JUDGMENT

Brown, J - (After stating facts and discussing the evidence the judgment proceeded.) It is stated that since this case was heard in the trial Court U Ba Thaw has been examined as an accused person in a criminal case and has there made statements contrary to. the statements made by him when examined as a witness in this case, and we have been asked to admit this statement of Ba Thaw as an accused person as an exhibit in this case. Under the 'provisions of Section 155 of the Evidence Act the credit of a witness may be impeached by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of the statement which is liable to be contradicted. As matters now stand Ba Thaw's evidence in the present case could not be impeached by the statement in the criminal case be-cause that statement was not a former statement. This difficulty might possibly be surmounted by calling Ba Thaw again and re-examining him.

2. But we do not consider it necessary to decide whether such a procedure would be justifiable or whether the evidence, which the appellants wish us now to consider, is evidence which we should consider under the provisions of Rule 27 of Order 41 Civil P. C If Ba Thaw's statement were