Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.

1. The main question raised in this appeal is whether the suit is for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, and whether there have been reciprocal demands between the parties within the meaning of Article 85 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act. If so, the defendants plea of limitation fails. If not, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in respect of items in the account prior in date to three years before the institution of the suit.

2. The District Judge held that Article 85 applied and the suit was not barred by limitation, apparently on the ground that the accounts had been open and running for many years. He does not seem to have considered the question with reference to the words of the article "where there have been reciprocal demands between the patties." The oral evidence affords little assistance as to the course of business between the parties and we have to rely in the main on the plaintiffs accounts. The plaintiffs are merchants and the defendants are coffee-planters, and the plaintiffs accounts show that from the year 1893 the plaintiffs had been financing the defendants and the defendants had been s