. I remained at the Rajah's place only for a week or two, and during the other time was going about to other places. The Judge (to the Interpreter)—What Mr. McCulloch wants to know is this: she admitted in her examination-in-chief that she went to the Rajah's, and on her return visited Callian, Tanna, and Bhewndy. Well, he wants to know whether, beyond that visit to the Rajah and these three places, she, during the year, or year and a half, or whatever it wa The Judge—If there is anybody behind that is making signals, we must get him brought up. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. How long after your cousin cajne'from Tanna was the child born ?—A. A fortnight or three weeks after the arrival of my sister at Wassind. Q. Not more than a fortnight ?—A, Not more than a fortnight. Q. How long did the child live after it was born ?—A. About fdhr gheerees—native hours. The Judge—One hour and thirty-six minutes. Q. Where were you brought to in Bombay? Wherej were you staying when spoken to#about this trial ?—A. In my native village. Q. And who saw you about your evidence ?—A. My brother-in-law Ebram, the husband of Papajee. Q. Was there a Parsee with him ?—Å. Yo*s. Q. Did they tell y,ou what you were to get for giving your evidence ?— A. No. Q. Did they arrange to pay your expenses or make any arrangement about th^it ?—A. They brought m§ at their expense. Q. How were you supporting yourself at that place—by your profession as a prostitute ?—A. By my calling, and also by dancing. Q. That is a part of it, I suppose. Are you to be compensated for your loss of business during all this time you are away from your business?—A. No. Q. When did you leave Wassind ?—A. Pour or five years ago. Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. Q. You have"said that at Wassind many persons lived with your sister. Do you mean that that was so during the time Nowrojee kept your sister ?—A. Nowrojee kept her afterwards. * Q. While she was living with Nowrojee, was she constant to him or not ?—A. She was. Q. While Papajee and you were at Tanna, did she ever cohabit with a person of the name of Cullian Khan ? The'JuDGE—At Tanna do you mean, or Wassind ? Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—At Tanna, my Lord. Witness—I don’t remember anything about Cullian Khan. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Did she cohabit with any sowar ?—A« I don’t remember, lire82 r Mi\ Sprjeant Atkinson (to the Interpreter)—You used the word that she maintained herself by kusban. Does that mean giving# nautch.es ? Mr. McCulloch—It was interpreted ec prostitution.” The Judge—If the interpreter did not put her McCulloch's question in the way Mr. McCuiloch put it, the interpreter made a mistake. Mr. McCulloch put his question in that way. Mr. ^Serjeant Atkinson—He did, but the interpreter did not put the question^in that way. The Judge—I should like to hear that from the interpreter himself, and /iot from somebody behind yfcur back. Do you recollect the word, Mr, Shamråo, which you rendered “ prostitution.” The interpreter (Mr. Shamrao)—Yes, my Lord khurchee. * The Judge-—That is not the word the learne No such thing. I take my meals with four oi* five of my friends. By Mr. McCulloch*—Q. Have not you been staying in Jamsetjee*s house, his godown, or office ?—A. I have been staying with him since I came down here to give my evidence.88 Q. Now you have said you liave seen Nowrojee frequently at the nautcli parties?—A. Yes, often. Q. How often will you swear you have seen him ?—A. Many times; but - I cannot say how often. ^ Q. Three ^imes ?—A. Oh, yes; many times. Q. You said you never went with him, but you have seen him there?— - A. Yes/ Q. "Now, when was the money paid—when you came away, or when, you went in ?—A. In the nautch party we gave one or two rupees. Q. Did you give it as you went in ?—A. No. When the moojra has com- menced; and when the woman has sung two or three songs, we- thep give her two or three rupees. f> Q. They collect the money when the singing is going on?—A. Yes. Q. Were there many people'^t these nautches ?—A. Yes. Q. A great many—a crowd ?—A. No, about six or seven persons. Q. Now, where wak it that Nowrojee ate your dinnersn?—A. At tite station. * Q. How far was the statron from the hotel ?—A. i received my jneals from Tanna. Q. How far was the station from the hotel ?—A. Not very close—as far as from here to the dockyard. By the Judge—Q. How many times was this joke perpetrated at your expense ?-~A. Five or six times. Q. And when did you communicate that fact to the accused Jamsetjee ? —A. Sometime in last month, when three Parsees came to me at Tanna. Q. Well, you submitted to the joko the first time. What did you do the second time ?—A. I submitted each time. Q. But don’t you think the point of the joke was rather lost when it was perpetrated the second time ?—A. As I was on friondly terms with him, I said nothing about it. Q. And did you think the joke was constantly increasing each time it was done ?—A. Well, I returned the joke ^ometime& by going to the hotel and taking my meals there. Q. Is your mother a cook ?—A. No; she merely cooks for me. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. Then your dinner had to travel more than thirty miles?—A. Certainly*89 Q. Do you tliink a dinner which has travelled thirty miles is better than a dinner in a hotel close to ?—A* My dinner used to come warni. It was sent closed up in the same vessel in which it was cooked, and it ca^jie by the mail train. The Judge—Did you get your dinner always hf this train I was assistant guard of the mail train. , The' Jubg-e—I hopo you guarded the train better than you seem to have guarded your dinner. (Laughter,) By Mr* McCulloch—Qe Will you just look at this signature (handing witness a document) on this pieqe of paper, and say whether it is your handwriting ?—A. No, it is not. Mr. McCulloch—Now, I warn you, sir, that that is a most serious answer—-either you or another person will be iÅdicted for perjury after this trial is <3ver.—Witness. I say that is no& my signature. Mr. McCulloch—Now, I warn you, this is very serious. Just look fib * the document again that there .may be no mistake.—Witness (after looking at the document). That is not my signature. Mr. McCulloch tlien requested that Mr. Cqrnin, Deputy Clerk of the 'Crown, should take down the evidence given by the witness, in case it sfiould afterwards be thought advisable to prosecute him for perjury. * * ^ TL.e ^vitness* words were then taken down as follows :—I know Dinshaw Shapoorjee, managing clerk to Messrs. Dallas and Co. I was taken to his house by Burjorjee Byramjee, but did not make any signature there, or this signature on this document anywhere. My signature is quite different from that. I know this man Burjorjee Byramjee. I did not sign this paper in his presence or in that of Dinshaw Shapoorjee. A third person now present, Hormusjee Shapoorjee, was present as well as Dinshaw Shapoorjee and Burjorjee Byramjee when I was taken to Dinshaw’s house at night. Dinshaw asked me what evidence I could give with reference to this suit. I never dictated to Dinshaw in reply to that question the following : ‘ I am appointed chief constable. I was employed in Gr. I. P. Bail way from the year 1854 down to 1864. I used to go to Wassind. I know Nowrojee the com- plainant. He was at Wassind. I know Papajee, courtezan, and her sister Mahaboob. She was never kept by Nowrojee. I have never heard that she was kept by Nowrojee. To my knowledge he never ate food prepared by a Mahomedan cook. (Signed) Goolam Ahmed.5—Dinshaw did not write down thosp words by my direction, nor, after he had written them down, did he ask me to sign §uy name at the foot of what he had written. I did not ask him whether I should sign it in English or Marathi. He did not tell me to read it over and sign it in English as the document was in English. I still,adhere to my statement, that I did not write the signature to that document.” 12 p c 90 Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. r ^ ' r “ I had already stated, in reply to Dinshaw’s question, that Pestonjee, an attorney’s clerk, had taken down what evidence I had to give before I was taken to Dinshaw’s. Burjorjee told me to give evidence on Nowrojee’s part. I ttfld him I did not know what questions would be asked of me at the Sessions/’ Mi^, Serjeant Atkinson—Did they offer you any money ? — A. Yes, sir* Ma*. McCulloch —I would ask my learned friend not to put leading questions. ' Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Well, I will take this no further. (To witness)— You have received an order to return for another appointment in the Police ? Witness—Yes : I have not received a written order, but a verbal order from the Commissioner, and will join in January. Serjeant Atkinson then intimated that that finished the evidence for the defence. The Court then adjourned at twenty minutes past five o’clock till tie following morning, the fudge repeating his caution to the jcary,—that ijiey « would be allowed to go home, but were not to communicate with anybody* or allow anybody to communicate.with them about this case. THIRD DAY:— Friday, 26th November 1869. CASE IN REBUTTAL. The case was resumed this morning, when the following witnesses were called to give rebutting evidence for the prosecution :— Rustomjee Ruttonjee Attia, Liquorseller, Wassind. Examined by Mr. McCulloch* Q. What are you ? —A. I was a dealer in firewood before, and am now a seller of English liquors. Q. Did you live at Wassind ?—A. I live at Wassind. I went there about nineteen or twenty years ago. I was there^before t*he railway was opened. Q. In 1856 was the prosecutor your partner ?—A. Yes: he came to Was- sind at that time, and was my partner in the firewood business for a month, or six or seven weeks. 91 Q. During that time*did Nowrojee live in your house ? —A. He did. I was a married man, and my wife and family were livmg’ witA me. Nowrojee ate with me. My wife cooked for us. Q. After your partnership with Nowrojee was dissolved, what did Nowrojee do ? — A. He became a partner with ‘one.Eduljee, a firewood dealer, and continued to live in Wassind for fourteen or fifteen months altogether. * * ► Q. Now, when your partnership was dissolved, where did Nowrojee live ?—A. With Eduljee. I continued on speaking terms with* Nowrojee while he remained in ^assind, and saw him constantly. * Q. At that time what size of a place wg,s Wassind? —A. It was a *very small place, consisting of about fifteen huts. Q. And how many Parsees were living' there at the time ?— A. Threfe or four. Q. Now were you well acquainted with what mode of life each oth^r * led—what each did ?—A. Yes. •* p Q. Would it have been possible for one of you Parsees to have kept a prostitute in the place, or have frequented a prostitute's house, without the others knowing it ?. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—This is a mere question of hearsay. Tte Judge—It's a very fair question. [Question repeated]—A. No, no, Wassind being so small a place. Q. Now did you know of the woman Papajee being at Wassind ?— A. Yes. Q. When did she come to Wassind?—A, She came there about a month or two before Nowrojee left Wassind for Bombay. Q. How long did she remain in Wassind ?—A. She continued to reside at Wassind for a month, or two ; then went away, and afterwards came back. Q. She was away from Wassind for some time, I suppose ?—A. A fort- night or a month. Q. And then how long would she remain in Wassind when ‘she came back ?—A. Sometimes a month, sometimes two or four months, according to her pleasure. Q. Now did Nowrojee, to your knowledge, ever keep that woman ?— A. Not*to my knowledge. Q. Did he ever sleep with her to your knowledge, or visit her ?—A. N c Q• Was it ever reported or suggested to your mind in Wassind that he went with this woman or kept her ?—A. No. 92 Q. Was there ever any rumour that that woman had a child by him ?— * r A. No. f Q. Did you evefr hoar any such report about him—either that he had kept this woman, or had intercourse with he^or had a child by Jier/before this libel was published ?—A, No. Q. Whatr was the reputation of Nowrojee during that time at Was- sind ?—A. He had a very good reputation. r r r Mr- Serjeant Atkinson—I have always understood that the character of a prosecutor could not be inquired into in an action or prose-* cution for slander. IJowever, I don't object to it. The Judge —I think Mr. Mcpulloch is going a little too far. This ques- tion did you no harm, but a little good. ' Mr. Serjeant Åtkinson—I am rather thankful: but still I wish to point* out these little irregularities. Examination resumed—Q. Do you know the hotel there ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you know what rooks' were kept there ?—A. There were several cooks—a Parsee, a Mahomedan, and a Pprtuguese, at different times. , Q. Well, do you kno^ who cooked for the Parsees ?—A. The Parse® cook. By the Judge—Q. Have you ever dined in the hotel?—-A0Once or twice. Q. You have said that a Mahomedan cook was kept there?—A. There was a Mahomedan servant there, but I don’t know whether he was only fetching water, or what services he was doing. Q. Was he there during the time that Nowrojee was at Wassind ? You are asked now only as to the cooks that were at the hotel during the time Nowrojee was at Wassind?— A. During that time there was one Parsee and one Portuguese. Q. Was there any Mahomedan ?—A. There was a Mahomedan kept for fetching water. Q. During that time ?~A. Yes. Q. I thought just now you said you did not know exactly what he did ? —A. That is what I say. I saw him fetching water, and also sweeping the place; but I don’t know what other work he did. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant AtkinsoS. Q. You are, if I mistake not, a member of the Sunjana family and* a relative of Nowrojee?—A. My wife, bot myself, is connected with the Sunjanas and Nowrojee. 03 Q. In wliat relation does^your wife stand to Nowrojee ?—A. Nowrojee- is her maternal uncle's son. Q. And your partnership with. Nowrojee seems to liave been a very sliork one—^ month and a half only ?—A* Yes. ‘G£. What made you separate so soon ?—A. There was no particular reason .for separation. He did not like to continue. » Q. After he left your house and went to Eduljee's house, you say you were only on speaking’ terms. Gan you explain that0to us,?— A. I mean to say I had no guarrel nor misunderstanding with him of any kin(J to prevent me speaking to him. * Q. But you did not associate so intimately with him afterwards as you did before? Is that so ?—^.Whenever *ve met, we sat, and conversed together. Q. But you did not know how he spent his evenings or days after th^t, did you ?—A. It was a small place. I used to know when he was purchasing any particular lots of w*ood, or hiring carts. Q. Did you kno'ft how he spent his evenings ? First of all, he was a ifionth and a half in your house. Do }rou know how he spent his evenings then ?—A. During the time he lived in my house, he lived*with me in the evening^* Q. Do you mean to tell these gentlemen that he spent the whole of the evening, and every evening, with you during the month aiid a half he lived with you ?—A. He did not sit with me the whole time: sometimes he wrote whatever he had to write ; sometimes he talked with others. The Judge—I should say, if you intend to put further questions, that what Nowrojee did so long as he was with this man is immaterial, for it strikes me the woman Papajee could not have been at Wassind at the time, if he was only a month and a half in this man's house and remained fourteen months in Wassind. According to her own account and this man's she was not at Wassind at the time. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I wanted to test his knowledge on these matters. I will only put one other question. Q. During the time he lived with you, did you ever know of him going , out any evening ?—A. No. Q. After he went^to live with Eduljee, do you know how he spent his evening ?—A. I do not know that. Q. Now you seem to have been acquainted with Papajee, at least by sight. Is that so ?—A. Yes, as she was living there, 94 Q. rYesv She was living' in a shed opposite the hotel, was she not ?— A. At first she lived on the road there, in a,house belonging to a goldsmith, at a distance from the hotel. Q. And you saw her frequently, did you not ?—A. Ye:^ t r » Q. And any* one living at Wassind would see her as well as you—in a smaft place like Wassind ?—A. I believe* so : I cannot say. Q. Well, now, when Nowrojee was there,* at the time Papajee was there, in a small place like what you describe, what is your opinion— that Nowrojee would see her as well as you, or not ?—A. How can I speak for him : he may have seen her,. Q. You know very well. If Nowrojee had told you that he had never seen Papajee, nor known of her existence, would you have believed him ? .(No reply.) Answer the question, sir.—AL Nowrojee has not told me so.. Q. You are not asked that. If.Nowrojee had told you so, would you have believed it?—A. H6 has never told me anything of the kind., Q. I will make you understand my question. If Nowrojee did tell you « so, would you believe it ?—A. Yes, I would believe him if he toli me so ; but he has not told me so. Q. How came you to know this woman Papajee s<5 well ?—A. JL been living there *nany years up to the present time. Q. You knew that she gave nautch and moojra parties, did you not ?—A. Yes : but that was latterly, when the town increased.. Q. Did she give nautch and moojra parties while Nowrojee and she were in Wassind ? —A. She may have done so once or twice. Q. Let there be no misunderstanding about it. While Nowrojee was living at Wassind ? —A. Yes. Q. Don’t you know that it was reported in Wassind that Nowrojee had attended these nautch parties ?—A. No: I did not hear anything of that. Q. How long did she continue these visits?—A. For seven or eight years ; and during that time there was only one month that Nowrojee was there at the same time that she was. The Judge—He has said “ she came there about a month or two before Nowrojee left Wassind.-” By Mr. McCulloch—Q. And was that month or two the only time that Nowrojee and this woman were in Wassind at the same time ?— A. Yes. Q. And that, I think you say, was in the year 1857 ?—-A. Yes.95 Edultee Manockjee Daboo, Firewood Merchant, Bombay ^ Examined by Mr. Starling. * Q. You are firewood merchant, residing now in Bombay ?—A Yes. About fourteen or fifteen years ago you wére carrying* on business at Wassind ?—A. 1 was. , Q. At tliat time did you know Nowrojee the prosecutor ?—Æ,Yes. Q. Was he also living at Wassind?—A. Yes, he was carrying on business as a firewood merchant at first when I knew him, with Rustomjee Ruttonjee. ' Q. After his partnership with Rust'omjee Ruttonjee,, he entered into partnership with you ?—A. Yes. ^ Q. Whilst he was yoiy partner where did he live ?—A% With me. Q. Did he eat with you?—A Yes* Q. Who prepared the meals ?—A* A# Parsee servant. Q. For how long did your partnership continue ?—A. For four months. Q. Did he live With you and eat with you the whole of that time ?—- A Yes. Q. Now, when^he dissolved partnership, did he form a partnership with ► # anyone else?—A. Yes, with Jam&etjee Tamooljee. Mr. Stalling—I understand it is no good going into the question of who cooked at the hotel, because, as I understand, the learned Serjeanf has abandoned the charge as to the,hotel, and the case depends on the truth of prosecutor having stolen this man’s dinner. The Judge—I did not understand the learned Serjeant as making any formal waiver of it, but he did not succeed in establishing anything as to the hotel; and as to the eating, all he has to rely on is the stealing of Goolam Ahmed’s dinner. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—But that is quite different from putting it in as an admission. The Judge—Quite different. Mr. Starling—I don’t want to take up the time of the Court in asking it. The Judge—I think you must take your own course/ Examination*resumed—Q. Who cooked at the hotel?—A. A Parsee cook* Q. Did you ever hear of Nowrojee eating food cooked by a Mussalman cook before this libel?—A. No. * Q. Wassind, we understand, is a small place, or was so at that time?— A. Yes. 96 Q.r And did everybody know wliat everybody else was doing?—A. Yes. r C Q. Did you know a woman named Papajee ?—A. Who is she? Q. A prostitute, named Papajee, who lived in Wassind?—vl Yes, there Was a^prostitute of that name. ^ Q. Did she^live there regularly, or did she visit the place from time to time ?—A. She lived there for some time, and was in the# habit a of going and returning* Q. To your knowledge, did Nowrojee keep that woman ?—A. No. Q. Or did he frequent her house ?—A. No'.» . (S'.r Now, if Nowrojee had kept that woman, pr had been in the habit of frequenting her house, must you have known it ?—A. Certainly4 as Nowrpjee was living with me. Q. Do you know whether anybody—any on@- person—was living with Papajee, or in the habit of frequenting her house ?—A. That ' prostitute was living there ; and as there were thousands of people going to her house and visiting her, how can I know ? The Judge—I thought Wassind was a very small place, and not inhabited* by thousands. Witness—What I meant to say was this^—that it was the house of a prostitute, frequented by many people, by th^ public. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. You seem to know a good deal about Papajee. Did you frequent that place ?—A. I did. Q. Then you know the persons who wont there, I presume ? You spent the whole of your day and night there ?—A. I sometimes* went to her place. I had my business to attend to during the day. Q. You were living with your wife at Wassind at that time, were you not ?—A. No. Q. Was not your wife living under the same roof with you at Wassind at that time ?—A. No. Q. You are a married man ?—A, I am. By the Judge—Q. Were you so then ?—A. I was. Q. Where was your wife living ?—A. In Bombay. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Was it in consequehce of your going to Papajee*s house that she separated from you ?—A. No. Q. Was it in consequence of your living with any concubine that she left you ?—A. I abandoned her as her conduct was bad, and married into another family. 97 The Judge—Was your first wife ever with you at Wassind?—A. She never was. * By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Did you live with'any woman at Was- sind as•jT'our wife ?—A. No. Q. How many wives have you ?—A. One. Q. And how many concubines have you had living with, you in your e time ?—A. I kept none. Q. How many concubines have you cohabited with in your time ?—A. I never kept any. . The Judge—That is not the question.—A, Never in my life have I slept or cohabit eel with any concubine. » By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson-—Q. Then, if I understand you correctly, you do not consider Papajee a concubine?—A. I may have attended at her house to liear her singing. • Q. She gave nautch and moojra parties, and you attended ? Is that S9 Or not ?—A. Yes. Q. And during the time Nowrojee was in Wassind, did she give any t nautch or moojra parties ?—A. After Nowrojee left she did. Q. During the time that Nowrojee was in Wassind, were there any nautch ov moojra parties in Papajee^s house ?—A. No. ^ Q.*Papajee was well known in Wassind ? There being but a few small houses of that kind, Papajee was we>l known ?—A. Yes. Q. Was known to everybody ?—A. Yes : people living there knew#that a prostitute lived the*re. Q. But was she not seen occasionally on the streets ?—A. No. Q. Now, if Nowrojee had told you that he had never heard of nor seen such a woman, would you have believed him ?