Kernan, J.

1. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the Small Cause Suit 226 of 1882 against the defendant for Rs. 415-1-0 on foot of a promissory note to the plaintiff, dated the 8th of April 1881, payable on demand, and costs.

2. The defendant applied in Revision to set aside that decree on the following grounds:

(1) That there was no consideration for the note.

(2) That there was no liability on the part of the defendant to pay the debt due by his father which was barred by limitation.

3. On the 26th January 1883, by order of that date, we requested the Subordinate Judge to say what the consideration was which he found to support the defendants promise, and whether he decided that the debt due by the defendants father, apparently barred by limitation, was sufficient consideration for the defendants promise.

4. The Subordinate Judge reports that he found there was deposited with the defendants father by the plaintiff Rs. 700, at interest, which interest was for the benefit of plaintiffs wife, the sister of the deceased, and that he decided that the period of limitation was 30 years from the date of the deposit. Admittedly this action is within that time and, therefore, he found th