JUDGMENT

Lancelot Sanderson, C.J. - This is an appeal by the insolvent against en order of committal made by Rankin, J.

2. On the hearing of the appeal, the merits of the matter were not discussed by the learned Counsel for the insolvent and no attempt was made to justify his conduct.

3. It appears that the appellant was adjudicated insolvent on the 21st March 1919 at the instance of a creditor, and shortly before that, viz., on the 26th February 1919, a suit in which the insolvent's grandmother was the plaintiff and the insolvent was defendant was filed, and in that suit by consent of the parties the Official Receiver was appointed on the 10th March 1019 receiver of the book-debts, outstandings, cash, money, properties and assets of the insolvent's firm.

4. Notice of an application for an order of committal dated the 5th May 1919 was served on the insolvent on the 6th May. The notice was as follows:

Take notice that on Tuesday the 13th day of May 1919 at 11 o'clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as the matter may be heard an application will be made before the learned Commissioner in insolvency for an order that you be committed for contempt u/s 24 (3) and Section 33 (2) (c) and (e) and (4) on the following grounds:

1. That the order of adjudication passed against you on the 21st March 1919 was served on you on the 5th April 1919, and that you have failed to file your schedule.

2. That you were ordered by the Official Assignee personally on the 9th day of April 1919 to attend his office from day to day in order to make a list of the books belonging to your estate which had been removed to the Official Assignee's office. Ton have neither attended his office nor have you made a list of the books.

3. That you were directed by the Official Assignee on the same date to make enquiries and report to him as to the whereabouts of your current books. You have taken no notice whatsoever of such directions.

4. That you were directed by the Official Assignee to enquire and report as to the books, papers, belonging to your estate taken possession of by the Official Receiver appointed in the suit of Radha Bibee. You have failed to do so.

5. On the 13th May the insolvent applied for an adjournment, which was granted by the learned Judge, and the application was heard on the 16th.

6. The learned dodge name to the conclusion that the insolvent was deliberately trying to play off the Official Receiver against the Official Assignee and that in the insolvency he had done nothing, or as near as possible to nothing, for a period of a month, that he had deliberately done this with the idea that the Court would take no notice of it, if he gave sufficient trouble.

7. As I have already stated, there has been no attempt made to question the learned Judge's finding which, on the materials before us, was, in my judgment, amply justified.

8. It was, therefore, a case in which, as far as the merits are concerned, an order for committal was properly made.

9. The appellant's learned Counsel, however, raised several technical point?, none of which were taken in the Court of first; instance or referred to in the grounds of appeal. Bat having regard to the nature of the case, we allowed these points to be argued.

10. It was argued that the leaned Judge had not committed the insolvent on the first ground and that the insolvent should not have been commuted on grounds Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the application.

11. The first reason alleged was that the orders of the Official Assignee were verbal and as such were not sufficient basis for committal. It was argued that if the insolvent did not attend, in pursuance of the order made by the Official Assignee on the 9th April referred to in ground No. 2 of the notice, the Official Assignee should have applied to the Court for an order for the insolvent's attendance, that the Court's order should have been in writing, that it should have been served personally on the insolvent, that it should have contained a notice that unless he compli