—A. If he told me that she was there, I would believe him. The Judge—But that is not the question. You are asked by the learned Serjeant whether, if Nowrojee told you he had never seen her, you would have believed him. Recollect, it was all in a small place.—A. Yes, if Nowrojee told me that, I would have believed him. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. You would think it very strange, would not you, if he had told you so ?—A. Why ? Q. Would yotL have thought it very strange if he had told you so?— A. No : because it was true, I should believe it. By the Judge—Q. Is this woman Papajee a Mahomedan ?—A. Yes. Q. Is it the practice of Mussalman women of her calling to go much about out of doors ?—A. They may be going out. 13 p c 1 * *98 Q. That is not answering my question. I want to know if it is their practice to go out of doors or to keep in the house ? I want to know wliicli of the two is the common practice among people of that description. I mean, if they appear on tfye streets. I don't moan *co ask whether they go to nautches, and sing and dai^ce in people's houses; but is it their practice to go about the streets in public ?—A. Yes, they go out in the streets. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. And have not you yourself seen Papajee and her sister Mahaboob on the street at Wassind?—A. I have. Q. Have you not frequently seen them on the streets ?—A. Sometimes: I don't remember at this distance of time, fifteen years having elapsed. # ’ Q. Well, now, I will go to the hotel with you. Did you ever attend any nautch ormoojra party at Jamsetjee's hotel?—A. No, there were , ' no moojras or nautches at that hotel at any time. The Judge—How long ware you in Wassind ?—A. I am there still. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. But during the time that Papajee was in® Wassind, do y(5u undertake to say that there were «no nautch (*r moojra parties at Jamsetjee's hotel ?—A. There were none. i» Q. Did you live at that hotel ?—you seem to know'so much aboyt i£.—■ A. I did. Oh ! Was it there that Nowrojee ate his meals with you, or in^your own house ?—A* During the four months that Nowrojee was in partnership with me, he lived with me in my own house. After that he separated from me and went to live in the hotel. I went * there also to live. Q. Then when he stayed with you, did he dine with you every day; or sometimes at the hotel, and sometimes with you ?—A. always with me. Q. And after he went to the hotel, did be always dine with you ?— A. Yes. Q. Did a person of the name of Groolam Ahmed ever dine with you at the hotel ?—A. We would never have a Mahomedan to sit with us to dine, and I never allowed one to do so. Q. Do you know a person of the name of Goolam Ahmad on the tail way ? Mr. McCulloch—You had better produce him, and let the witness look at him. . The Judge—If the man is in attendance, let him be brought in. [It was here stated that the man was not present.] 99 By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Well, have you seen a Mahomedan about here during the last few days of that name, and was thau the tnan that was at W'assind ?—A. I have. * Q. The mail, who was examined here yesterday ?—A. Yes.^ *Q. Do you know who he was ?—A. He was not afe Waasind at all. I have known him since he came here» (J. You say that man was never at Wassind to your knowledge during the time Nowrojee was there ?—A. He was not. Q. Have you ever known him to be living at Wassind—A. No. * Mr. McCulloch—How long did Papajee remain in Wassind,not at each particular visit; but altogether ?—A. About a year and a half, or two years. By the Judge—Q. Do you mean without moving out of the place? Putting all thfe various visits to Wassind together, over what period did they extend—how many years—until she finally left £he place ?—A. A year and a half,, or two years. Q. Have you been much away from Wassind—for any length of time— since you *first went there ? Have you been continuously residing* there for the last fourteen or fifteen ye'ars, or have you been away for a long period at a time ?—A. Four years after the extension of the railway there I removed t^ Wassind permanently, and have been in the habit of going to and fro. Mr. McCulloch—Now do you remember how long before Nowrojee left Wassind Papajee had been there ?—A. A month or two b*efore Nowrojee left. Euttonjee Pestonjee, Firewood Dealer. Examined by Mr. McCulloch. Q. You now live in Bombay ?—A. Yes. Q. In the year 1855 did you begin business as a firewood dealer in Wassind ?—A. Yes. Q. And used you at that time to reside at Wassind the greater part of the month—twenty days out of each month ?—A. Yes. Q. How long did you remain in Wassind ?—A. Four years. Q. Did you know Nowrojee while he was staying in Wassind ?—At Yes. Q. Did you know him intimately ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you know the woman Papajee?—A. Yes. Q. Did Nowrojee keep her as his mistress ?—A. No.100 Q. Did he frequent her house at all ?—A. No such thing’. Q. Now should you have known if he had done either of these things?— A. Of course. Q. Wéts it erver reported that she had a child by Nowrojee ?—A. As Nowrojee did not see her face how could he have got a child by h£r ? (Laughter.) Mr. 'McCulloch—Well, she might have had a veil on. Did Nowrojee ever eat of food cooked by a Mahomedan cook, to your know-, ledge.—A. No. r By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Now, don’t be angry with ine. Did’ you keep Papajee ? (Laughter.)—A. No. f Q. How do you know that Nowrojee did not keep her ?—A. He used* to live with me, sleep with me, sit with me, talk with me, and do his business with me. (Laughter.) Q. (In English) Do yoa understand English ?—A. (sharply in English) No, sir. (Laughter.) Q. How do you know that Nowrojee did not keep Papajee ?—A. It was a small place, consisting of, say, two or three huts, and he con<* stantly slept and s&£ and talked with me atid ate with me * and I should have known that. Q. You say he constantly did so. I understand he did not always do so. Occasionally he went out, did not he ?—A. No. Q. You say he constantly did so. Am I to understand he always did as you say, or that he sometimes went out ?—A. He was always with* me. Q. Did you sleep in the same room, or in the same bed do I under- stand?—A. In the same room, but in different beds. Q. You seem to have known Papajee, and, I daresay, her sister Maha- boob, did not you ?—A* Yes. Q. And, as you have said, everybody knew who Papajee and Mahaboob were—everybody in Wassind ?—A. Yes : all the firewood traders knew this woman. There were other traders at that place. Q. You mean the inhabitants of Wassind ?—A. Yes, they did. Q. I daresay, before your bedfellow and you fell asleep, you ftften had a talk about Papajee and Mahaboob ?—A. No^, no. (Laughter.) Q. ^Had you ever any conversation about Papajee ?—A. No. Q. If Nowrojee were to tell you he had never heard of such a person as Papajee, would you believe it?—A. Yes. 101 Q. How can you account for everybody in Wassind knowing this^ Papa- jee and hep sister, and Nowrojee not knowing her ?—A. 'iTiat was not bis business. He would not look at suab. things at all. Q, Do you mean suck things as women ?—A. He would never look at > such, women at all. Q. But you look at such women ?—A. Hah ! (Laughter.) Shapoorjee Cursetee, Cook* % Examined by Mr. McCulloch. Q. Are you a cook, and do you reside at present in Bombay?—A. Yes. Q. Ab'out fourteen years ago were you in the service of Nowrojee and Jamsetjee in the hotel at Wassind?—A. Yes. ' Q. You were the cook there ?—A. Iusedio cook for all the dustoors or Parsees.j and a Portuguese cooked for the Europeans that4 parsed that station. J Q. Did you always cook the food for the Parsees ?—A. Yes, and als$ brought :§vater for them. j » Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. Q. Have you brought your ticket-of-leave with you ? (Witness hesitating.) Have you not been in* penal servitude ?—A. I was in prison. Q, Very well. Now I ask you—it may be a mistake of mine, but you must excuse me—did you serve your period of seven years, or have you got a ticket-of-leave ?—A. I served my seven years, and left the jail five or six years ago. The Judge—If there is not less noise in Court I will have it cleared. What does the witness say ?—A. I have suffered imprisonment for seven years, as princes sometimes do. (Laughter.) Mr. McCulloch—What were you charged with when you w^ere sen- tenced ?—A. My buggy, which I used to drive, happened to run over the arm of one man, and a quarrel took place on the occasion, and I was punished for that. By the Judge—Q. Did you stab anybody? Did you wound a man?—- A. So*T was accused. Q. Of stabbing a nlan ?—A. I did not. Q. I am not asking, if you were guilty, but if you were charged with that ?—A* Yes, I was accused of that. Q. How long were you cook at the hotel ?—-*4. Eight months.102 Mr. McCulloch—Perhaps your Lordship would ask whether it was the latter or former eight months of Nowrojee’s stay that he was there. By the Judge—Q. Was Nowrojee at Wassind during the whole of the eight months you were there, or only during a part of it ?— *A. Nowrojee was not there during the latter two months. After six months he left the place. Q. Did you find him there when you first went ?—A. I did. Q. When you went there was your predecessor, the cook, still there J— A. No: I did not find him there. rBy Mr. McCulloch—Q. When you first went there was Nowrojee living in the hotel or with pduljee ?—A. Nowrojee and Jamsetjee'lived there in the hotel when I went there. Baja^a Sodba, Firewood Dealer. Examined by Mr. McCulloch. Q. You are a firewood merchant?—-A. Yes. I also keep a grain dea^r’s shop at Wassind. * Q, Did you live in Wagtsind in the year 1855-5&?—A. Yes ; and^I still have my establishment and family there at the present fone. Q. Do you remember Nowrojee being at Wassind?—A. Yes. Q. How long did he stay at Wassind ?—A. Twelve or thirteen months. Q. Did you know him well while you were there ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you remember his living with Ruttonjee ?—A. Yes: Ruttonjee lived opposite to my place. Q. Do you remember the prostitute Papajee being at Wassind ?— • A. Yes. Q. Where did she live ?—A. She was living in the rear of the house next to me. Q. Now, to go to her house, did passengers require to pass your house ? A. Yes. Q. Was it in your knowledge that Nowrojee kept that woman Papajee? A. No. Q* Did he frequent her house ?—A. Not to my knowledge. The Judge—In order to go from the place w&ere Nowrojee and * Jamsetjee were living to the house in Which Papajee was living, would it be necessary to pass your hou^e ?—A. Yes. By Mr. McCulloch—Q. Was there any report at Wassind that Papajee ' had a child byt Nowrojee ?—A« No.103 Q. Did you know a troop sepoy named Chilian Khan ?—A. Yes. ^ Q. Did he ever order you to supply grain'fo any one ?—A. He ordered me to supply grain to Papajee, and yi consequence of that order I supplied her with flour, ghee, and pulse. Q. .Who paid for that ?—A. Cullian Khan, who J&ept her/ , ' Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. • , % , Q. Everybody in Wassind seems to have known Papajee very well ?— A. Yes. Q. And the sister Mahaboob as well?—,4. She was only a girl of eight or nine years of age at the time.% , 1 Q. But every grown-up man knew that there were such persons in Wassind, or of such a person as Papajee ?—*A. Yes, everyone knew there was sÆch a prostitute as Papajee at the*place. There were two or three women of that kind. • Q. And if any grown-up man had told, >vou that he did not know of such a person as Papajee, would you*have believed it ?—A. She lived near my house. %Q. If a grc*vn-up person had said that he did n6t know of the existence of such a person as Papajee, would you have believed it ?—A, If a permanent inhabitant said tha> I \>;ou!d not believe him. * 4: it* a person had gone there for three months, and told you he did not know of such a person as Papajee, would yon have believed him ? —A. If a person lived only three months in Wassind, and said he did not know Papajee, 1 would believe him, because he might never have visited her. Q. If Nowrojee told you that he did not know of the existence of such a woman, would you have believed him ?—A. I cannot answer that question, for Nowrojee did not tell me whether he had seen all the women in the town or not. The Judge—The question is, if Nowrojee were to come into Court now and tell you to your face that he had never seen Papajee during the whole time he was in Wassind, would you believe what he said, or not ? (Witness hesitating.) We are not asking whether he did tell you or not: we are asking whether you have that confidence in him, that, having regard to the circumstances, the people there, and the length of time, if he were to come now and tell you he had never seen her, you would believe him—“ Yes” or “No” ?—A. Yes, I would believe him. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Now you say that you never saw Now- rojee go to herliouse-— do you mean in the daytime or during the night ?—A. Never in the daytime, nor at night till eleven, as my shop used to remain open till that time, and I sat there.104 Q. Were you during the whole of the day, from morning to night, in your shop ?—* A. I sat in my shop : it and my dwelling house were the samé. Q. Were you there during the whole of the day ?—A. Except when I us§Æ to go out. 4 * Q. Did rtot you often go out about your business, and were not you fre- quently absent from your shop during the day ?—A. I was never absent for the whole day. Q. I did not ask if you were absent during the whole day. Were not you frequently absent in the course of the day for several hours together ?—A. Yes, for an hour or two. Q. Well, now* could not Nowrojee have passed your house to go to Papajee during the hour or two of $our absence ?—A, I did not keep watch over him. Q. Might not Nowrojee hav.e passed to Papajee's house in your absence ? The Judge—I think that may be trusted, with drawing the inference that it is just possible he might in the course of an hour.*' By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. I may come now to the lfight. At what hour did you go to bed, sir ?—A. At ten or eleven. ‘ « Q. Now, sir, might not Nowrojee have passed your house &ft&' you went to bed 1-—A. I cannot say that. Q. Might not Nowrojee have gone to Papajee's house while you were asleep without your seeing kim ?—-A. I cannot answer that question. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—No: you mean you won’t answer. That is wbat you mean. The Judge—What he understood—what they all understand by that question—is, “Did he do it V* and that, of course, he can't say positively. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Now about this Cullian Khan. You say he gave you some orders for grain ?—A. Yes. Q. And paid you for what was supplied to Papajee ?—A. Yes. Q. Do you keep any books ?—A. No. The Judge—Can you write ?—A. No. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Does any one write for you when orders are given or payments received ?—A. No : I kept the account in my recollection, and as soon as the food*that I supplied amounted to Rs. 1 or Rs. 2 Cullian Khan paid me. Q. Now what was he ? A trooper ? Were these goods supplied at Wassind, or where ?—A. At Wassind.105 Q. Were some troops stationed at Wassind?—A. Yes : five sowars used to be stationed there for eight months. You have stated that this Cullian Khan kept Papajee. Will you have the kindness to inform us how you came to know that ?—A. I heard that both from Cullian Khan aad from 'Papajee, as they both used to come and sit in my shop. Cullian* Khan used to give her money. By the Judge—Q. Is that during the time Nowrojee was living in Was- sind ?—A. Yes : Nowrojee lived about two months in ’Wassind after that woman came there. ♦ * Q. Was Cullian Khan4;here when the woman came ?—A. Yes. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q* So «she came into your shop and told you that she was kept by Cullian Khan ?—A. *Yes; and her mother and sister used* also to visit my shop. Q. When you had this very interesting conversation, was any one pre- sent ?—A. No. I asked her why Cullian Khan ordered me to supply her with food, and she said shat he kept her. SIlem Mahomed Ismail, "Grain Dealer. Examined by Mr. McCulloch. Q. In 1855 did you keep a grain dealer’s shop in Wassind ?—A. Yes. Q. Was that shop next to tlie shop of the last witness ?—A. Yes, near his shop. Q. Did you know Nowrojee at that time ?—A.] Yes. Q. Did you remain in Wassind after Nowrojee left ?—A. Nowrojee left first. Q. Did you know a prostitute named Papajee ?—A. Yes, Q. Where did she live ?—A. In the house of a goldsmith named Gunnoo. Q. Was it near your house ?—A. In a gully near my house. Q. Was her house separated from yours by a gully ?—A. Yes, by a small gully or passage for people to pass. It was about two feet wide. Q. To your knowledge did Nowrojee keep that woman?—A. No, not to my knowledge. Did he frequent her house ? —A. Not that I know of. Q. Had she a sistar ?—A. Yes : Mahaboob. Q. What age was Mahaboob about that time?—A. Eight or nine years, Q. Did you ever hear any report in Wassind that that woman Papajee had a child by Nowrojee ?—A. No- 14 p c 106 Q. Could Nowrojee Lave kept that woman or frequented lier hous© * *•without your knowing it ?—A. I would hav^e known that, a$ the village w£s a small one, and as slie was living near me. Q. Di Q* Do you know of your own knowledge whether there were not two doors to the house—a front and a back door ?—A. I don^t know. The wails were pierely tatta: there were no doors. The entrance was closed by a tatta wall, Q, There were other prostitutes of this kind at Wassind besides Papajee and her sister ?—A. Not at thåt tiu?,e. Q. Are you sure of that T—A, I am. «Q, How §oon after that did these prostitutes come?—A. Afterwards. I did not stay long there, Q. Were thereat any time any othei:prpstitutes at Wassind?—A. Nc* * t Q. Then, if I understand y6u, at no time were there any other pros- titutes at Wassind besides Papajee and her sister while you were there ?—A. There were none other. * By the Judge—Q. What should you say was the probable population at that time ? How many huts were there?—A. Fifteen. o Lynch spoke to me, and was no doubt influenced by whatJ said; bu£ I gave no formal opinion. The Judge—Of course I think it very probable you were influenced by the circumstances you narrated as having taken place before a learned Jufjge, and that learned Judge himself took the initiative and directed the arrest to *» be made. It is not for me to criticise his orders ; but all I have got to say is that I should hesitate before I gave any such order. I do *not say that a case might not arise in which it would not be a very proper thing to do. Mr. McCulloch—It was fully our impression that the present jur/ • would never know anything about it. W»* were under the impression that the case would be over and the verdict given this afternoon, and that the jrsry would never have heard anything of the proceeding till to-morrow morning. I think I neecl scarcely say that neither Mr. Lynch nor myself had any intention of influencing the jury. r_?he Judge—I must say the measure was extremely indiscreet. If such an application had been made to me I would have dismissed it instantly. It is calculated to intimidate the other witnesses. To say nothing about its pos- sibly influencing the jury, it is calculated to intimidate the witnesses for the prisoner. Mr. McCulloch—I may say, my Lord, that the case was concluded for the defendant. The Judge—You could not tell whether they were to be recalled. As it is, I intend to recal one. The examination of Ismail Russool was then resumed by Mr. McCulloch. Q. Well, what do you say went on when Papajee went downstairs ?— A. They said to Ebram to persuade his wife to give evidence. Ebram went downstairs and brought up his wife. Q. And what was said to her ?—*A* When Papajee came upstairs Jam- setjee, the accused, said—ei Give evidence for me ; you know all about the place and offered to give her Rs. 800 for doing so. Papajee thert said she would give evidence in any manner Jam- setjee might, tell her to give it. Jamsetjee then immediately paid her Rs. 400, promising to give her the remaining Rs. 400 when the case came on.120 Q. Did they then send for Mr. Rimington's clerk ?—A. Yes: Nowrojee Dhodie went to bring her. Q. And he came and took down a statement of her evidence ?—Æ Yes,. Q. Jtnd a£ter sho had got the money, and before the clerk came, was there any conversation as to what evidence she was to give- wjaen the clerk came?—A. Yes: Jamsetjee, and Kessowjee Naique's man M^rwanjee, told her what evidence she was to give. Qt Well, on the evening of the same day, Mr. Rimington came to J’our- house and got this woman to sign a fair statement of her evidence, iidhenot?—A. Yes. # Q. And then the woman Papajee was taken away from your house A. Yesf Q. After th*e Rs. 400 was given to Papajee,'and before the clerk came, during the conversation about her evidence, was anything said about a child ?—A. Jamsetjee said to Papajee, “Do you say you had children by •Nowrojee/” Papajee said, “ I had no children by him/J Afterwards she was told what* evidence to give—she was to state So and so. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. Q, I understand from the last witness that he keeps a concubirffe in your house ?—A. Yes: he lived with his woman in a house which he had from me. Q. You knew at the time you were in.that house that this woman was not his wife ?—A. Yes. When I purchased this house Merwanjee and his mistress were living there. Q. You knew she was his mistress ?—A. Yes, I did. Q. How many houses of ill-fame do you keep in Bombay ?—A. No pros- titution was carried on in the house : she was his concubine. Q. Yes, but how many houses do you let out to persons who live with their concubines ?—A. She had been living there before I bought the house. I do not consider it my duty to look to the moral character of my tenants. Q. Well, but how many houses do you keep for people to live with their concubines ?—A. I do not keep any houses for that purpose. Q. Do you keep any gambling-houses ?—A. No. The Judge—I do not think that is a proper question to ask him. By. answering that question he might expose himself to prosecution. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—My Lord, he may refuse to answer the question if he likes.121 Tlie Judge—Well, it does not much matter now, for lie has denied it. 1 •» * • ■* Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Have you ever been fined either for keeping a bouse of ill-fame or a gambling-house ?—A. Never. Q. How do you get your living ? — A I earn a good deal by my broker- age business. Dealings are carried on to the extentpf Us. 30,000 or Rs. 40,000 for me, and I get rents bésides. Q. Rents for the houses we have been speaking of? Mr. McCulloch—I do not understand this question. My learned friend says “ houses we have been speaking of/* as if he were insinuating he haå got an answer. ** The Judge—-If the learned Serjeant goes on with this witness he may, but it comes to nothing. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. You have been engaged by Jamsetjee to look after Papajee, have you not ?—A. No. Q. Did not Jamsetjee, the defendant, ask you to search for Papajee Y— A. No, he did not. Q. Did you not saji at the meeting at your house that you had incurred expanses in searching for Papajee ?—A. No, I did not. Q. And was not a sum of money paid to you on that occasion ?—A. No*, not a pice,*,because I had done nothing. ' * Q. Now you say a sum of Rs. 400 was paid to Papajee. How was it paid—in silver or in gold?