Coutts-Trotter, C.J.

1. I have had the advantage in this case of perusing the judgment about to be delivered by Beasley, J. It sums up the results arrived at after a long discussion between him, Odgers and myself and it may be taken to be the judgment of the Court. I only add a few words because I feel it is incumbent upon me to do so as for 8 years I was in charge of the insolvency jurisdiction of the original side of the High Court. The procedure which was prohibited by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Jnanendra Bala Debi v. Official Assignee of Calcutta A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 597 was that persons alleged to be indebted to the bankrupt estate-known in our Court for some reason, I never quite understood, as "garnishees" should be examined, which of course in effect means cross-examined, by the Official Assignee under the powers of Section 36 and that statements made by them not amounting to a definite admission of indebtedness to the estate should be used under Section 7 to ask the Court there and then to pass a decree against the garnishees on the ground that though they are not tantamount to direct admissions they were available as evidence to show that their answer t