Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.

1. This case raises a point of some interest. Two persons traded together in partnership. A man called Anantha Mudali, about whom no question arises in these proceedings, and the appellant, Gopal Naidu, had carried on a produce business in Madras and the facts seem to be that Anantha Mudali was managing the business in Madras, whereas Gopal Naidu resided ordinarily at Wallajabad, but the evidence which is given in the case and that is the evidence that was relied upon by the adjudicating creditors themselves establishes two things. The first is that when anybody, after the difficulties arose and in this concern they did arise wanted to see Gopal Naidu when he went to Wallajabad, he found Gopal Naidu without difficulty and was able to put whatever he wanted to put before him. The other fact that emerges is that, although Gopal Naidu ordinarily resided at Wallajabad, he did from time to time come to Madras and look into the accounts and see how the business was progressing. What is before us is an appeal by Gopal Naidu against his adjudication. The circumstances which led to it are these. The business got into difficulties when the debts due