—A. It was in four notes of Rs. 100 each. Burjorjee Byramjee, Railway Contractory recalled. Examined by Mr. McCulloch. Q. You gave evidence here yesterday ?—A. Yes. Q. Did you on Tuesday evening last take Goolam Ahmed to the house of Dinshaw Shapoorjee, clerk to Messrs. Dallas and Lynch ?—A, Yes. Q. Was that that he might tell Dinshaw what evidence he was prepared to give in this case ?—A. Yes. Q* Who was with you ?—A. Hormusjee Shapoorjee Powree. Q. Did you take him with you, or was he there when you went ?—A. I found Kim there. Q. At the conversation I am going to ask you about, there were present yourself, Horjnusjee, Goolam Ahmed, and Dinshaw ?—^. Yes. Q. And whilst you were talking, did any one else come in ?~—A. Yes : Dinshaw's brother, Jamsetjee. 16 p c122 Q. Well, tell us what was done. Did Goolam make a statement of what his evidence would be ?—A. Yes'; fgid that was reduced to writing *by Dinshaw. Q. J^nd after it had been put into writing by Dinshaw, did Goolam •Ahfried do *any thkig ?—A. Dinshaw read it out to *Goolam ginned. Goolam asked Dinshaw to strike out one or two wdrds- Dinsha^v struck out those words, and then asked GSolam to sign the paper. Goolam said, “ Shall I sign it in English oj* in Marathi V’ Dinshaw told him to sign it in English, and Godlara did so’. Q. Did#you see him actually «sign it ?—A. Yes, I did. Q. Would you know the paper again ?—A. Yes. The paper was stiown to witness, when he at once said, cc That is the paper he signecL” The document was put in, and marked E by the Clerk the Crown. The following is the docum&aat:— “Goolam Ahmed.—I am appointed chief constable in Poona district. I was employed in SG. I. P. R. from the year 1854 down* to 1864. I used to go #to Wassind. I kno\y Nowrojee the complainant. He was at Wassind.* I fenow Papajee, courtezan, and her sister Mahaboob. She was never kejifr By Nowrojee. I have never IfisarcT that she was kept by Nowrojee., T*> my knowledge, he never ate food prepared by a Mohomedan cook* E. Fifth Sessions, 1869. Reg. vs. Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun. 25th November 1869. GOOLAM AHMED/' ^ Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. Q. You are, I see, a mobed ?—A. Yes, but I do not follow the calling of an andhiaroo. I am a contractor. Q. You are an intimate friend of Nowrojee ?—A. Yes, Q. Are you a member of the Sunjana family ?—A. No. Q. But you seem to have taken a very active part in this matter. Are you the person who laid the information last night before the Magistrate ? . The Judge—I think you had better not ask him on that point if you contemplate other proceedings. Mr. Serjeant Atkinson, after examining exhibit E, tBe document said to contain tlie evidence dictated by Goolam#Ahmed to Mr. Dinshaw* * asked—Who wrote this doctiment ?—A. Dinshaw. « Q. He wrote the whole of it except the name ?—A. Yes. Q. Did he write the body with a steel pen or a quill ?—A. A steel pen. 123 Q. And with what kind of a pen did Goolam Ahmed write his name ?— A. With the same pen. Q. The same pen and ink that Dinshaw had used Yes. Q. Did you seé Dinshaw write his name ?—A. No. Q.$ Did you ever receive a letter from Dinshaw ?-—A. No* Q, Would you know the handwriting if you saw it ?—A. *1 would not know his English handwriting* Hormusjee Shapoopjee Powrek. Examined by Mr. Starling’. Q. What are you ?—A. I am a contractor for balls and dinners. Q. Do you know Goolam Ahmed?—^4. I know the Mahomedan who gave his evidence here }^esterday. ’ Q. Last Tuesday, *were you present with him at Dinshaw^ s house ?—* A.*Yes, I was present at Dinshaw^s house when that Mahomedan , and an andhiaroo came there. * 18. Was anybody else present besides yourself, Dinshaw, Goolam, and the andhiaroo ?—A. Yes : Dinshaw^s Iprother Jamsetjee. Q. Now what did Goolam do when he came into the room you and 'the other persons were in ?—A. The andhiaroo told Dinshaw to take down the evidence of Goolam Ahmed. Q. Did Goolam Ahmed then state his evidence ?—A. Yes* Q. What did Dinshaw do ?—A. He sat down and wrote. Q. When the matter was put in writing, did Dinshaw read it over to Goolam ? —A. Yes, and obtained his signature to it in English* Q. Could you recognize the paper which was written ?—A. No, because I do not understand English; but I recollect Goolam caused Dinshaw to strike out something. Q. And did Dinshaw strike out anything in the paper ?—A. I believe he did. Q. In what language was it written ?—A. In English. Q. Why ?—A,Jle knew English, and therefore signed in English. Din- shaw gave him the paper to read. J Q. Do you remember if anything was said about the language in which the paper should be signed ?—A. Not to my knowledge. Goolam stated his evidence in Hindoostanee.124 By the Judge—Q. Was there any conversation in English between ' „ - Goolam and Dinshaw ?—A. Yes. There was a conversation in English and also in Hindoostanee Mussatønanee. * Q. Did you understand what was said in English?—A. No: I do not- ' kn Q. After you had made that correction, did he sig’n the document ?— A. He then asked me whether he should sign it in English o? in Marathi, and I told him to sign it in English. Q. Look at that paper, and tell me if that is the document you wrote' out and which he signed ?—A. That is the document. Q. You saw him put his name to it ?—A. Yes, I saw him sign it. Q. When that document was signed who were present ?—A. Burjorjee Byramjee, Hormusjee Shapoorjee, and my brother came in after- wards. Q. Before it was signed was there any conversation ?—A. Yes. Q. What is your brother’s name ?—A. Jamsetjee Shapoorjee. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Atkinson. Q. Goolam gave his evidence, as I understand, in Hindoostanee ?— A. Yes. Q. And he signed his name in English?—A. Yes. Q. Will you tell my Lord and the jury why that was done ?—A. Soon after I had finished my writing he commenced speaking to me in English. I came to know afterwards that he knew English. I asked iiim whether he knew English, and he said “ Yes.” I then asked him to sign in English. Q. Why did you ask him to sign his name in English ?—A. As it was an English document, and he knew English, it was my duty to ask him to sign it in English.1-26 Q. You say it was your duty. Is that an invariable practice ?—A. It is an invariable practice with me, sir. The Judge—It -is the usual practice. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Well, what sort of a pen did you use— •a sifeel pen err a quill ?—A. I am not able to say, because I have both steel pen» and quills upon my table. Q. JBut to the,best of your recollection, was it a steel pen or a quill ?— A. Please let me see the document (shown document). I cantiot swear what kind of pen I used, but I think it must have been a’ steel pen. * , * Q. Was Goolam’s name written with the same pen or the same kind.of pen ?—A. I cannot say. He might have picked up any pen from my table and signed with it. This concluded the examination of Mr. Dinshaw. The Foreman of the Jury £/iid the jury wished to see the paper said to be signed by Goolam AhmeÉL tv The Judge said all the documents that had been put in would be # . . . r •; . ♦submitted to the jury by-and-by, but if they wished it they might examine this document just now. *r r The jury having examined the document, Mr. Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana was recalled. By Mr. Starling—Q. Goolam Ahmed has stated that you on several occasions, without his permission, ate the dinner which had been sent up from Tanna to Wassind. Is that true or not ?—A. It’ is false—I do not know the man at all. Q. Did you ever eat Goolam Ahmed’s dinner with his permission ?— A. No. Neither with nor without his permission. By Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—Q. Did you never eat Goolam Ahmed’s dinner as a joke ?—A. No. Q. Or in earnest ?—A. No. Q. And you never saw the man at all while you were at Wassind ?— A. I have not seen him yet. I do not know what sort of man he is. Q. Let me refresh your memory. Did no s trangert sometimes dine at your expense at your hotel ? By the Judge—Q. Let me ask you did you ever entertain any Mussal- man at your hotel at Wassind ?—A. Thåt was left to Jamsetjee Tamooljee. I did not know any Mahomedan there.127 Q» Personally, did you ever entertain any Mussalman at dinner at Wassind hotel while you were there ?—A. No. Q\ I do not mean as a hotel guest, but at your own* expense—as your friend ?—A. No. Q. J)id you ever, in compensation for dinners belonging t<3 a Mussalman, * ' and which you had devoured by way of joke, eutertain that ' Mussalman at your hotel ‘I—A. No. Q. Did you ever eat any Mussalman's dinner by way of a joke ?—At No. Mr. McCulloch here intimated that that finished the case fc?r the prose- cution. Papajee recalled. The Judge ordered the woman Papajee ^o be recalled, and questioned her as follows :— * Q. You said you ha’d a child by Nowrojee. Have you ever had any other children?—A. No. Q. That child, you say, died ?—A. Yes. Q. How old was it when it died ?—-4/When it was four gherees. Q. Where was it buried ?—A. It was buried at Wassind at the river side, at the usual burying-place for otir people. Q. Who buried it ?—A. Our Mahomedan people. Q. Who was the principal person at the funeral ?—A. I do not recollect. I was in pain. Q. Was there any kind of ceremony ?—A. No. Q. Or has any ceremony since been performed ?—A. No. This closed the case; and, it being then past 5 o'clock, the Court adjourned, the jury being released on the same caution as they had received on the previous day. FOURTH DAY:—Saturday, 27th November 1869. Immediately on the Court resuming, Mr. Serjeant AtkinSon commenced his address to the jury. He said : Gentlemen of the Jury,—The interests of my client, as well as the prompting of my own, will tell me that I must be as short in speech to you as circum- stances will permit. Indeed the practice of the Court itself strictly confines128 me, in the observations I am now to make to you, to the contradictory evi- dence. * I am not permitted by the practice of the Cojirt to go into the gene- ral merits of the ca^e. I mention this to you, lest you should suppose that, in the remarks I am about to make, I had taken too limited'a view of the ques- tion. Again, tøie indulgence granted to me last night, by adjourning the Court, has enabled me to #group the matter into three general propositions; and I will bring my remarks on this evidence to bear upon these three pro- positions. The first proposition is the one which the prosecutor has broi^ght forward in his favour—that Papajee is charged with false evidence, in saying that she never received a bribe; in other words, that she never received any^money t® change her story. .They say she (stated that she never -knew Nowrojee at all, and then for a bribe of Rs. 800, or something of «Hie kind, has come h^re to support a false statement to the contrary. Of course, if the other side has showed that shs had stated that she never knew Nowrojee, that she had received a bribe of Rs. 800, the inference 'would be that she had come here and had committed wilful corrupt perjury. If they have proved so m^ch, $f course you should not place the slightest credit upon her testimony; and if they have established that, then I jyn out of Court. That is#the first branch of the subject. The next propo- sition "they put forward is, that Papajee swore she never, lived wifti a trooper of the name of Cullian Khan : and they have ^produced witnesses to show that she did. Well, if y&u t£ink that they have proved that, thef have succeeded in materially affecting her evidence; I should not say that I would, by ihe above, be out of Court, but they have succeeded in materially affecting the credibility of her evidence. # Then the third proposition relates to her stating that Nowrojee was not pointed ou£ to her at the Police Station, but that she, of her own accord, the moment she saw him as he stepped out of the carriage, said, “ That is the man,” or words to that effect. If they have shown that Nowrojee was pointed out to her, and that she did not first point him out and say “That is the man,” or words to that effect,— in other words, if they have shown that she. told an untruth,—that also will materially affect the weight of her evidence. Now, in order that you may understand my observations fully on the different branches of these three different propositions, I must briefly (and it will be very briefly) call your attention to what Papajee did say; and to the way in which she has been corroborated, in essential parts, not only by the witnesses whom we called in corroboration, but by the prosecutor's own witnesses. Her statement in substance was this : that twelve or thirteen years ago she went to live at Wassind, a small village consisting*of a few huts and a hotel. She tells you, candidly, that she was born a prostitute; that when she went to Wassind she lived as a prostitute ,* that soon after going there she gave129 her nautch parties and moojra parties, and thus became acquainted with Nowrojee, with whom she afterwards cohabited. The situation of lifer hut is yery important: to that I shall presently call your attention. She says Now- rojee went to her mautch and moojra parties, and eventually kept her; that sho had a child by him, which died soon after its birth^ that his friends went to thf^se>parties with Nowrojee, one of whom we havf called befdre you. What says he.? That he went there with Nowrojee frequently, that Mahaboob and Papajee were there, and that Papajee was kept by Nowrojee. Now Mahaboob tells you that also. Thus, then, if the prosecutor had made it out to be a f$ct that a sum of money has passed into the hands of Papajee, no attempt has been., or could be made ta show that Mahaboob ever received any m*bney whatever. Her evidence, in that respect at least, has been beyond contradict tion. I have a right to assume this, because no attempt has been made to ‘throw suspicion upon it on#that account. Now opposed to.these statements you have the prosecutor’s. He denies that he ever knew of the existence of Papajee ! Do you believe him ? Every one of his friends who have been cajhld here knew of her. You have heard also the» evidence we gave. Every grown person in Wassind knew of this woman walking about in public, and from # shop to shop, daily; and can you believe that a man of Nowrojee’s intelligence, puye as he ma^ think himself, was ignorant of the existence of this ^)man % J? say it is incredible. I say it is a lie ! He did know ! And upon the testi- mony of his own witnesses it is false. What *vras Wassind ? A mere village of huts, and with very few inhabitants. The witnesses, one and all, told you that everybody in the place was known, I say ^ou cannot believe himVj It is impossible you can believe him. He did know. I repeat all his intimate friends in the place knew it. As^they did, how can you account for his not knowing it ? Can you believe that he, a man of intelligence, and a mobed, whom we must suppose to have more than ordinary regard for the morality of the place in which he lived, did not know of the existence of a bad woman, and a bad house like this! Whichever way you take it, it tells against him. Again, he denies ever having been at her nautch parties or moojras; and he even told you that he did not know what a moojra was ! He did not even know what a nautch was ! The Judge—JEJe did not say he did not know what a nautch was I he said he did not know the meaning of the term moojra. Mr* Serjeant Atkinson—-I thank your Lordship for correcting me. Gentlemen, what think you of a man of his intelligence, of a man of his education/ coming forward here and saying he does not know the meaning of the word moojra ? Nqw, what have we done in this part of the case is this ? We have confirmed his own friend’s statement by Mahaboob; and; as I said before, no attempt has been made to show that she has been bribed. And what does Mahaboob tell you ? She says precisely the same thing as Papajee and the M pc139 other witness,—that they lived together with a person known as their mother; that Nowrojee kept her sister ; that he constantly attended nautch and moojra parties with the other witness, who was afterwards called, and to whose iesti- ' mony I wi[l again presently call your attention. Do you believe her, or do you not ? You «havé Mahabeob, and you have the witness Rustomjee Sorabjee. Who and what is he ? .An intimate friend of Nowrojee. He say^ tlaat Nowrojee constantly attended nautch parties and moojra parties, and dined with him constantly at the hotel. Mark! no reflection has been east upon th$t witness; no attempt has been made to show that he has been bribed t by us in any way. We have, therefore, confirmed Papajee's evidence in everf particular. I may also adrd this, that the prosecutor’s witnesses, called in contradiction, one and all (and I beg your particular attention jip this fact)*—they oneimdall bring Nowrojee and Papajee together at Wassind ; that is to say, th^t these two were living at Wassind at one and the same’ time. Now, according to Nowrojee's evidence, if it be worth anything, flie*e was no such person in Wassind while he was there, because if there had been such a person at Wassuld he must have known it. And whatever ^you#may, think his intention to have been in saying so, he certainly meant to convey to you the impression that it was a falsehood to say that she hacl «ver liVed at Wassind at all. Now, before I go into the# particulars of the evider^e, I will make a few remarks upon the character shall not , force his way again into the citadel, and might even, in his subsequent assaults, select some other avenue in preference to that by which he had formerly succeeded; but there is still the ruined wall, and, near it, the -stealthy tread Q^the foe, ever watching for an opportunity to win over again his unforgotten triumph.” This man thought that, by performing these ceremonies, he could come here a purified man, c\r appear to you a moral man. Jle was £adly mis- taken. He stands in no better position, perhaps in a worse position; and between the two (I speak as a man of moral responsibility) I myself would prefer the prostitute’s condition to his—"f mean, of course, if this story be true. If she by the “curse of circumstances’’ has been put out of.the f)aie# of credibility, I should say he, with all his advantages of birth and education, is >ten thousand times more so-.t> And you have not a bøtter proof of tho éfføct of that, so-called, process of purification than this, that he has come hereto get rid of the éffect of his debaucheries’by wilful and corrupt perjury. Be stands upon his trial as well as the m^in whom I have the honour to represent; the only difference between them béing, that my client’s inputh is closed, whilst the prosecutor (Nowrojee) is allowed to run riot in that box, saying whatever he pleases. One more general observation I have on my notes—that is with respect to motive. If my learned friend has established that Papajee has been brought here by payment of money, there is, I admit, a very powerful motive for her evidence. But has Mahaboob that motive acting- upon her mind ? According to the evidence she has received nothing. And as to the other witness we called in their support, not one farthing has passed into his hands. Let us now turn again to Nowrojee. What is the motive which prompts this man Nowrojee? It has fallen from the Court, and is but too self-evident, that ruin stares him in the face if these charges be proved; and if there be one more powerful motive than another which could act upon the human mind it is this sense of utter ruin. I can understand when it is said that it is by no act of Tjiis own, ^but that he has been forced into Court by his brother’s rashness, or, perhaps, by the force of public opinion brought to bear upon •his brother when Nowrojee returned, or attempted to return, to resume sacred functions. Public opinion did rise in arms against him, and my client stood forth from amongst his co-religionists and wrote this letter. The brother, then,'probably in duty bound, being dustoor (I c?*st no reflection upon him);132 did call Nowrojee to account, and did demand of him that he should appear in a Court of Justice and clear himself. If so, he had no,choice; and he comes, therefore, with the irfast powerful motive that can act upon the human mind. So influenced, he tells you the story which he has told. I repeat; therefore, that while Bapaj*ae hadn© motive, as I shall show you,—because she deceived no bribe, — he had the naost powerful motive that could influence frhe human mind. • * And now I will proceed more iHinutely to the three propositions whiph I feave jfpon niy notes. The first is that Papajee received a bribé. Now the story is this, that a man of the name of Merwanjee Manocbjee weint to the house pf a parson called Ismail Rjissool. Therer were present Mei^wstnjee Manockjee Bhangreewalla, Ismail # Russool, Nowrojee Hormusjee Dhddfe^ Cowasjee Jamsetjee*Dubash, and the defendant. Merwarijée says they went to IsmailRussooP? house, and that Papajee and hei>husband were there. They then, he says, got into conversation, and she was asked whether she knew Nowrojee or not? and, in substance, she said, fcI know nothing of Nowrojee: I never knew Nowrojee/'or yrords"to that effect; but while on the top of the •.stairs, “ I heard the defendant say to her, ‘ I will givetyou Rs. 800 if you wijl say that you knew Nowrojee and that Nowrojee kept you at Wassind.' '' She ^ad gone» down stairs, and when she came up she agreed to retract, and to state at the Police Court, or here, the very contrary of what sl\e had stated before— that in consequence of this proposed gift of bribe of Rs. 800, she would change her mind, and would state jhere, or in any place Where she was asked the question, that Nowrojee had kept her at Wassind. Now we have ascertained the truth of this statement. She herself was asked distinctly, and has denied it. She gave the flattest contradiction to it that a woman could give. She told you, with all the candour of a truthful witness, how we had main-’ tained her. She said, “ I have eaten their bread, but I never received a bribe." She added, “ I have been kept at their expense.'* I think, gentlemen, you will give us a good deal of credit for the way in which we have done it; for sh9 told you she had been offered a bribe by the other party. Mr. McCullocJh—She withdrew that: she said her husband, Mr. Serjeant .Atkinson—Of course, I am very glad to be interrupted if I state anything wrong, but it breaks in upon one's line of argument in a way which wastes a considerable time. You see I must go back to where I was speaking about the Rs. 800. The Judge—I have no doubt Mr. McCulloch had no intention of throw- ing you out of your line of argument. # e Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I forget what I was going to say ; but I have no doubt I was going to make a fit remark upon their attempt to bribe her. Be that as it may, who are the persons who state all thi&? The chief man is what we call in England a pot-boy ! in a very inferior house. He kept a woman (rather an odd circumstance a pot-boy being able to keejs a woman;. 