Sir George Lowndes.—

This appeal was heard in November last and their Lordships took time to consider the form in which their humble advice should be tendered to His Majesty.

It appeared at the hearing that the final judgment delivered by the Judicial Commissioners, before whom the case came in appeal, was a judgment by consent of the parties, and their Lordships enquired of counsel appearing for the appellants how, in face of this fact, he could ask the Board to interfere. Counsel did not then contest the consent, but contended that a point which had been the subject of decision at an earlier stage of the case was still open to him.

When the case was set down for judgment a fresh application was made to their Lordships in connexion with this point, supported by an affidavit of the appellant which had been sent from India. In this it is alleged that there had in fact been no consent to the judgment above referred to, and that the statement to that effect by the Judicial Commissioners was a mistake. The judgment was in the following terms:

1. After considerable argument and some unavailing efforts to come to some settlement which would avoid future litigation, it is now agreed among the