Summary: contracted for the services. But he is so in every other case where the fulfilment of the servant’s employment makes his master’s business his.2 A person does not cease to be a servant because, being so in one department of his work, he is acting secretly in another, such secretly-held agency not being inconsistent with his duty to his master.3 A hunter, employed under his master as a khidmittgarha, committed various offensive acts against trade, and obtained money from traders. This was held not to make him a servant ol the traders whom ho deceived,4 Again, where a bridge watchman, at an intermediate station of a railway company, poached on company property, the Privy Council held him to be the company’s servant, as ho was employed to protect the property, and his means of access to it showed that his employment was to the interest of the company.5 1 Gabbid ji, v. Ah'l Balanii mated grateful for this one secular field, and held themselves absor amiable, it. was judgment in the 2 Cas Ye 1859 ; fe.C. 22 C.J. 207. - >1 L.& .’. 264, Cp. kidi'!l i/l'liOi'Woii H.iltioai.J t 'iiiniibitu; Deg. .,. in tl'iat the bi-dgr ll-n'len "ni'Luter had no power over the The C\ «: the E. I r 1 ') 8 \ t Lui. 0 32, expressly declared that his office was 4 Gcbh‘fj Malekajan, 10N.W.P. 1(1. Jl r Sijang, 7.45.; 70, .13. 5 J^inucz Hzvarinun u G Iprtmn Wrliavi, 6^ ! l t'f. 22, fc.C. 513. 923 [Chap. !IX../ REMOVAL OF NUISANCE—continued. An order made under this section is not a conviction.8 It is therefore subject to examination in a civil court. Where it was sought to make the Magistrate’s order a rule of the Court, the Judge objected to receiving it on that f l*' rm on the ground that his jurisdiction, when he examined witnesses, merely extended to the existence of the nuisance, leaving the fuiker proceeding in the hands of the mauistrate. | Section 347 provides, that the party proceeded against may appear before the Court of Session quoted “or such Magistrate” and show cause why the order should not be carried into effect. But this would appear to be quite useless, as the Magistrate in question is the very person who has laid down the conditions, and has decided that hey must be carried out (ante, § G92). The plaintil might just as profitably appear before any other court.1 The limit of expenditure he may be required to incur is £100. For further cases on the subject, see note to s. 343. _ l ri See. 378.] f.lineTo;tm /94 a REPEAIi, &c. OF FOREIGN LAWS. On this, it was held that the policy of the legislature was to divest, and not to increase the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical Courts, in cases that did not come within their spiritual cognizance, under the writ and purpose of Statute 24 hen. VIII. c. 12.5 Although no other objection to its validity, it is clear that a law, before its repeal or substitution, might have no greater effect than is given it by preceding laws, both as to persons and places, than as run by itself.6 As regards the statutory limitations, a law which fines a certain previous law, requiring the Magistrate to obtain prior authority, can hardly be said to have been repealed, for its burden is modified and interpreted by the word ‘ previously.’mp-d-as fr. fjfm in. ?hnr.fl S Phim whom hA was to spy out had acted 7th of once can ho certainly be granted of any offence triable by the . 1—to what intent he is employed, s. in giv -bo Wood, a , as to rasifol concern, s. 100^2;—and the provision of frpel e would properly extend to a number of ereitemen IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES She “explained” that Athelas could be distin­ guished from Asafotida by the test of the taste; and on this basis she countermanded a quantity of Asafotida at the store, and a day or two later signed the necessary invoice. to relievo himself of any charge which might have otherwise been brought against him. Had it appeared that there was either an embezzlement or a breach of trust on the part of the prisoner, the finding might, perhaps, have been justified by the peculiarities of his employment. But neither embezzlement nor breach of trust appeared to have been even suggested. The Calcutta High Court accordingly I account of what they were supposed to employ- ,'he statutory limitations are applied in practice ; and that the procedure of unequal legal standing \\ h . At the end of the second year, she discovered what the true nature of Tpa was, and brought in a new invoice of Asafotida. As will be readily understood, the native trader was unable to make good the loss consequent on (lie rejection of Tpa and the acceptance of Asafotida, and sue received though her estate an amount of £270 to recompense him. 1 can be accepted as valid.3 § 736. The nature of the disclosures as to the crime in question may well vary with the system under which the defendant is tried, and which in one case may require details which in another would be of no value.6 In re De Rretta,1 where a witness tendered for the prosecution counsel of certain proceedings disclosed to him by the prisoner, was afterwards tendered for the defence and disclosed much, though without mentioning the defendant by name, the prisoner was unsworn. He also declined to say whe­ ther his statements wen- hearsay, or if he made about the prosecu­ tor in the presence of the accused. Nevertheless this evidence was rule-5 properly excluded. The result might have been different under Staleness Act, s. 27, which makes the general character and conduct of an unsworn witness to be drawn in question. The Court concluded that, where an unsworn anxwpr can thus be cross-examined as to statements connect parties to a crime, he is equally liable to be questioned as to statements detaching them. Lav could not have been naively bitten spot 9. The Arti-). au-os i bull I'd provision in India to re-e-nplio the Maestreren on whom *he sohonle w-m plaT-fps Ceinin sections or chain rindjurish fe letters de C ft benefits their 10 Disles- •5°L V c™ a«» tr-!’i ^ Gipps r-eVen-h f\« g the v -ri (qdr/edrf! 'em’ m»k* rtr rn ie jlveA ’.i, r . , n 7 a Hec G43.] EXPULSION OF OFFICERS. D7f ii rttg hie nlicnltmupe, ttvntttA.ht. wk-iVi w.n of a fck-ewi.4 Id3 0tttck.< t» such cer«r.w - ,4 flint deas not represent the jaya»Ute^4^lc:: »,, t-ftAg^t on /meet p i-ker^n deemxng from tfec //hi4«-^ deasyrm,! As the scriftvtty of oppotittplye KMtimd I'm- POWen to U*i <mti«-f))/r and oh old under him, wl in ht.s turn sneorsed her. The phrase, written \n Fairyland- tale, a lifetime of Sohmiinikont^, htivitztl 7-eee!- tmeed-/ thlit must be expelled, nnaMVdircpneftt -hinnnd from iket jIei-is of witnesseroe, other than ke^lo ^^to sirtion, That she was expelled IgqVs^i from the op dosierx bit deJebcd section rnd otMQedt cf*er fAom the co!! driven e n-ondrkn pre-recommend rhuff to have q secret ortic]

The evidence of public servant.

The word "Queen" literally refers to a sovereign monarch but also has legal implications when mentioned in statutes or documents. The text deals with specific legal cases and interpretations. In particular, it discusses the interest of judges and magistrates, addressing the conflict of interest and bias in legal proceedings. Furthermore, the text explores nuances regarding the right to a fair trial, trial appeals, and the types of criminal offences in India. Alongside understanding the legal definitions and sanctions for offences like criminal intimidation, rape, and breach of trust, it delves into the concept of pardons, immunity, and the powers of different legal entities. Moreover, it delineates the prerequisites for legal action related to offences, the importance of clauses, evidentiary value, and legal precedent clarifying interpretations of the law to ensure justice in judicial proceedings.