133 He kept his woman this pot-boy; and he kept her — where ? In a house belonging to this very ni£.n Ismail. You thus see the connection between1 these two fellows—I call them fellows advisedly. This n2an (the pot-boy) upon the top of the stairs heard the whole of the conversation which passed between the defendant and the husbaiid of Papajee. He states that Rs. 400 were 'premised, and that she then said she would retract4 Ismåil is called. This pot-tfoy keeps a woman in Ismail's house, and he knew it. I think you YiU agree with me that Ismail keeps one, if not more, fiouses of ill-fame. You know the very refined distinction he drew between keeping a house, for a concubine and keeping a house for a prostitute; and he really would not say how niany houses of the same kind he did keep. ^ I am mot sufficiently conversant with life here to know the very refined distinction he drew; but I am quité sure that you, in the discharge of your duties» will throw to the winds toy-.refinements of that kind; Yop. can have no’ doubt On your minds that the pot-boy keeps a Woman in a house of ill-fame belonging to Ismail, and that Ismail is nothing better than a keeper either * of ganlbling-houses or houses of ill-fame. 'And these are the men to whom they on the other side say we entrusted such an important duty as th^fc Jof bribing Papajee, the most important witness we have ! Do you believe #it? ^Soeing the clever way in which we have nursed her, and kept? her out of the clutches of, these persons, removing her from place? to place* keeping her from hundreds of spies set to watch her day and night, do * you think we jvould be such fools as to put this important duty in the hands of a pot-boy and a keeper of brothels ? To use a vulgar’ phrase, Do you see any thing so very green about any of us as to suppose that ? Well, you have had these two men called/but theré were two other m^n present,— men of true respectability; and where are they ? Where is Cowasjée Jamsetjee Diibash ? Why was ho not called ? We ourselves called Nowrojee Hormusjee 'Dhodie, and he was cross-examined by my learned Mend. What did he say ? He said,—I saw no money pass, nor anything of the kind; and if there had been anything of the kind I must have seen it. Are you, then, upon the evidence of these two fellows, contradicted, as they are, by their not calling these two ■other gentlemen, who would have known if this woman had received Rs. 800, or any money as a bribe, to come to the conclusion that she did receive a bribe ? I say the whole thing is a fabrication from beginning to end. It only rests, as you see, upon the testimony of these two scoundrels. Again, one of them says the money was paid in notes. Would you like to have trusted that fellow with any notes ? And, if the money had been paid in four notes of Rs. 100 each (as they assert), nothing had been easier than to trace these notes. Have they done anything of the kind ? No ! I say again the whole is a falsehood. I take my stand upon this point—there were two respectable men, besides the defendant, present, and if anything of the kind had happened they must have seen it; and one man, tthom we ourselves134 called, was cross-examined, and said he never heard anything of the kind, and «that ?f Sny thing of the kind had been done he mast have seen it. Gentle- men, if I have net convinced you upon that point I am quite sure Jbhere ts no use my proceeding any farther, for nothing I could say could more enforce tl^e plainest trp.th upon your understandings. Yet there is one other remark upra the pot-boy ; I had almost forgotten it. He says this 400 was paid in notes. See how it was paid! and the statement carries falsehood on the'face of it,~ First of all, the idea of trusting Rs. 200 to this fellow! Who^would do such a thing ? I am quite sure there is not one man amongst you 'who would have done it. Still less would you have entrusted him with R*. 200 t^ commit a delicate/if not illegal, g.ct! If that had been done, youlnay depend upon it that fellow would have pocketed, at least, onejialf of it; yet, according to his own story, he, like an honest and honourable man, took the Rs. 200, and handed it to Papajee ! Wjiere ? In the shigram on the public street. I am quite sure you cannot believe it. Here a thought occurs ♦to me, not unimportant. It is this,—according to the story of the land- lord (Ismail), Papajee refused 'at first to give evidence of any kind. Now, if she did so refuse, it strikes me, and it struck me at the time, that it shows there were considerable traces of the moral sense still left within her—‘that she had this upon her mincf: “ Some years ago I was a prostitute : I have feeen ' nine or ten years a married woman, living respectably: I will not appear#in* 'any Court of Justice to disclose the frailties and infirmities of my formes* life.” If she did refuse, it strikes me, as I have said, as a matter which tells consi- derably in, her favour. Å- woman, under any circumstances, has a dislike to appear in a Court of Justice ; but when she comes to disclose the infirmities of her former life, which she has now 'repented of, does it not tell consi- derably in her favour, when the question is whether she is the witness of truth. After saying that she refused to give evidence, they go on to say that she denied knowing Nowrojee; that she was dictated to as to what she was to say;. that after an offer of a bribe the draft of her evidence was drawn up, a fair copy was made and taken to her to be signed. She flatly denies anything of the kind : she asserts, on the contrary, that she did know Nowrojee, and that Nowrojee kept her. I have already commented upon the evidence of those* two persons upon whom that part of the statement depends. I will not dwell any longer on it. Now comes an imputation (and a very important one it is), a reflection, upon one of the most distinguished members of our profession in this city. I do not mean to say that my learned friend charged Mr. Rimington or Mr. Rimington* s clerk with subornation of perjury. Far from it! I know that he is incapable of it; but the facts put upon his briéf, and wJiich he was bound to prove, led to that inference; they proved jjist so much, and then left the inference to be drawn by you—that Mr. Rimington, of the great firm of Rimington, Hoare, and Langley, and his clerk Mr.c Pestonjee, were guilty of subornation of perjury, I am sure nothing could be farther from my learned135 friend’s intention; but it was proved up to that point ,and then they let—CCI dare not wait upon I would.” ^ What is the fact? A rough draft was prepsfred T?y» Mr. Pestonjee, an articled clerk of3Mr. Rimington's, and then a fair copy was made and taken by Mr. Rimington's own hand to Papajee. That document I need not read to you, but I beg you to ask for it; for it .confirms, to^the very letterne Vtery syllable of what she told you here. Mr. Rimington asad Mr. Pes- tonjee, belonging to one of the first families in Bombay, charged" indirectly with ^ subornation of perjury! Upon whose testimony"- is this done ? Upon the testimony of these two scoundrels ! (I cannot forbear using the word), and in the absence of the three gentlemen of the highest ' respectability—I mean the defendant and the two others—whom they inigtt have^called, but whom they have not dared to summon. Gentlemen, I have done with the bribery part of the caLse. The second proposition is that Papajee said»that she never lived with a trooper of the name * of Cullian Khan. She told you, in language which could not be misunderstood for a moment, that she never knew such a man in her life. The first question > that must strike any one of common sense is, wkére is Cullian Khan? I looked forward with intense interest to see this trooper, who could afford to keep his, woman, to spend half a crown out of sixpence a day ! I looked forward with considerable anxiety to see if there was any contradiction on that pojnt ; * but* to my utter amazement, my learned friend closed the case without calling any sufch person as Cuflian Khan. Where is this man ? There never was such a fellow in.existence. I told you about Sam Slick's theory of inventing facts when folks wanted them and had got 'em. Don't you see what I meant ? Even to the fabrication of a trooper of the nane of Cullian Khan has th#e system of manufacturing facts extended. Where, again I ask, is this man—if there ever was such a man ? He could have put the matter out of dispute. I will tell you how important it was. At Wassind there were not only Papajee and her sister, but other prostitutes, and in all probability they dis- covered that another prostitute lived with Cullian Khan—if such a person ever lived, which I deny. That is the reason he is not called. I have a right to infer from his absence either that there never was any such man, or that they have discovered that it was not our Papajee, but another Papajee, who lived with him. Look at the houses at Wassind. They have been speaking of a goldsmith's house a considerable distance from the hotel. But where did our Papajee live ? Why, in a small hut immediately opposite and close to the hotel. Nothing could more clearly corroborate her evidence than that little fact. The other house where the other prostitute lived with Cullian Khan (spoken of by the grain dealers) was at a considerable distance from the hotel. Their expressions are ec fai; off,” iC a long way,” “ as far as the Cathedral from here;” but the hut in which Nowrojee's Papajee lived was quite close to the hotel. See that I am right—the grain dealers are called to show that Cullian *Khan ordered some things fro;n them, but they did not send these136 things to thé hut Papajee was living in, hut to the goldsmith's. Now, if Cullian Khaji «had lived with this woman, the grain dealers would have sent their goods to her hut,#which was close to the hotel. Again, you have the testimony of all the grain dealers that Nowrojee was living at ^Vassind at the time, and thåt no grown-up person could be ignorant of the fact which Nowrojee denies all knowledge of. Then you have Mahaboob*s testimony ab6iåb ' Khan. What reason have you to doubt Mahaboob, tainted though her cha- racteinnay be by*her profession ? She tells you that Cullian Khan never kept her sister, but that Nowrojee did. Both Papajee and Mahaboob indignantly deny thafc Papajee lived with the trooper; and are you, upon the testimony of those gyain dealers, who have no boftks, who merely ^say that they supplied goods to Papajee by the order of one‘Cullian Khan (who is not produced),^ that t they sent things, not to the hut ift which our Papajee lived—-are you from that . to infer that this* woman lived with that man ? I say again, and I caniiot* repeat it too often, that the non-production of Cullian Khan is decisive. They, no doubt, know where he is, if there ever lived such a man; and his not t>eing produced shows that he*gould have told me that he lived with another Papajee, and in another Ifouse. I repeat—looking at the non-production of this fiian, the evidence of these two women, and especially to the situation of the house—I think yoit cannot conclude anything else but tha& Papajee'ststor/ is true, and that she never did cohabit witfh, or even know, such a person as*. Cullian Khan. I now, gentlemen, come to the third proposition, to which I have to in- vite your attention, and it is this—it was of vital importance for them to sfiow that Papajee was never acquainted with Nowrojee's person, She stated that she lived with him, and was his l£ept-mistress. Ib was, therefore, of vital importance for them to show that, when he got out of the carriage*at the Police Office, Nowrojee was pointed out to her by some other person, and not that the moment she saw him she herself said, iC That is the man/', or words to that effect. Well, they call Mr. Wainwright! I do not wish to say anything harsh of Mr. Wain wright, but it struck me very forcibly that he was very like a body of gentlemen (I beg your pardon for using the word “ gentlemen ”) who used to stand in Chancery Lane, called straw bailme». These men used tp stand there with a piece of straw in their shoes, and any one who wanted an affidavit for the purpose of arrest (not such an arrest as took place yesterday ! but an arrest for debt, or anything of that kind) he paid one of these men half a crown, and he had his affidavit immediately. Now that Mr. Wainwright is used by this or that office as a straw bailman, ready upon all occasions to supply defects in evidence, I do nftt underJake to say; but you will see that my remarks are not unfair, f$r what does he tell you ? There was a great crowd, great excitement, and great noise. He was standing about three or four yards from Papajee at the top of the stairs; and if you have been there you will fully agree with Mr, Wainwright,137 that there is indeed great noise and great confusion. The people were sur- rounding Papajee* Eta was standing in front of her. He does ndt «jJeak a .word of Guzerati, though he \ried hard to make you «believe he knew a few words she spoke in Guzerati. He says he heard distinctly what she said ! and saw a Parsee point him (Nowrojee) out. ]VIy learned friend put the ^uSstion to that very Parsee, and he denied it. He called that man; and in cross-examination my learned friend asked him whether he did not ^point or see anybody point him out, and he said Ho! He Was one of the crowd protecting her, lest she should get into the hands qf our enemies. We, knowing the system of espionage which had been set upon her, had our friends surrounding her; and yet Mr. Wainwright^ takes upon himself to say she did not use the expression “ That is the man,” or any Words to that effect. He never heard what was said before : he did not know what » took place before. How, th,en, could Mr. Wainwright come here and teH you what he did ? He spoke with considerable certainty, but straw bailmen always do so. How could be undertake to swear that she never said anything*« of the kind, when he does not know a single Atford of Guzerati ? But we have proved that sfte did say that. She swears it; and yet he undertakes to swear that the Parsee pointed^him out to her. That very Parsee, too, when called herfc, tells you Jfte did nothing of the sort. Now do you*believe that ? I do not cBarge Mr. Wain wright with prying. I do not mean to say that he has not"* come%er£ to speak to t?he best of his recolledtioli3; but, to say the least of it, he* had not an opportunity of seeing or hearing the woman, and, if he had, he did not understand a word of what passed. And how he could dare to come and swear to you that no such words escaped her lips I cannot imagine. He is a very bold man, and was véry wrong in communicating what he did to the firm through whom this evidence is given. Now, as to the question of identity, I think I need not trouble you much ■ about that. Mahaboob, as you know, was here yesterday. A most happy thought occurred to my Lord ; and if it were not unseemly in me to do so, I would thank him for it, because he applied a test at once simple and con- clusive. Upon Mahaboob he put this simple test: “ Go round the Court,” * said he, “ and see whether Nowrojee is now in Court or not.” She went round, and said the man was not in Court. And he was not in Court. Out of this vast assemblage, if she had been a witness of falsehood, she would have selected this person or the other, and said, “ I believe this to be the man.” But she knew him so well as to be able to say, “ He's not here.” And if that is conclusive as regards Mahaboob, can you entertain any reasonable doubt but that if Papajee had gone round the Court she would have said, ie I know Nowroje® as my own brother, and he is not here.” And now I approach the close of my remarks. I come to the unfortunate witness Goolam Ahmed. I propose, for it is a delicate subject, to leave this witness in the hands of my Lord. That is a matter more affecting the 18 p c138 dignity of tlie Court and the administration of justice, than the interests of my Clierft. Only one further remark has occurred to me—if this man Goolam Ahmed was really :p.ot the witness that we s&id he was, why should th£ other side go after him at all ? They went after him, and found kim. And this very* document,rwhjph they say they got him to sign, showed the importance they set upon his evidence. The very circumstance of their taking his e^Lctønce showed thaifhe was at Wassind, and that he knew Nowrojee and Papajee and all «fche circumstances of the ojffences which have been related; if not, their act of going after him would be perfectly nugatory. Their imputation is, tlf&t the man told a lie from beginning to end—that he never was at Was- sin£,- never^knew Nowrojee, aifd never went tp nautch and moojra parties where Nowrojee was ; and yet, as you see, they go to him and take down#ljis evidence, which tells you all aboftt it; and if they did not know that he had been at Wassind, had béen a companion of Nowrojee, that he had eaten with him, why did they attach any importance to him, and go and get his signature ? r &bout eating the food, I say that, even if we have failed upon that part of the case, it is no ground for libel. • Even supposing Goolam Ahmed’s evidence ba worthless, I say the statement is no ground for libel at all. * You, gentle- men, have to determine whether what is contained fn this letter as regarcls the feen able to touch the evidence*of these wpmen : I ask you, would you condemn any man, and ruin him perpetually, socially, and professionally— would you destroy that man on the evidence of any two prostitutes who might swear that he cohabited with one of them twelve years ago ? Whose characte? would be safe if such evidence were acted upon by an intelligent jury ? And yet it is upon that evidence that my learned, friend asks you to dcN that which he^Jjdmself has characterized as weighing down the balance on which rests the future of my client! I will ask you, will you believe two prostitutes, unsup- ported by a single other witn^s, to the ruin of this man ? But .the case does not rest there. Even from the mouth of Mahaboob herself we will prove that she is telling a falsehood. What is the evidence of her age ? That when Nowrojee * was at Wassind she was a child of seven or eight years of age, running about and playing, probably, when her cousin received her visitors (and both siie and other witnesses have told you that her cousin received visits from many metif), and taking no more notice ^of them than she would of any other dccur- * rence in the ordinary course of life. And they bring that'child, who, if her J J stateniQnfe is true, was simply an infant playing' about when Nowrojee was at Wassind : they bring her thirteen years afterwards, and ask you to believe that she can go into the box and say, “ I recollect, amongst the numerous visitors who came to see my cousin, this man and can single him out; though I had no reason to notice him then, and never saw him since, I can now swear to his identity. Is it not preposterous to bring a child to swear to the identity of one man who visited a brothel fourteen years ago ? Do you believe that woman? Do,you believe it possible that she could recollect what she says she does, even if it were true that Nowrojee went there ? It is admitted, gentlemen, that the only opportunities she had of seeing him were for a few months, and that she has never seen him since. Can .you suppose her evidence is true ? You must, I think, gather from that, that she has been brought here, as I feel you are convinced that policeman was brought here, to commit perjury in support of this libellous charge. My learned friend, with a simplicity which was quite refreshing to me, said we admitted that this Mahaboob was not paid to give her evidence, because we had not been able to prove that she received any money. Why, the money paid to Mahaboob was paid at Aurungabad, if anywhere. The other side would manage their affairs in a bungling way indeed, if we were able to prove everything which took place that way; but if I prove, as I think I shall do, that* her sister was bribed, th^re can be little doubt that she also has been bribed. I do not pretend to have any evidence of144 anything having been paid at AtLrungabad; but have you a Treasonable doubt that 'vfchen slie comes here to give such evidence she has received some consi- deration to induce her to undergo the perils of giving false evidence^on thfs occasion^? And how about the one witness with, regard to the fornication— Papajee herself ? What do you say of her ? Do you consider that she has given her Evidence in such a manner as to justify you in accepting it, unsupported as it is, against the evidence of all the other witnesses, land of the prosecutor himself ? I am certain that you do not. Then what do you say of the statement of Mr. Wainwright ? Now, my learned friend was not very disr tindfabout that matter. First of all, he referred to Wainwright, and brought a most serious charge against a respectable man—-one which, I think, my learned friend was hardly entitled to make: and my learned friend even saicj ie had not meant anything so bad. Wainwright is a constable who is employed principally at the Police Office; and to say that ,he is a man who takes money for giving evidence—that he is there prepared to take bribes for giving 1 Evidence in support of any party—is one of the most serious charges that could be brought against^ any ftman, and a most serious charge against Wainwright. You saw Wainwright, and probably you may* know some- thing of him and of his position ; and I will ask you, are you prepared to - think^that he came here a perjured subornefd witness, or, rather, that he dime ^here to give evidence of the most valuable kind, and that he stated wKat came under his observation^ when he was acting *"in his proper ^ efficial capacity. As to what Wainwright says there is no doubt. If he tells the trijth he proves this, that that woman did not point out the prosecutor. My learned friend has attempted to show that what Mr. Wainwright said was false, and that it must be so because he does not understand the Guzerati language. Now there may be people here who don't understand a word I am saying, but there is no question they know that I am speaking; and here Mr, Wainwright swears that the woman, did not say anything—not, that she said something he did not understand, but that she did not say any- thing. He swears that he was standing three or four yards in front of Papajee; that she was put forward by her friends; and that there was some crowd and confusion, but that it was behind her, in the same way. as there is now behind me. The woman was put prominently in front, and Mr. Wainwright was before her; and he swears he is not mistaken in saying she did not say anything: and he cannot be so, unless he is telling a falsehood. Mr. Wainwright says the prosecutor came upstairs, and then the people with Papajee pointed out Nowrojee to her and said, “ That is the man.” Either Mr. Wainwright is telling the trtith, or else he is a “ straw-man/* as my learned friend called him; apd it is for you, having heard- him in the box, to say whether you will believe the prostitute or Mr. Wainwright. Then they brought Nowrojee Dhodie, the creature in the employment of the accused, who has been getting up this case; who has been145 keeping Papajee in his charge, the creature who has been in the secrets of the accused and been actively concerned in getting up this notorious casej a man out of employment, wåo became the hireling K>f the accused : they put him into the box, and ask you to believe him and the harlot t against a respectable man like Mr. Wainwright, an official, who ^aw the whole had seen Nowrojee that very day in*the *box. You recollect, both the women were called when Nowrojee was stand- ing in *the, box; they were told, “ There he is’: look at himand were asked, “ Do you know him ?" They had the same opportunity of recog- nizing him as you had; and I do not think there was anything remarkable iij. the fact that in an hour or two after she could say, I don't in this line of seats see the man that I saw in the box an hour ago." You have the evidence of Papajee herself, and of the creature Dhodie, the man who was sent to fetch her from Aurungabad, and you have the evidence of Mr. Wainwright; and it is for you to say which you believe. If you believe Mr. Wainwright, the conclusion is doubly important. Then Papajee is detected in one deliberate and important falsehood, and it is important, not only because it is a falsehood and would have a bearing on the credibility of her other evidence, but because if this woman knew the man she would not require him to be pointed out to her; and, as it shows, they were aware she would require him to be pointed out to her before she could give the evidence that they needed. Now, one word as to Cullian Khan. We are asked why we don't bring him here. We don't know where he is. It would be a difficult and expensive matter if we were to run all over the country, asking where all the people are that liad connection with this woman; that would have given us a great deal of trouble and expense. But we have brought a highly respectable Hindoo witness^ who is no party to this inquiry, and does ■ not care for one dustoGr more than the other, and with regard to whom not the slightest-insinuation has been made, and he recognizes the woman. There is 19 p c146 a mistake as to where the house was. Their evidence was that it was nexffc aoor to the hotel; but nobody else says so; and I don't see that it is assumed you are to take that *as gospel. The Hindoo witness swears there was a trooper there, and he used to kfcep this woman; tfie trooper'g n^jne, he £ays, was Cullian Khan. The witness does not keep books: he* does not know how to write: and it is not likefy*a» small shopkeeper should keep books. Bat he says, “I recollect the^man, and I kntfw the woman." He used to supply the woman with food at the request of Cullian; and it is a natural 'thing that when the woman came to nis shop he should ask, “ Who is to pay for this ?" and the woman says, eU Cullian Jpian, who keeps me*" , And the Hindoo now recognizes the woman wht) was kept by Cullian Khan. It is a matter of little importance fis>¥ us* to show that t^e woman was 'kept' by Cullian Khan, but it is of great importance that they should show Nowrojee l^ept her; and it is for you to say whom you believe,—which is telling the truth,—the harlot, or the respectable Hindoo shopkeeper, who has no reason for telling anything that is false ? That is the s'eeond falsehood, I think, we have proved that ♦Papajee has told. I now come to the second and more important point touching hez credibility—the question of bribery. No#w, I think my leaded friend was somewhat unfair-with that old Mahomedan, Ebrain Russool; and I think you will agree with me I3iat*my learned friend Vas not justified, from anything that came out in the evidence, in charging that man with being the keeper of a brothel. All that came out was that this man Merwanjee lived there with his concubine. That is very common in Bombay, I dare say; and to say that a man is a keeper of a brothel, because a con- cubine is kept in one of his houses, is surely going too far. But my learnBd friend thinks he is justified in saying that that man is the keeper of a brothel and gambling-houses ; and it is for you to say if that was a true charge to make. And it is also for you to say if you think, that, because this liquor-seller, Merwanjee, keeps a concubine, he is not to be believed on his oath ; for no other charge is made against him. But my learned friend omits an important point. They may be the two biggest rascals in Bombay, but they are not my client's friends : they are the intimate friends of my learned friend's client, the accused. It is admitted that they are his friends and instru- ments. It is not our case, but their own witnesses prove it. What does Papajee say, when I asked her if it was in the house of this common brothel- keeper that she met the accused and his friends ? It was in his house, she says, that all these “ highly respectable" people here *met. It is % admitted by their own witnesses that that man, the liquor-seller, was the per&on employed in these interviews. It is not denied. My learned friend, in cross- examination, put this question to Ebrain Russool,—“ Now was not that money paid to you for the services you had rendered Jamsetjee, the accused,-in look-147 ing for this woman ?” So that, by my friends own showing, these horrible Pascals are the instruments and agents of Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madu't, ^he aceused libeller. I make my friends present of them, because I do not think th‘em “ highly respectable.’’ We have got them as witnesses; but it is for you to say if there is anything affecting their character. We charge Jarftsetjee ’ Sorabjpe^Madun, and those “ gentlemen of irreproachable character,”wliom my learned friend says we omitted to call, with subornation of perjury in that man’s house. The woman admits, it is admitted by all, that 'they were ii the house’: there is no doubt about that, or that the conversation took place in the house at that time, or that she was there asked to give evidence. All die denied .was that she got the money that ^vas admittedly paid to some one ig. i that, Jiouse. There is no doubt EbramRussool and the liquor-seller were,to a certain extent implicated in that bribery; but it is for you to say whether * or’ not they are telling the truth when they say they saw the money paid to the woman. In such a case as this you cannot get evidence of perjury given by Judges of the High Court. People don’t generally go before them to pay the money for false evidence. If you wan,i> evidence of dirty deeds, you* have to get it from dirty mouths. I don’t wish to* say very much in favour^ of t*hese witnesses : all 1 say is we have got them to give evidence, and by them-?we have reVealed the perjury that could not havelDeen found out unless • *sonle of the persons who were concerned had come and given evidence. Now it»is for you to say Vhether, corroborated as,they are, you do not believe these facts. I may say the fact of the money being paid is admitted, for my learned friend was instructed to ask if it was not given to Ebram Russool for his services and not to the woman. Everything is admitted to have take*u place in the presence of these witræsses; and it is for you to consider the whole facts of the case, and the manner in which this case has been conducted, and then say whether you believe the money was paid to Papajee, as you have been told, by those persons who were present on the occasion. My learned friend spoke of spies, and said that Papajee had been earned about because there were spies about. Now you saw from my questions that she had been carried about, and that we knew everything about her, even to the woman who danced before her in her confinement. She admitted it all. Yet we had no spies : but, fortunately for the ends of justice, we got hold of these men, who told us the truth. Our information is not collected from spies; but this liquor=> seller, it is evident, was present and knew everything that went on, and he is corroborated in every particular by tlie evidence and the admissions of the woman herself, except as to the giving of the money to the woman. Assuming that this weVe a trial4n which that witness was here as an accomplice giving evidence, all that the law requires is that he should be corroborated on som-c of the important points. If he be corroborated on the important circum stances, the law says you iftust take his evidence as that of any other witness , and so,,accepting his evidence in the worst light, you find him givinga corro148 borated narrative of the whole circumstances, of which only one part is denied; and^it^is for you to say whether, under these circumstances, you entertain a single doubt that that woman has been .bribed to * give her evidence here. And now, one word as to that paper which she gavQ to Mr. Riming'ton. Among the corroborative facts on which we rely, we have proved that this statement was made "by her in presence of Mr. Rimington, having*been pre- viously drawn by his clerk. My learned friend has misunderstood the case here.^ He miswiderstood my object. I did not attempt anything so absurd as to say what he attributed to me,—that Mr. Rimington had anything to do^with subornation of perjury. My learned friend missed the point. Mr. Rimington nor his clerk had anything to do with the subornation of perjury : it h^d all taken place before, when the bargain-was made, and the arrangement- entered into as to what Papajee should say. It was perfectly right and proper that the clerk should take down what ‘’’she said, and equally right that Mr. Rimington’ should take her acknowledgment of what she said, so that it might be in writing, and be kept for use in subsequent proceedings. But Mr. Rimington could have zip more idea that it was suborned, than he could of any offence committed behind his back. How cotild he know ? WhetL he goes to a witness he is not to know thé manner in which £hat witness was induced te> make the statement. His only duty i& to’say, I§ this the statement you are prepared to make ¥’ then read it to tfie witness, and there is an end to it. Therefore*, there is not the slightest refleotion attaching to Mr. Rimington or his clerk as to the taking of this statement, but the paper is important as corroborating the witnesses as to what took place. My learned friend, by inadvertence on his part, said that this document which contains Papajee^s evidence, as, taken down by Mr. Rimington’s clerk, was identical with what she said here. He i& mistaken : it is totally different. Her evidence here was that she was kept by the pro- secutor, that she was his regularly kept-mistress, and that he paid her:. Rs. 20 a month. Here was what she said when she first made her statement:—• “First. About fifteen years ago I lived at Wassind, where I acted as a courtezan. I knew there one Nowrojee Andliiaroo, a mobed, who was at that time trading in firewood. I first became acquainted with him when he attended at my place of residence at nautohes and moojras, and after some time he became very intimate with me, and used to come to me every four or five days, and stopped with me all night on those occasions, and cohabited with me, and gave me money for sleeping with me. He was living very near the place where I was living, and was taking his meals in a tavern belonging to one Jamsetjee. He stopped at Wassind fos two yeavs, and then returned to Bombay; and at the time of his departure for Bombay he came- to bid me adieu, and gave me rupees ten as present. Second. I was stop- ping at Wassind aforesaid with my aunt Minnajee/ otherwise called Burree- bee, and I had with me my young sister Mahaboob, with all of whom the149 said Nowrojee is well acquainted. Third. I came to Bombay about ten years ago, when I gave up tlie life of a courtezan, and married '•the'•said Ebrahjmbhai Ismail, dyer, and T^e have ever since lived together as husband and wife.” You see, gentlemen, that is not a Rs. 20 per month permanent arrangement. He visited her and paid her. That is also what Mahaboob said. Yoi-i k*n as is the pase with nearly all worsen of her*class, had never had a* child in her life ; she has been married for ten years, and* never during that period hacl^ a #child ; she had been carrying on her profession for years before she says she met Nowrojee, and never had# a child. TheÆ no pretence of "her having had any child except this one by Nowrojiee } and I ask you whether on the facts of the case there does not appear to be the strongest evidence of the falsity of her statement? Now, as to *the^ evidence of the burial of the child, that was a point that could, without dou]?t, have^been proved, if it "ever took place,. There must be persons at Wapssind who were there at the time and performed the ceremony, gry if no ceremony, at all events pei*formed the mechanical act of digging the hele in which the child was interred : and yet they are not brought here/ And she said she could not recollect who did so. In a small village like ."Wassind there must have been only a limited number of Mahomedans; and yTef she cannot recollect who peyfprmed the burial of.the child, if child there ev^r was; and they have not?been able to throw the slightest degree of light *■ on. the fexistencs of any person who was present at the burial. I ask you what is the conclusion tteit you must draw from the evidence of4this woma^ ? 'She has been guilty of one falsehood, if'you believe Mr. Wainwright sfae has been guilty, if you aE& to believe the Hindoo,»who is, ai> all ev^nts^- a respectable man, of another falsehood as to Cullian Khan; and if you are to believe the statements of those two men who have given evidence, and received corroboration on every particular on which it was possible they could be corroborated, she has been guilty of receiving a bribe for giving false evidence before you to-day; and if you look to that document you will. find the evidence given after receiving that bribe differ in important particulars from that which she previously gave, and which was- insufficient in order to support the literal truth of the libel. Now, under these circum- stances, I can hardly doubt for a moment as to the decision you will be enabled to arrive at with regard to the evidence of that woman. Will you on the evidence of that woman alone—for, as I have pointed out to you, it is solely on her statement that they attempt to justify the truth of that libel—will you on that alone be prepared, under the circumstances, to attach the slightest evi- dence to the uncorroborated statement of this miserable prostitute ? But before finally deciding that point, you will have to give the weight which it deserves to the evidence we have given, by calling a considerable number of the friends- and associates of Nowrojee who were present at Wassind when he was therer As to absolutely proving that he could not have gone to Papajee's house in the middle of the night without their knowing it, of course we can do nothing of the kind. You cannot trace the entire life ofanypfcrson. Witnesses cannot say, “ Fourteen or fifteen years ago we knew this man, and were always with151 him.” But we called men wlio were personally acquainted with Nowrojee,— some Parsees, a Mahomedan, and a Hindoo,—and they say they were fnembe?is a sraall community; and they lell you it was morally *impossible, as you will readily believe* that any one could have been carrying on a connection of this sort without anybody knowing of it. It is utterly impossible that the pros£c\itor could have carried it on in such a manner that he* should have eluded the observation pf his friends. The witnesses all told you that had this man kept a woman, or had he even frequented her* house arid had a «child by her, they must have known it,—must have seen him going or cpming, or heard some rumour of it,—for everybody knew in such a small community what everybody else was doing. Now we L^vé called those men, ap.d you must understand that we not only rely on their direct evidence, but we challenged their cross-examination, and not one of them said he Jiad ever heard a rumour; and as far as every pne knows, he swears there wa$ not the slightest reason for believing that this man Nowrojee had anything to do with this prostitute, I regard that as most important evidence of the man's character' We bring all his friends and intimate acquaintances, and they subject them- selves to cross-examination, and tell yosi that, to the best of their belief, thare was not the slightest truth in the charges, nor was there even a rumour,—afid yo'JL know how rumours of such matters would fly al)but,—and they tf}ll you tiiat during all the time they were in Wassind they never heard of such a' thing, ai^d never heard of it till this libel wafe ptrblished. It is for the defence to explain how you can reconcile the evidence of these witnesses with the truth of the statements in the libel; and I feel confident that, under all the circumstances of the case, you must arrive at a decided conviction, not that the facts are doubtful, not that the accused has failed to show the full truth of all •the charges he has made against the prosecutor, but that he has utterly failed ; that the charges are disproved; and that, on the other hand, my client has established his complete innocence; and the fact that the witnesses called for the defence have been suborned, and are of the most infamous character that could possibly be conceived. One word as to a circumstance which my learned friend commented on at great length, and attached great importance to,— that was the absolute denial by Nowrojee tbat he knew of the existence of this person Papajee. Now let us just see what Nowrojee said. When we were going to call all these witnesses, and when Nowrojee knew that we were going to call them, he was not so foolish or untruthful a man as to say, as my learned friend says he w^s so rash as to say, I did not know of the existence of such a woman.” What I asked, what he did say, was, “ I never saw the woman -to my knowledge, and do not recognize her.” That he must have known that there were prostitutes in Wassind, everyone must assume I suppose. Everyone knows there are prostitutes in Bombay in certain quarters, and, I dare say, we have seen them at times; and if one of them was brought152 here we might say, “ That is a prostitute, and I may have seen her i she nfay have sat at her window as I drove p^t, and I may have seen her: I am telling the truth when *1 say I know there ar© suqli people, but I swear I don't know that woman, and do*h*t recollect her/' That is wltfit Nowrojee. said. My learned friend says, lc Everybody in the place kne\* Papajee/* Y$s, the people who were there for seven years with her could at* least recognize her, but Nowrojee was only there *for two months f and he says he did not know her, and the people who were there with him say they believe him. My learned friend asked them, and said you woul(?recollect their answers. I recollect threm, and I don't see what my learned friefid mean» by referring to that evidence. Hec asked every witness; “ If Nowr6jee were to say he does not know that woman, would you believe hin*?*' and every one said* “ Yes, I woulclbelieve him/* And I ask you if there is the slightest improbability in that answer. What did he say himself ? He said, “ I may have been at nautches and moojras there/* Well,, there is not the lightest impropriety in that; people of the strictest moral character and highest respectability go to these entertainments as to a theatre or opera horcse. c He says, “ I may have gone, and if I went I must have seen dancing women/* But do you believe, gentlemen, that if I had been at a nautch or moojrar party fourteen years ago, and if you now produced a wojnan, I mi^ht fiot truly say, “I donft recollect that I ever saw that woman.** I have been to two or three nautches in Bombay, and have seen women dancings bfat, I must say, I should feel surprised if you declined to believe me, if you pro- duced one of these women, ånd I said I did not recollect her. Would you disbelieve me, or think it improbable, were I to say,—“ I have been to nautches, and I may have seen that woman dancing, 15ut I don*t know her or recognize her now/* I ask if it is such a singular thing that it would lead you to suspect that it was not true were a man, fourteen years after he might have seen a women at a nautch, to decline to say he had seen the woman at all. That is the whole of the case; and now I may be allowed briefly to sum it up. Of the three charges in the libel, one has been withdrawn. They have withdrawn the whole of that dramatic account about what the people said,—what one man said in the temple, and what the other said, and what was done in the temple, as apparently described by a man who was stating what he had himself seen. That is all a lie. The prisoner admits, through his counsel, that it is a lie. Nobody ever told him, and he had no justification whatever for publishing that monstrous lie. Then the charge of eating food prepared by a Mussalman cook has been wholly ctøsproved, and only one of the charges has he endeavoured to establish by the evidence of perjured witnesses. Having failed on the two other charges, he tries to establish the charge of fornication, ajad he does that on the evidence of the woman Mahaboob, who was at Wassind fourteen years ago, and who, it was said, was only seven years of age at the time; and upon the153 evidence of tliat miserable prostitute Papajee, whom, I feel convince^ I have shown to have been gujlty of two falsehoods in the witness-box, and whose evidence has been bought, and bought in the manner thit the two intimate friends of the accused, his instruments and tools, have sworn was tl*e fact to their certain knowledge. Now it remains for you to ’say, simply Yes" or as thought was his duty, to the public regarding a man who was holding a position that he ought not to retain, cannot now be urged 011 his behalf, for ,up to the present moment there has been no withdrawal of any of the charges, no word of apology, 110 expression of regret, no statement* that he had been misled; and he is even now awaiting your verdict, hoping you will say he has told the truth—hoping that your verdict will destroy the character of my client, the prosecutor. And in what way was that publication made ?—false, as I hope you will find it. It was published in the public papers, not a private communication to the head of the temple, not by a communication intended to protect the community from the ministrations of an improper priest. Nothing of that kind influenced him. He tells you in that long, stupid, malignant letter—he tells you my object in writing this is to punish the dustoor, the brother of the prosecutor, because his friends have been writing that which is un- pleasant to my friends. I will punish the dustoor by publishing this false calumnious libel concerning the dustoor*s brother." Now my learned friend was wrong here; he said the dustoor had admitted tlmt he had taken part in this controversy. It,is not so : the dustoor has denied it, and there is not the slightest evidence that what he said was not true. The dustoor said he liaid never written on this'subject : he has not mixed himself up with it: the only articles he has written were articles written on religious subjects. He has never written anything whatever concerning the defendant in this matter, and it is wrong to say this libel was written in reply to what the dustoor 20 p c 1 /)4 wrote. But it was written to punish the dustoor, as the accused himself nleoI£res‘ and when you read, that letter you will trace throughout the malig- nant motive that influenced this man in writing the most venomous insinua- tions and inuendoes against the character, not only of* the prosecutor, but of his deoeased relations. Against the dead even ! He cannot even respect the dead; blit by maligiyint insinuations, whilst pretending to screen* tiirows dirt upon their memories. He is not, as my learned friend most inappropriately called Trim, the ^ manly independent exposer of wrong*/’ but the anonymous «and foul calumniator, possessed of all the cunning which ever distinguishes those base men, of whom he is one of the worst examples. Throughout that letter he insinuates against the dead charges which, no doubt, are as false andVicked as those we have had to deal with here. .Head this letter, and.-see how he speaks o£them,—“ I won’t now say more : it would be wrong to do ■injury to the dead, but there are charges which ^ou might hear of; and if accu- sations are brought against my friends it will be my duty—painful though *that duty may be, it will be necessary to expose the errors of your departed relatives.” Does not that shoVthe general character of the man, and does it ifot gjve the keynote of his disposition, and show that throughout all these proceedings he has been actuated, not by any sense of public duty, but solely by the foulest feelings of spite and maljce,—a fabricator of false charges against the living, an unscrupulous slanderer of the dead, and a detected suborner of perjury. I now leave him in your hands $o await your yerdict ancT that just punishment which tho law reserves for tho false and cowardly cajumniator. Mr. Justice Westropp then addressed tho Jury. Ho said :—In this case*, Gentlemen of the Jury, the accused Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun stands charged, on some twelve charges, with respect to tlie alleged libel which has been read to you. I do not think I should assist you much in your deliberations by going through these charges in succession. These charges take parts of the alleged libel, sometimes putting them separately and some- times altogether; sometimes imputing intent to injure, and sometimes reason to believe that publication would injure the reputation of the prosecutor. I think I should only confuse you by going through these in detail, and that you will sufficiently understand what you have to clo from the general remarks I have to make on the case, as to say whether or not Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun is guilty of having published a libel on«the prosecutor, Nowrojee. Now*, it seems that there have been two dustoor^ for sometime past in Bom- bay; that one dustoor is a member of the Sunjana family, and was examined here as a witness— that his ancestor was the undisputed dustoor of all the155 Parsees in Bombay some twenty-four or twenty-live years ago, -but died when his son Peshutonjee was yet under age; that another dustoor claimed aifthority? a?id that during a period* of twenty-four or twenty-five ye^rs; and that the Question has existed between the different portions of the Parsee community which of these two men is the dustoor, par excellence, of BQinb^y. Now, I ref^r4 to this merely for the purpose of illustrating the document which you havetio consider. That document originated in this way : sonle one who is a partisan of the dustoor Jamaspjee Muncherjee, who is said to be^of the Jamasp Assa family, wrote and published a letter which reflected apparently—, I gather that from the libel—on the Jamasp Assa family, and it appears that by way of retaliation for that publication ttlie present letter was,written by tliQ accused, who seems to be a partisan and upholder of the Jaifrasp Assa family. Now, no doubt, it was perfectly open to hin}, as a partizan of the Jamasp Assa family, to' advocate their claims if he .pleased, and to" impeach if he pleased the claims of the rival family, the Sunjanas; but in exercising that right he was bound to keep himself within legitimate limits. 0 He should have been cautious not to impeach» the reputation of others unless he could show'that that impeachment was true, and, furthermore, for tbo public good; and therefore it will be your duty to consider, not only whether this -^alleged libel is true, but also whether it was for “'the public good'that ‘it should be published. And by the public good you will understand the ‘benefit» of £heJ Parsee cothmunity, for that is t'iieir’public good in such a matter"* as the present. And if it be true and for the public good that it should be pub- lished, then, according to the law which prevails ill this country, you would ]be bound to acquit the accused. Now, the law of libel applicable to this case is very simple indeed. The Penal Code? lays it down thus : “ Whoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation conccrning any person, intending to harm, or knowing, or having reason to believe, that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the case hereinafter excepted, to defame such person." Generally, the term defamation is what is used in this Code, and it applies either to words spoken, to*words written and published, or even to signs and pictures, and so on. Now you will observe there are exceptions, and the exception which applies to this case is the first, which says it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Now, whether or not this publication was for the public good is a ques- tion of fact lo be decided by you, and so also is the question whether or not it,is defamatory matter. ,It is my duty to assist you in considering whether it is, or is not, defamatory matter; but it lies with the jury eventually to say whether the publication was a libel or defamatory, and whether or not it was for the public good that it should be publu lied, and if it be true.156 Now, keeping that in your mind, gentlemen, I shall draw your attention tp tlie«.fa#cts of this case as shortly as I can. The letter containing the alleged libel is a v^ery long one, and I don't by any means propose to read it over to you at length. It will be sufficient for you «to remember that* it was a lectter*written by the partizan of one dustoor with reference to the brother of another dustoor, so far as the matter which you have to investigate is concerned, but it was evidently written for the purpose of crying down the dustoor#himself; and it will be for you to say whether, if this allegation be true, the accused was doing what was for the public good of the Parsee com-t munfty, in saying that a person who is claiming to be their dustoor kept about hingL a^man, his relative, wnorwas incontinent, who defiled himself by eating food prepared by a person of another caste, and thereby incapacit^§<3 himself according fo the rules winch prevail in the Parsee community from acting as a priest. It will-be for you to say \%Jiether it was for the good of the Parsee community that he should do that. It may be that it was. You * must put yourself in the position of Par sees, gentlemen, to consider this ques- tion. Tho question is not whether you, as Europeans, think it would damage a yuan's reputation to be cliarged with eating food cooked by a "Mussalman— of course you don't think anything of the sort, such of you as are Euro- # peans,; but you must recollect that the world of these people# is their <*wn 'community, and if their reputation in that community is injured, then thtit they have sustained a wrong** You have to consider that it tuaj be the Parsee community at large, or, at least, the majority of that party, would consider that this matter of the cookery was a very serious matter indeed; ancf so, also, with regard to incontinence. In fact, all the witnesses agree that especially incontinence must be fatal to a ‘'Parsee priest in his professional capacity—that he would be no longer employed, that his patrons or chief priest, would bo bound to suspend him ; in fact, that he would receive neither his salary nor his fees from tho public. You will also say whether you think it was for the benefit of the community that this statement should be made for the purpose of showing that Peshutonjee, the dustoor, was himself an im- proper man to be dustoor because he kept a man about him who was tainted with these, what are considered, sins by the Parsee community, or a great por- tion of it. And if you think that, if these allegations were true, it was for tho benefit of the Parsee community that it should be made known that the dustoor kept this man about him as a priest, who was thus disqualified to act as such, you will be bound to give the accused the benefit of your opinion. But you will recollect that these transactions, which the accused purports to bring to light in this letter, are not transactions of' recent occurrence. It is said that the prosecutor Nowrojee kept a woman some twelve years ago^ and had. a child by her, and that about the same time he indulged in those forbidden dinners. You will consider not only whether, even supposing these matters were of recent occurrence, it would be right to bring them to light and stop tliem if still going on; but also whether it was for tlie benefit of the Parsee community that an old affair like this should be raked up and®bK)t\g]*t cfo light, recollecting 'Ihat for "Several years this man, had returned and ‘continued to act* as a priest, and that the charges themselves had been allowed to sleep during twelve years. You will considei; whether, even if tl7,e * charges be true, it was for the benefit of the Parsee community that they should be raked up after twelve years. I do not, however, atteinpt to guide you further than to point out to you that these are nfatters yo3 are to consider. And the antiquity of the occurrences affects the case in another way; it affects it, not only as I have pointed out to you, on the , question of public good, but also as regards the tru.th^of the allegations ^n the Iftel. Yoh 'will probably think, if this man did these things which would bring him into such bad odour with the Parsee community and would disqualify him as a priest, how is it that—albeié there were many Parsees at Wassind, amongst the rest Rustomjee—how is it that these charges have been allowed to sleep for twelve years; or, in other words, how is it that they have put up with hi£* iniquities for twelve years. You will consider that with regard to the pro- bable truth of the allegations in the alleged libel. * Now, having cleared the ground on these points,’I think I may say that, to a certain extent, both the prosecutor and* the accused are on their trial here. The prosecutor is /?n his trial, not criminally, but morally and professionally, for substantially you-' have $o decide whether' he is a fit person to Continue in the profession oi1 priest. It is in evidence that out-door as well as in-door priests of the Parsee community enjoy certain fixed incomes. You are not considering the ques- tion of damages : you are considering whether the accused is guilty or not of having published a libel; but iMs in evidence, and really is uncontradictcd, that these priests, both out-door and in-door, receive fixed incomes and fees, and that these fees depend on the pleasure and ability of the giver in point of extent, though for every ceremony which is performed some fee must be given. This man Nowrojee has been suspended in consequence of the publication of this letter, and he is required by his co-religionists to clear himself. That is contrary to our view of such cases. As we think, and according to the practice of our Criminal Court when anybody brings a charge against a man, it is the business of the party alleging to prove it, and not the business of the accused to disprove it. However, it seems that they are more particular in the Parsee community; and all the witnesses who have been brought here for the prosecution—and there were some very respectable gentlemen amongst them—have said that even the publication of such a letter, the fact of “the charge being made, put upon the priest of the temple the duty of suspending the man so charged, who must continue suspended till he clears himself. Under these circumstances it is a very serious matter for the prosecutor to-day, whether or not you find the prisoner guilty; in fact, the prosecutor is on his trial as a priest in that respect. Then, on the other hand,158 the prisoner is unquestionably on his trial, for it is alleged here by the ^Fo^eouifion that he has published defamatory writing concerning the prose- cutor. As you haye heard, the evidence i£ that thisf priest would ber ruined as a priest if these charges be true ; and if you are of opinion that this letter* is defamatory and not true, or even, if true, that the publication was not for the public gcod, you will be bound to convict the accused. No douT>te the main question h.ere is whether or not it is substantially true;*and the learned «counsel ftfr the prosecution in his very able reply justly said so. It is not “is it true in every minor point?" but “ is the gist of it# true^” Has this man kept a prostitute and had children by her, and ha^, he defiled himself by eatitig^food prepare^ by a person of another religion,—a^Mussalman ? Well, he has positively denied both charges; ^d that cast on the accused the onus' of proving that they were true if he could, i>ot by going into the box, but by other witnesses. It will be for you to* consider his conduct, his motives; how far the letter itself shows him • 4o be a person likely to be truthful; how far what is attempted here by him shows him to be a persen* likely to be truthful and a person of good character—a man likely of not to resort to the subornation t)f witnesses. ' Now, unquestionably, this case has been a painful one,Very painful, whichever way y£>u look at it, f—and to the probabilities of the case. He has com- pletely repudiated the change of incontinence, and the other one likewise; and it i.s the duty, as I have told you before, of the other side to establish clearly to your complete satisfaction that he has been guilty of incontinence. 160 Ifc won’t do for you to think it is just probable he went in for tliat sort of •thing like otlier people. That won’t do, gentlemen,: men are not allowed by tlie law to publish*in a newspaper, or elsewhere, allegations to the injury- oj:* the reputation of others, simply because it is possible tliey are true. If they take on themselves tlie responsibility of making such allegations# ajid pub- lishing then?, they take cyi themselves the responsibility of proving then^ and, if they can’t prove them, of taking the consequences. You must be satisfied, quite satisfied, that this charge of incontinence has been completely proved. *Now,with that caution, gentlemen, look at the evidence. A woman, who unv questionabjy was at Wassind, has been produced, and she swears she had fréquent intercourse with the accused. I shall nftt trouble you by reading at* length the evidence of all the witnesses, because many of the points arB tiot disputed, but I stall read her evidence to you §nd the important parts of the evidence of the other witnesses. It is sufficients to many of the matters just to call your attention generally to the case, and not to trouble you with the evi- dence of any of the earlier witnesses, all those who spoke as to the consequences to a priest if these charges were time in effect. What they have# stated has not bfeen disputed, and it woultf be a waste of your time to#read it. You have paid particular attention to this case, and I have no doubt have not Jorgotten what has been said by them. This Papajee is s&id to have lived at*Wassind with her maternal aunt and her cousin. She was called her sister also, but the natives are frequently in tlie habit of confusing the two terms, «in calling a male cousin brother, or a female cousin a sister; and it appeared this girl was Papajee’s cousin and was a child of the woman she called her mother, but whom she admitted was only her maternal aunt, and that they were all of the profession of courtezan. Well, the woman Papajee is to a certain extent corroborated by the cousin. Now, it will be for you to say whether you believe the cousin was of such an age, at the time these occurrences are said to have taken place at Wassind, as to kno w what was going on, and be able to speak of the visits of this priest and the degree of intimacy on which he stood with Papajee. You saw her in the box, and, I daresay, are able, some of you, especially the native gentlemen, to form some idea as to what her age is. She herself said it was twenty-six, but several of the witnesses called in the * rebutting case said she was only eight or nine years old at the time these people were at Wassind. Now you will say which you believe on that point. If you think, gentlemen, that she was only eight or nine years of age, you will possibly think she was quite incompetent to speak to this matter, and unlikely to take any notice or be told what was going^on. If ,you think that that is so, then it casts a very serious reflection on the case for the accused to produce a girl of that sort, who was only» eight or nine years old when these things took place, to swear to such matters, for it is suggestive of subornation; and if -you once come to the conclusion there has been subornation by the accused, then, gentlemen, it affects the whole of his case. If you tliink there lias been subornation of one witness, that affects the whole of his case. The man who is capable of suborning one witnessawprAd bø capable of suborning' twenty r^the man who is capable of suborning Mahaboob would bescapable of suborning Papajee, or would be capable of suborning Goolam Ahmed and the others. Now, if you think he ha^ been capable^o? suborning one of these, you may probably come to the conclusion he has suborned the rest: if you think he has suborned one*» you may entertain a vehement suspicion he suborned the rest. It mil be for you to say if you think there is any ground for believing he did suborn one; that is your province. This Papajee says she had a child by the prosecutor. There, again, the remark by^the learned counsel in reply is worthy of your ■attention, He said that she stated, when she was recalled by the Court, that she never had any other child. Now» it would be rather a singular thing if she had been married* now twelve years, and is still not a very old woman, but never had a child by any other body* but a Parsee. It will be for you to say if you think her statement, that she never had any other child, renders improbable» the story regarding having had a child by'the Parsee priest; and when you* are on that point, you will recollect what the learned counsel drew your attention to with régard, 'to t>ie document which she signed in the presence of Mr. Eimin^ton. 'There is not a syllable in that * do cum an b of her ever having had a bliild by a Parsee priest—not a syllable. And*you will recollect what has been said by the witnesses who were called by way of rebuttal as to the mode in which Papajee is alleged to have been treated by the accused and bis party. They said that she was staggered at the suggestion that she should swear to haying had a child j that at first she was reluctant to swear at all; but that on the offer of the money—Rs. 800in all, Rs. 400 of which was to be paid down—she agreed to give evidence as to having had intercourse with this man ; that when it was further suggested that she should state she had a child by him, she was staggered by that proposition, and said she would not do that. Well, gentlemen, rhe statement of Merwanjee Manockjee and Ebram Russool is supported strongly by .the document which is -countersigned by Mr. Rimington. And mind you, gentlemen, what was the necessity, or the supposed necessity, that existed for proving that she had a child by Nowrojee. It is an allegation in the libel that he had children by a prostitute. The allegation in the libel really comes to this—that Papajee had both male and female children by him, and it treats the female children as if they were still in existence and were to practise the ■ disreputable trade of their mofher. Wéll, there is not the slightest scintilla of evidence that there had been a female child; only a male child is spoken of, and even he had lived only eighty minutes and was buried at Wassind ; there was no kind of ceremony, and the mother 'does not know who attended the funeral, or any- thing of that kind. Now, it will be for you to say if you think that story 21 p c162 about the child is a complete myth, under these circumstances—that she did noi s^ay a word about it in her evidence as taken down by the clerk, or in that which was copied^ and had her bangle nmrk put to it in the presence <*f Mr. Rimington; and the witnesses have told you she positively refused* t(f say she ‘had a child. You will no doubt see, gentlemen, that that is a most important matter in this case; and if you disbelieve the story about thk (fbjld, it will be for you to say whether you can believe any of the rest—cai^you give credit io the testimony of a woman who could swear here in this Court that she had a child by this man; and if you disbelieve that, can you believe her allegation that she was kept by that man at a salary of Rs. 20 a month ? W^ll, the learned counsel prop£rly# drew your attention to another variance between the statement in that written evidence—that evidence taken ctøwn from her—and the statement whfch she made here. There is nothing about Rs. 20 a month in that. I think the inference ^ou will draw from the state- ment there is, that the payment was casual as the intercourse was casual; *and, gentlemen, here I may draw your attention to what the sister said. Mahaboob said—I gather from ter evidence, which I shall read presently— that the payment, if payment there was any, and the intercourse, if there was any, were casual—that the payment was on each mornfng, and it was a casual one. There did not appear to be a salary, at all events up to Wie time w^Len Papajee left Wassind for the purpose of going to the territory of the Rajah^f 'Johwar. Now, as I shall haw? to read the testimony of these twor womea over again, I don't propose to trouble you at the present moment with any further remarks as to what they said. I may have to say something when I read it over, but shall now at once go to the other allegation which it has been sought to justify—that is as to the prosecutor eating food which had been prepared by a Mahomedan cook. Now Rustomjee, who was called for the purpose o£ establishing that hideous offence, was quite unable to go one hair's breadth towards establishing it: he knew nothing, because he never saw the cooking going on. With regard to him that allegation in the libel, so far as he is concerned, is unproved. Then the next witness called was Goolam Ahmed* He is the only other witness who has been called on the cookery question for the defence, and no doubt, gentlemen, he may have been a railway guard,, as he describes himself, and it does not appear to be denied that he was in the employment of the railway. He may have been so at that time, but, supposing him to have been so, it will be for you to say whether there is any probability in his story; namely, that his dinner was daily cooked by his mother at Tanna, was sent thirty miles by rail to Wassind, and was then still hot, and was on six or seven different occasions »aten by the Parsee priest by way of joke. Now it will be for you to say if you believe one single syllable of that. You may possibly think, gentlemen, that there might be some probability in the story if this joke* was alleged to have been perpetrated once; but do you think that the joke would be perpetrated seven163 times over, and do you think it would be any joke at all on even the second occasion, and do you think the Parsee priest was a person likely to ihdu/ge» irf jocularity of that kind ? These&re all questions for you ; and I leave them io you, and I leave it to you to judge of the manner of that man in the box. He certainly, in a manner, denied the suggestions of miscopduQt in the recent charges which were made against him: he there, in a maimer, denied he was concerned in stealing timber, or in accepting a bribe, if there was any charge^ against him of accepting a bribe. It will be for you to ^say if you think his denial was given in such a form as to carry the appearance of* truth in it; and if you think he altogether gave liis evidence in disreput- able manner in that box, why, then, geD.tlemen, you will act accordingly. Bat your judgment of what he said cannot depend solely on what he’did say, or on the way in which he said it, because witnesses Jiave been called who gave evidence of his having made a directly different statement in their* presence, and signed it. Now if you believe them, gentlemen, you will probably come to the conclusion that that man is a suborned witness and has committed wilful perjury. No im'peachment on their character seemed to me to be made in the course of the cross-examination of thos© i < j witnesses who gave evidence as to his having made that statement and sigr^d it; anc} Mr. McCulloch justly drew your attention to the fact>that "‘onfe of them took that statement in his capacity of a clerk of his employers, and had b^en’ a trusted and confidential servant J5f those employers for twelve years. It will be for you to say if that man would go into the box and peril his character in such a matter as this, and to say if it was, not he but Goolam Ahmed, who was the perjurer. If you give credence to this clerk—and there are several who gave evidence to the same effect as he did— it is impossible you can give any credence whatever to Goolam Ahmed. And now I shall allude, and I shall do so shortly, to a point that occurred with , regard to him. The learned Serjeant drew my attention, and he was perfectly warranted in doing so, to the fact that that man was arrested, while you were yet sitting and this case was still in the balance, on a charge of giving false evidence in this Court in this case. Now I have stated I •thought this an indiscreet proceeding, and I said so, because, no doubt, a proceeding of that kind is very much calculated to influence those who hear that such a measure has been taken. I desired the evidence to be taken down at the instance of the learned counsel for the prosecution, and it is a common thing to do so; but in doing that I did not intend to give any opinion of what I thought of that evidence—none whatever. I did what is commonly åone here*. No doubt that is done to enable parties who may \yish hereafter to take progeedings against the persons who make statements, if they are of opinion they can establish that the statements are -false, but any attempt of that kind towards establishing that a statement is false ought not to be made while the matter is yet before the jury; and I have164 to advise you to put 110 consequence whatever on the fact that this infomia- tiJmwfis lodged against him and that he was arrested. It is for you to say, quite independently of these facts, whether or not you believe him ^ and yftu are to arrive at your conclusion by his demeanour her®, the probability of what hé paidj and what you have heard with regard to him from the witnesses who have been called as^to his conduct, and by that alone. The#m*e$e fact that his evidence has been taken down here and made the subject of a charg© in the Police Court, and that he was arrested, you are to throw out of your consideration altogether, and you are to come to an independent judg- ment on the value of his testimony. It is no doubt, gentlemen, very desir- able that tjiose who come and §lvq false evidence should be punished, and the law*requires that they should be so. It is very proper that they shoijd be' punished; but, gentlemen, proceedings against them must be taken at the proper time. Tliere is a proper time for all things, and it was not the proper time for that when this case was pending before you. I have never known such a thing to be done in my life. The learned counsel mentioned two cases, in which he said something of th'e «kind, has been done by direction of the learned Judge. Well, that learned Judge gave his orders, and, I suppose, he thought e—I know nothing of the facts—that it was a peculiar case, and that he was warranted in making' the order ho gave at the time. He paay have^een warranted, and I. do not criticise what he did; but I say, if an application1 had been made to me, I sh<5tilcT have sternly and positively refused ih: it is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice and intimidate witnesses who might be called. But, gentlemen, because there has been a slip, you are not to give way to that circumstance in any way whatever, either for the accused or against him. PL is not because there has been an indiscretion committed in the case—no doubt with perfect bond fides on the part of the professional gentlemen in the case, and also of Mr. McCulloch—that you are to be prejudiced in the slightest degree, against the prosecution, or, on the other hand, against the accused. Now I shall leave that matter, and proceed to read the evidence of the woman Papajee, but with one further observation, and that is this,—that this accused, who is here justifying this charge of incontinence, and defile- ment by eating food prepared by a Mussalman cook, now admittedly must be taken to have put forward one completely false statement in this libel—that is with regard to the scene when the nctvjod ceremony was being performed on the children of Burjorjee. There is a very dramatic scene described—in fact, that scene is made the medium of conveying the libel— there 4s a very dramatic scene set forth in the letfer with regard to the panthaki, the family priest of Burjorjee, stating his complaint—that a mgn was preferred to him who had committed these offences, and he states what the 0 (fences, the immoralities are; and the brother of the priest Nowrojee is represented as having, when these charges were made, sat down overwhelmed 165 with grief and lamented over them : and not one atom of that is true, The whole thing that occurred was this, that the old panthaki, the familj*p*iåstn Was a little nervous lest he should dot get his fees, and he suggested, when the ceremony was about to be performed by the dustoor, that the dustoor should perform the ceremony on one child and he on the other; and his ^mp^oycr then said, “xiY"<5u shall have your fees all the same, and let the ceremony go on and the cevemony did go on. That forms the nucleus for this libel; smd it will be for you to say whether the man who writes things of that Hnd in a reckless Way, who gives no explanation as to how he got his information, who does# not say he was misinformed by any one, is a likely man to invent a charge of incontinence and of eating food prepared tyti Mussalman cook. In fact,*it wo.iv^l be impossible to prove these charges were made in the temple,> for the person who was supposed to be injured Comes forward and says there is hot a particle of truth in it, and the other persons, and the, priest's brother,- the dustoor, also state so; in short, it is admittedly untrue, and, being admittedly untrue, what are you to think of the man who could write so, and does not attempt to offer any explanation *ib‘ to how he came to write itl* Was that statement what he believed to be true,-1 and did he publish it fer the benefit of the Parsee community ? I should point out to you that if libepous matter that is in an article be put into the mouth of anpther J person—for instance, if the accused does not purport himself to be making Jthe allegation which is contained in the libel* but if he puts it*into the mouth of another person—the accused is equally responsible. The mere fact that he chooses to insinuate it indirectly does'not in ihe slightest degree relieve himself from responsibility. If he choose to personate A or B, and docs not publish it as his own account, he docs not a whit relieve him- self. If men were to get off merely because they choose to put the defamatory matter into the mouths of others, we should have no , limit to the defamatory matter that would be published and printed with regard to Her Majesty's subjects. You will look to the whole matter, and have regard to the general aim of it. l.ou will see tliat although he puts this statement in the temple—or a great part of it, at all events the •allegation of incontinence—into the mouth of the panthaki, he prefaces it by stating the desirability of stating the truth with regard to the Sunjana family; and there can be no doubt that he intended that the statements which were there put into the mouth of the panthaki should be believed. However, it will be for you, gentlemen, to lorm your opinion on that: I merely point out these matters to you, and don't pretend for a moment to be the person to decide"*whether it is defamatory matter or not; that lies with you. Now, I shall refer you to just those portions of the evidence cn which it seems important you should have your memory refreshed now. ' I* don't trouble you with all that was said about purification and all that, for-it really comes to nothing, The prosecutor has stated he underwent certain purifica-166 tions; and whether he did or not is not very material, lie has not been confcraflicted on these points. You will recollect sufficiently what was said. It may possibly, tp a certain extent, as to Ms right to act as priest, bojnaterial) but the^effect is that he was, and had been acting as, a piiestfor several years* and the publication oj* this letter in this newspaper caused his suspension, and undoubtedly he is injured. His LordsBfp then proceeded to read the evidence of Papajee. On coming to the statement that her mother was suffering from leprosy, he said it wcftildbe for the jury to say whether they believed that statement, and if they did believg that she was suffering from 'leprosy, they might perhaps think that a sufficient reason for her not being called; but if she were in^ood • health, it was rejnarkable that She was not called. It would be for the jury •to say whether tjiey believed the statement of Papajee, that this woman was incapable of coming to give evidence. Further on, he said Papajee had ‘ repeated in two or three forms the answer that she was attached only to Jfowrojee during the time he kept her—meaning that she received his visits exclusively during that tifne; and it would be for the jury *to say whether 'fchey believed that—whether that was likely with a*person of her profession. Her,evidence was distinct evidence of his constancy, if they believed it ^ but*’ the jury, his Lordship said, would recollect what he had said to them abtmt* ' the different ways in which«tehe alleged she was paid, as shown in^ what wa£ taken down by Mr. Rimington, and in what the sister also said. They would consider whether that was *of such importance as to lead them to doubt the truth of what Papajee said altogether. She had said Nowrojee went to her hut; but they would recollect that he had been traced from house to house, first with one man, then with another, and then to the hotel, and that all thp witnesses who had been called denied that there was such intercourse as sworn to by her. On reading the cross-examination, his Lordship remarked that Papajee said her cousin was at the time about ten or eleven years of age and a prostitute ; and if the evidence for the prosecution were true, she was eight or nine years old, and eventually became a prostitute. Then the learned Judge remarked, that, with regard to Cullian Khan, it had been observed, and the jury would no doubt recollect it, that that man had not been pro- duced, and the learned Serjeant was perfectly entitled to make the observation that it would have strengthened the case in rebuttal if he had been produced and had supported the prosecutor in his case. But then after twelve years it was not always that they could find a sowar when they wanted him ; and the learned counsel for the prosecutitfn was per- fectly justified in saying that after such a lapse there was a difficulty in finding*witnesses, more especially if they were of low degree. For all that they knew Cullian Khan might be dead : however, it was not shown that he was so. The next point on which his Lordship remarked was Papajee^s167 visit to the Rajah j after which he remarked the jury would see she had been performing a kind of professional circuit, and it would be for the&n* So say whether they thought it prc&able that that was confined to moojras aftd dancing parties,» or extended to Papajee's other professional pursuits. Referring next to the procuring of Papajee's evidence, his Lordship * remarked there was the fact that she was taken to the house%of Ismail Russool. That was important, because Ebram was produced as a witness for the prosecution in rebuttal of the case for the defence, and if was important to note that he was admitted by both parties to have taken some share in these matters, and that the meeting took place in his house; so that 4.e ought to know something about ic.' After reading his notes of *Papajee'$ evidence as to the first interview in Ebram's house, and her reference to the document which she had put her mark upon, his Lordship said,—Now, here I must notice a remark which thé learned Serjeant made, and that was that there had been some intention on the part of the prosecution, I will not say expressly, to allego that Mr. Rimington and his clerk Pestonjee were con- cerned in the getting up of false evidence, yhat was the tendency of the( learned Serjeant's remarks—that the prosecution suggested that. Now 1 feel bound, in justice to the prosecution and in justice to the persons indicated, ivlr. Rimington ånd his clerk, to remark that they might), and no doubt did, iti the complete belief of the fairness of the way in which the testimony v^as obtained, . take down this evidence, but it ie not to be supposed that a professional gentleman when he goes to take a declaration of this kind does know what means may have been resorted to in order to induce the party who gives the evidence to do so. But I should prefer if Mr. Rimington had not countersigned that statement he has taken down, as a Justice of of the Peace. When a professional gentleman takes evidence which he intends to offer, or which it is probable will be offered, on behalf of one of his clients in a Court of Justice, he acts as a solicitor, and he ought* to limit himself to his solicitor's capacity. I should have preferred if Mr. Riming- ton had not taken that evidence down as a Justice of the Peace. He signs himself here as a Justice of the Peace, and it is a declaration on a stamp. Mr. Rimington's intentions were no doubt perfectly good, but I think that is a confusion of the two offices. When a man is acting as a solicitor, I do not think he ought to bring forward his character of Justice of the Peace. There is no more respectable solicitor in this Court than Mr. Rimington; and as on the one side there has been too much haste in instituting a prose* cution against one of the witnesses,—though possibly that may be perfectly right hereafter.—so I think there has been an indiscretion in counter- ed j signing the statement made by this woman in a private house, as a Justice of the Peace, on the part of the solicitor for the defence. I hope,, and I have no doubt, that the fact* of this having been noticed will prevent any professional gentleman from in future confusing the two capacities. The188 learned Judge tlien remarked that Papajee said she did not know if the , ddcmflfent was now in existence. But the document was produced, and had been read tojbhe jury, and they woulfl have it* handed to them at the conclusion of the case. On reading Papajee’s evidence as to what occurred, at the Police, Office, his Lordship observed that tl^e first part tallied with the statement hy Mr. Wain wright, but that the latter part did not? ?[£ said his LordsMp, on reading Papajee’s account of the scene, you believe that is tru&, she wa? at all events able to recognize Nowrojee; and if, on the , other hand, you doubt the truth of the statement that Nowrojee kept lier, or hoffll acquaintance with her, why, then, it is extremely probable that, in order to ^nablo her to identify Jiim, tliose who brought her forward would take that opportunity of instructing her as to his appearance, and porting' him out, so that fhe might ideiftify him. And with regard to Mahaboob, • gentlemen, it is true no evidence has beeiT given as to Nowrojee having been pointed out to her; but I have been surprised at the amount of evidence that has been given on behalf of the prosecution in rebuttal of the pro- ceedings of tlie parties who li£fv»3 been concerned in the defence. They have got at more than is usually got at in such cases, and it is not*to be expected •that they’can show everything that has been going *on in the opposite camp. It i^ not to be expecTcd : things are not gone about so clumsily. l^ixt i£* would have been impossible to show so much of things going on, had it not b£erf that those they got over se£in*to have been partied in the ca’se—I take it* gentlemen, to put it plainly, Merwanjee and Ebram have sold the pass. That they were both present is 'not denied ; they had an opportunity of knowing what was going on, and they have certainly, if they speak the truth, sold the pass ; and that accounts for the prosecution having so much knowledge of what was going on, and cross-examining in the way they did as to the various places to which Papajee had gone. This man Merwanjee would certainly know it, and that to a certain extent relieves the prosecution of the charge^ of having employed spies for the purpose, as was suggested by the learned Serjeant in his speech. But, gentlemen, of course it will be for you to consider also, if it is not quite within the scope of probability, if Merwanjee Manockjee, whom the learned Serjeant called the pot-boy, and Ebram Russool may not themselves have received a consideration for turning their coats. And then there is the further matter for you to consider, and that is—even supposing that they did receive that consideration—supposing they have been paid, or drc to be paid—have they been telling the truth or not ? They may have been paid for letting the cat out of the bag, or for telling that which did not happen, but both parties seem to admit they had the ojtportunity of knowing what did happen. After reading Papajee’s account of the treatment she received in Bombay, his Lordship proceeded: Gentlemen, you will consider what that means,—these tender inquiries as to the state of hermemory,—and you will consider, also, whether it is probable that her entertainment was limited169 to her provisions and to* this singing amusement that was provided for her—whether it stopped there, or whether there were any rupees. In fact4 ^ou will look to the whole probabilities--^ the case, as men of the world, whether this lady was satisfied to have gone about from post to pillar in charge of Nowrojee Dhodie, merely because she was fed and had a singing erftertain- ment p?o^ided for her—this extending over several months. Ånd in think- ing whether that is likely to be so or not, you will also think whether all this might have been done to keep her up to the mark, and induce her t# come forwa’rd and say, as the learned Serjeant put it, that she had been the prosti- tute and kept woman of this Nowrojee and had a child by him; for, alFt^iat being true, it mig'ht still be «that she' required* to be influenced to*come a^d C0U^£S *n Court—that she would not make this statement without a considera- tion. It is quite possible that she would decline to come and tell it in Court. It will be for you to say whetiier you think she has been paid for telling the. truth or paid for telling a falsehood, or whether she has been paid at all. And, gentlemen, it lies also quite within the bounds of probability that the < accused may have kept her in these various Jiouses, and looked after her in the way he did, and had these adherents about lier, for the purpose of prevent- ing her being tampered* with by the other party. That is quite* possible* 'in fact, if the efccuse'd had reason to believe such tampering was likely to take Jplace it would be a prudent precaution. But you will consider if, in taking *that prudent-precaution*, it is a likely thing be ^ould come and inquire about< her memory—whether she still remembered. All those things, as men of the world, you are to decide. And (said his Lordship, after reading Papajee’s evidence about going to her cousin) you will also consider whether it ^as likely that, if both these women had a straightforward story to tell, it was likely that the woman should go up to fetch her cousin down. However, it may be that if j\fahaboob;s mother was in this bad state of health she is said to be in, the daughter may* have been unwilling to leave lier, and would require the inducement of her cousin to go and bring* her. That may be so. But you will see she said her cousin had gone to Jogaikaamba. She did not tind her at Aurungabad on going up there, and whether at that time or not .the mother was away there does not appear. His Lordship then remarked that it would be for the jury to say whether they believed the mother was ill. The women said she was suffering from leprosy; but, if she was, they did not. seem to think it hopeless, or such as to prevent her coming, for F^pajee’s husband was sent away to fetch her—but she had not come. The only poiiit in the re-examination was as to bribes offered by the other side, but Papajee did not seehi to havé any personal knowledge of any offer* The next witness whose evidence his Lordship read was that of Nowrojee Hormusjee Dhodie. This^ witness, he observed, said that the accused^ son was not at the Police Office with him on the first occasion, and if this were true it *was of course a contradiction of Papajee; and it would be for the jury 22 p c170 to say which they believed. After reading Nowrojee’s evidence, the learned (Judge^3aid,—Now, gentlemen, you will recollect that this man seems to have been constantly about Papajee, and to be * partizan*no doubt, of th^ accused. Well, he may have been a partizan, and have kept a very strict look out after tKis woman; but he may be a man who speaks the truth, and he may say what ^ perfectly true when he says it was she that pointed #o^t the prosecutor-«to him, and not he to her; and it will be for you to judge between him aitd WainwKght. And, as I have mentioned Wainwright, I must say I fcwasr sorry to hear a suggestion made that Mr. Wainwright was a man #to be pufc m the^same category with the men who wore straw in their shoes as a professional giver of false evid£nc§, and there was really not a scintilla of anything said by him, or in his demeanour, which, in my opinion, warranted ‘ counsel in making that remark.m I think counsel are entitled to very great ^license in defending a prisoner, and there is nobody more unwilling than 1 should be to curtail this liberty of counsel on such an occasion, where it is necessary for the defence of the prisoner and for the proper administration of justice; but there is a limit tort&ese matters, and.I do not think it should Ijie suggested, without soifte ground to go upon, that a man is probably a professional giver of false testimony. rPhe evidence of Mahaboob was next Vead by his Lordship, and his^st remark en that was that witness said she was twentj^six years .of age.# Thi^ contradicted Papajee, who said that she was eight or nine years of age at the time of this occurrence at Wassind; but the jury had seen Maha- bo#ob, and heard what both parties said, and could say which of the two they chose to believe about her in the matter.of age. She said, further on, that Nowrojee was present at all the moojras and nautches they gave at Wassind. She went the full length : she did not omit a single instance of a, moojra or nautch at which Nowrojee was not present; and the jury would say whether it was probable that Nowrojee never would have missed one,* and, if they disbelieved that, they would consider how far it gave complexion to her testimony, or rendered her more unreliable on the more important consideration of cohabitation. Then (said the learned Judge, on reading^ her statement that she was kept by Shapoorjee who was now dead) they wTould consider whether this statement was true. If sShe had been kept by Shapoorjee no doubt she would know what was going on. However, Sha- poorjee was not produced, and he was accounted for by saying he was dead ; and they would consider whether Shapoorjee was an invented person or not. In the cross-examination of Mahaboob there was a slight difference between her and Papajee as to the last place they had been at; but Papajee did not pretend to recollect, with any degree of precision, ‘what was the last place. One or two were mentioned, and she said either might be right; but that was not of importance, and Mahaboob might be right in saying it was Wassind. As to the payment, Mahaboob's story was completely different from that of171 her sister. Papajee said she was paid Rs. 20 per mensem: Mahaboob repre- sented herself as paid by a regular monthly salary from Shapoorjeey.a3d»lfer sister as paid by fees. Slie said sh$ did not remember a sowar named Cullian Khan; she did not deny him positively in the first instance. She said also that she was not told what to say. The jury would probably thin^'that if she wa^told what to say* she had been told to say she was not* They would consider ifvwhat she said for the defence on this point was true, ^nd would also think whether it was likely that, as she said, she was not to be* com- pensated for her absence from business. His Lordship then proceeded with the reading of his notes, and observed that Mahaboob h^d in lier examination said that Papajee maintained ,he?self in Tanna by sieging* aud daQcipg, but. afterwards she said she did not know what Papajee might have been doing after she (Mahaboob) had retired to her rgpm. In her re- examination she had an opportunity of saying she made a mistake in stating * that Papajee*s payments by Nowrojee were casual and not a fixed salary, but she had adhered to her statement, and so the difference between her and Papajee as to the mode of payment was quite clearly established; and the jury would say'how far it shook their credit of her. ^ * The next^witness was Rustomjee Sorabjee, and with regard to his statement that>he had seen Nowrojee at one of Papajee* s parties, the leavned tluclge remarked that the jury would consider whether they thought this- man, Rustomjee Sorabjee, was likely to recollect that circumstance after a lapse of twelve years, and whether he might not have made a mistake. They would think whether he had improperly told what was untrue, or had mrde a mistake; or whether he was a man whose memory and conscience had served him truly, and that he had so spoken. As far as this witness was concerned, his Lordship observed, the evidence as to the cooking had com- pletely broken down. Then (proceeded the learned Judge) came the witness about whom so much had been said—Goolam Ahmed. He said he had seen Nowrojee at a moojra. Now that was a contradiction of Nowrojee, because Nowrojee did not only not admit having been at a moojra, but he affected not knowing what a moojra was. His Lordship said he must do Nowrojee the justice to say he did not positively swear to not being at a moojra, but he said he did not recol- lect having been at one. He had already said what he had to say as to Nowrojee*s not knowing what a moojra was, and the jury might think it was a matter of not so much importance, or they might think that it did taint him. After* reading JGroolam*s evidence as to his statement to the prose- cutor, his ‘Lordship said the learned Serjeant had made a remark on that, It'was this,—that the fact* that Dinshaw and those who were with him interro- gated this man on the point and took down his evidence showed that they thought and believed Goolam Ahmed knew something about these matters and had been at Wassind, and, at all events, had aij opportunity of knowing172 Nowrojee. Tlie remark was well founded; but then another possible view , ofrtke*matter was that they might have known Goolam was staying with the accused, and theyr might have wished to disable him from giving testimony in Court for the accused, and so got him to sign the document. That waS possible it ^possibly was not, very uncommon. After reading the rest of the evidence of this witness, his Lordship said that closed the ca^fe the defence, aiyd, with regard to that man Goolam Ahmed, he would mate this one more ffemark. &oolam admitted he was in Dinshaw^s house : both agreed he #was there. What did he go there for if he had already given his evidence ? Hard his evidence been taken down by Mr. Bimington's clerk, and he meant to stick to# it, why did he so^fai; submit to the tempter as to go .to Mr. Din«shaw’s house ? Why did he not say, “ I will have nothing furtl^r^to ' say; y°u have ajready been to'me twice, and now trouble me no further : I ' am not to compromise myself, and you have no lousiness here.” But he admit- ted he went there. What did he go there for ? It would be for the jury to ’ consider that. It would be for them to consider if Goolam had not sold both parties and then stuck to tho fiixat; and, ho might observe, that mode of pro- cedure was not altogether unknown either in this or other countries. * • Then (proceededrthe learned Judge) commenced the case what is called.. ce relftittal,” and that was a denial of the evidence given in *behalf oft the o • # , accused,in justification of the^alleged libel. Tho accused admits that h^ wrote and published this, but he says it is true and for the public benefit, and then he proceeds to call those witnesses, whose testimony I have read, to^prove the truth of it. That being done, the learned counsel for the pro- secution, as he was entitled in point of law, contradicts these,—for he was not bound to prove himself innocent,—and you will consider how far that contradiction is established. I have alroady referred to many points of it* but I shall shortly—as shortly, at least, as I can—refer to the evidence. His Lordship accordingly proceeded to read portions of the evidence,' and on coming to the statement by Bustomjee Buttonjee Attia,—that one of the Parsees in Wassind could not have kept a prostitute in the place without tho others knowing it,—he remarked that the jury would probably think it not impossible, but difficult indeed, for this man Nowrojee, in a small place as this was, to have kept a prostitute without his friends there knowing it. There were only three or four Parsees there, and that they had the opportu- nity of knowing there was no doubt. It was not denied that prosecutor was living with this witness and two others who had been called, in succession at different times, and they all, so far as their knowledge enabled them to speak, said he kept no prostitute, and never was supposed to have kept one, and never had a child. These witnesses undoubtedly had the opportunity of knowing what Nowrojee’s life was in this small community; and^it Avould be for the jury to say if they had seen any thing in what tho witnesses had said, or the manner of saying it, to lead them to doubt their complete veracity. Further on, this witness Rustomjee said that Papajee used to go away from Wassind and then come back: and that so far tallied with Papajee's*state- ment. Rustomjee said Ins wife was connected with the Sunjana family ; and the jury would consider how far the fact that his wife was connected with the prosecutor's family would affect Rustomjee's evidence. His L'ordship concluded* his remarks on. this witness’s evidence, by referring to tlie short- ness of tinae Nowrojee was said to have-been at Was'sin^d while Bapajee was there, which rendered it possible he might neve]1 have st^n her, or.#might have forgot. The next evidence was that of-Fduljee J^Ianockjee Daboo, aild in read- > ing it his Lordship simply referred to the witness's statement that he did not know Goolam Ahmed—which his Lordship said was, so far as* the jury believed it, additional weight thrown into the scate against Goolam Ahmed. On reading tliQ evidence of Ruttonjee Pestonjee, his Lordship said* this witness seemed to have been somewhat’of a jocular gentleman, but the jury would say whether Qr not, for that reason, they were disposed to discredit ,»his testimony.^ No doubt he undertook to have known all about Nowrojee /wl)i?e he was'‘there, and to vouch for his purity; and if they were>such jfriends, living together j.n that way, he would have known/if there was a long ‘ continued’intercourse, as sworn to by the defence, between Nowrojee and Papajee. But the jury would say whether or not they thought him too much of a partizan to be much trusted. , Shapoorjee Cursetjee was thé next witness. He said he had been sentenced to penal servitude, by which his Lordship supposed he meant rigorous imprisonment, and remarked that that had been a mistake of, he supposed,, , the learned Serjeant's. It was true that this man seemed to have been a sojourner for seven years in a jail; but it would be for the jury to say whether, because a man lost his temper and committed an act of violence, as he did, in stabbing a man,—witness did not say he did, but said that was the ’charge on which he was unrighteously locked up,—it would be for the jury to say whether, because a man was violent, his oath was not to be believed when he said he was a cook in a hotel. He might have been vindictive, but he might have been a cook, and a very good cook, in the hotel at Wassind. Shapoorjee admitted Nowrojee was there before he went, and of course nothing he pjaid now applied to the latter four months ; but other witnesses accounted for the preceding °time (foi* he had been living with Rustomjee), and so, between the cook and Nowrojee's friends, the whole time was covered so far as the cooking was concerned. , > Bajaba Sooba, the Hindoo firewood merchant, was the next witness, and, after reading to the end of the examination regarding Cullian Khan, his Lordship said that was important evidence if true, for Papajee denied any reoojlettion of Cullian Khan ; and if Cullian Khan were keeping her at this time and paying for her food, it was clear, «f he had any intercourse with her, she was not worthy of that strict fidelity that the learned Serjeant wouli have tlfe^jur^ to believe. However, it was for them to say whether Cullian Khan was invention or not. The learned Judge then read the i*es? gf this witness’s ewdence, remarking, as he finished, that it was important if the jury believed it. c « T^ey had had four Parsees, one Hindoo, and thefi, said his Lordship; thefe was acMussalman. He said Mahaboob was eight or nine years old when at1 Wassind^ he was the second person who said so. In his cross-examination he såid he had never been in Pajmjee’s house : he had no money to sfteifd. Though he had bten so near the fire he rievqj* was burned. Of course he ‘alleged as the reason that he had no funds, &nd probably the jury might think that a sufficient reason. Mr. Wainwright’s evidence#was the next; and his Lordship, on reading that, said he had already n&ade the observations which he intended to make on it, knd •should not say more. The evidence of ^lerwanjee Manockjqp Bhangreewalla came next, %nd '^that, his^Lordship* observed, was important. After reading the evidence of, this witness as to Papajee’s refusal to say she had a child by Now*oje*e, the learned Judge remarked that he had already pointed out to the jury that her^efusal then to say he had children by her was probably caused by her thinking that that would be a stronger and more dangerous statement to make than that he had intercourse with her as a prostitute. She shrunk from the statement that she had a child, in the first instance. Merwanjee* Manockjee said she did, and he was supported by the document which was produced as then taken down. His Lordship here said he must once more * repeat what he had said,—that because Mr. Rimington and Pestonjee took down the evidence on the afternoon of that day there was no reason why they should know, or be supposed to know, anything whatever of the iniquitous means by which the evidence was obtained; and the suggestion * that they were in any way implicated in this matter was, he thought, quite uncalled for—he did not know that he should say implicated, for that was not suggested, as the learned counsel for the prosecution did not hinb anything of the kind, but the suggestion that he did do so was quite un- called for. Further on, his Lordship remarked that it h$d been ^id Ebram Russool was the keeper of a house of ill-fame. Now he thought that would be a very strong inference to draw because one of a man’s tenants had a concubine—especially in the East was it a very strong inference, and one that they would not be justified in making. He had no doubt they would agree with him it was most unjustifiable in the East—possibly it was unjustifiable at175 home, for a man was not bound to know wliat his tenants were doing, or how they lived. After reading all this witness's evidence his Lordship said,— geiitlemen, that is the evidence of -Merwanjee Manockjee, most important if true. That he had the opportunity of knowing what was going on is not denied: that something took place in Ismail RussqoFshouse is the statement of 'both sidles/ It will be for you to say if you believe what the two las£ witnesses .have said did occur; and in considering that, you will* consider whether it was probable that, if the accused wanted to justify this libel and \vished to iiiVent a case for that purpose, Jie would resort to some woman who had lived at Was-, sind, and who would give a probable account of it, and, having thg,t to Ibwtlå on fronvthe residence at Wassind, would inveift all the rest. It is^for you io desid^that, and whether this is seen in the woman coming forward and then refusing to give evidence till promised Rs. 800, and ag^in the reluctance to say she had children by hiiji. It is for you to say if you think that true ; * and you will not forget the document. It is for you to form an opinion 011 the evidence of these witnesses. You may think they are disreputable fellows; but you may think they are telling a true storyOn the other hand, it will be , for you to say whether you think the persons who \#ere acting for the accused and came round to the other side may not be worthy of much credit* eithe^ way. However, gentlemen, the transaction no dQubt is one in which fon could not expect many respectable witnesses to come forward to speak to if this bribery took place in their presence, fof?fc very respectable witnesses would have countenanced such a proceeding; and when you have bribes deposed to, the parties wlio were present on such occasions—the givers, the receivers, or the tempters—are not likely to be very respectable. His Lordship then read the evidence of Burjorjee, the railway con- tractor, and observed that the jury would see that the words he referred to were struck out from the document which he said Goolam signed, and that 'liis statement, that he did not hear anything as to the language in which Goolam should sign, was accounted for by the conversation taking place in English, which this witness did not understand. Well, gentlemen, (proceeded his Lordship,) I don't think I should trouble you with any other evidence on that point. Dinshaw Shapoorjee was called, and he is a managing clerk to Messrs. Dallas and Co. His evidence was substan- tially the same as that of the last witness, and lie was able to state what Goolam Ahmed said in English and as to* his asking him to strike out tfye words “in the Poona District;" and the reason Goolam gave, and the reason witness giv^s, was that he was to be reappointed, but did not know the district. You will consider whether that does not chime in with what he himself said : for he said himself he was to be reinstated, but he has no written - > information and does not know where he is to be employed. So you will consider if what he himself said does not so far' chime in with what Dinshaw said. As I said before, what did he go there for ? If he had informed17G the other party what evidence he could give, what did he go to these people n f'(fir? *5t is for you to say whether or not he was selling himself to both sides. Lastly, his Lordship said, Papajee was recalled, and she made ^statement which j^e thought was important. The learned Judge here read the evidence given by Papajee when recalled, and said it would be for the ^uiy to say whether that story wa^ likely, that the only child she ever had was» begot during* her alleged cohabitation with Nowrojee at Wassind. Slfb admitted • she^never had any other either whilst a married or a single woman. - His Lordship then concluded his charge as follows*—The.learned counsel on both sfdes addressee!, you this morning, and you heard what they have to say on their respective sides, and I have only*to impress on you tftat*your duty is this—first, be satisfied that (indeedit is not denied) the libel wa?itfit- ' ten and published by, and on the responsibility of, the accused. That is npt denied : the letter by which he became responsible has been put in. Next, be satisfied whether it was intended to apply to the prosecutor. That it is jiot intended to deny either, and, on the contrary, it is assumed to apply to him in an attempt to prove thal Nowrojee was guilty of the things imputed to him in thp libel—of the incontinence and eating fooon on Monday, and then tte matter can be nae^ioned to me on Tuesday morning at the sittiug of the Court. Would that be sufficient time for you, Mr. McCulloch? Mr. McCulloch—Yes, my Lord. ' The Judge—I should mention while the jury are assembled here, who heard whafc I said just now, that I understand Mr. Rimington was not the solicitor for the defence. Mr. Serjeant Atktnson—He was, my Lord, and he was changed. The Judge—At what time ? Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—He was the solicitor at the time that evidence was taken. The Judge—Then I have nothing to say. I was under the impression in what I said just now that I was mistaken in supposing he was the solicitor at that time. , Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—I did not know; I was the cause of that answer to your LordsKip. • The Judge—Then I hold to my observations. I was not mistaken. It had no reference to the merjts of the case, but was merely with reference to professional etiquette—I thought the characters of .Justice of the ' Peace and solicitor should not be mixed up together. 23 p c178 Mr. Serjeant Atkinson—May I ask whether the bail is to be renewed till Tuesday morning ? The Judge—I can't order that. M^ McCulloch—We object. I don’t know what view your Lordship will take* ^The *JuDGg#—I 'can't order it. I must order him into custody. The Sheriff will take charge of the accused. (To the Jury) Gentlemen, J[ have to ,thank you for your diligent attention to this Case and your regular attendance on the four arduous days that we have had liéro. You have been remarkably attentive, and have* come to a verdict in which I m))sC com- plétely concur; and I think the justice of the case with regard to tHe^jtfry,' Mr. Marriott, ift that they should not be expected to attend on Monday, cr Tuesday. We^will expect the ordinary jury t® be in attendance on these days, but not you gentlemen; but on Wednesday morning, if the Sessions be going on still, you will be supposed to be here. • • The prisoner was t^en removed in custody, and the Coi>rt adjourned. FIFTH DAY:—Tuesday, 30th November 1869. THE SENTENCE. On the Court sitting on Tuesday mforning, Mr. Serjeant Atkinson said: My Lord,—It will no doubt be in the recol- lection of your Lordship, that on Saturday, after the jury had returned their verdict, I applied to the Court for leave to file an affidavit in mitigation of punishment. That application was granted to me on condition that we filed our affidavit before twelve o'clock on Monday. My Lord, I felt justified in making that application from the facts stated to me at the time, but these facts have been subsequently laid before my learned friend, Mr. Mehta, and myself, and we have given them every consideration, and we came to the con- clusion that they would be insufficient to have any influence on the mind of the Court. We therefore advised our client not to encumber the files of the Court with an affidavit which would be perfectly useless. Of course, as the application was granted to me on condition that we should file»the affidavit before twelve o'clock on Monday, we instructed our solicitor to give notice before that hour to Messrs. Dallas and Co., in order that the prosecutor might not be prejudiced by the delay. My Lord, I felt this statement necessary, not only for the information of the Court, but to justify myself for not obey- ing the order of the Court.179 [The following is the letter sent to tlie prosecutor’s agent on Monday as mentioned by the learned Serjeant:— ^ ^ ' Sir,r—It was our intention tolile an affidavit in mitigation of punish- ment, but, acting under tlie advice of counsel, we tliink it better to* leave our client tp tlie mercy of the Court. Inasmuch as* your client's character has been^vinSicated from a charge but too rashly believed, perhaps the prose- • cutor hin&elf may be disposed to join in a recommendation to mércy. Yours truly, HENRY S. CARTER, • >-1*o^essrs. Dallas & Co. For Pestonjee Dinshaw.] The Judge—The course you have pursued, Mr. Serjeant Atkinson, is such as I should have expected f^om a gentleman of your high standing, and I. am happy to hear your learned junior joined in it. It was intimated to me through the Clerk of the Crown yesterday that you did intend to pursue1 that course. * • • • The Prisoner was tfien told that he had been found guilty of defamation, and asked if ^e had anything to say why the Court should not pass sentence. 4 * • Prisoner—I only state this, that the conduct which I pursued was lor the. establishment of the Truth, and I and m^pnduct are well knovvn to the majority of the Parsee community. I now leave myself to the mercy of the Court. The Judge then passed sentence, in doing which he said—Jamsetjee Sorabjee Madun, you have been convicted on very clear testimony of defam- ing the character of Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana, the brother of a well- known dustoor in Bombay. There seems undoubtedly to have been a contest, or, if not a contest, at least a rivalry, between his family and another family as to which should fill the office of chief dustoor of Bombay. It was no doubt open to every member of the Parsee community, who pleased to discuss the claims of the rivals for that office, to do so fully and fairly, but not to indulge in the license of calumny, and those who do so must be pre- pared to take the consequences;—for if such assaults as that of which you have been found guilty against private character were to be sanctioned by law, society would become intolerable. You have charged Nowrojee Shapoorjee Sunjana with acts which, if he were guilty of them, would ruin him in his pro- fession of ^priest, ar,d you must have been perfectly well aware that that would have been the result if those charges which you made were true. You did •your utmost that they should be believed. You have not shown the slightest tinge of remorse for your conduct. You persisted in an attempt ^Jo'* justify that libel and to prove that it was true, and you have greatly enhanced your guilt by suborning at least three witnesses to come forward here and swear180 to the truth of that which was utterly false. As an example to all who may be1 disposed to follow your steps, I sentence you to be imprisoned for nine months, and further to be fined Rs. 2,000? and in default of payment of th#at sum to undergo a further period of imprisonment for &ix calendar moifths.* The imprisonment will be simple imprisonment, as the law does not admit of rigorous imprisonment. I wish to add that I think the proprietor the ' newspaper avho opened *his columns to such a letter as that whicli this man* has been found guilty of publishing has in a great measure shared the discredit ^attaching to the publication of such a letter. The prisoner was then removed froi$ the dock. BOMBAY : PRINTED AT THE EDUCATION SOCIETY’S PRESS, BYCULLA,