In February 1939 Hashim bin Haji Bachee and Said bin Haji Bachee, trustees of the Kampong Kling Mosque, consulted the appellant. There were allegations that Hashim (who besides being a trustee was also treasurer and a member of the committee of management of the Mosque) had misappropriated trust funds, the property of the Mosque.

On the 1st March 1939 Hashim made good the money through the appellant's office by making a payment of $7,100 by cheque which was paid into the appellant's No. 2 (Clients) bank account. On 6th March the appellant wrote to the respondent Board which was exercising its powers of supervision of the Mosque's affairs, informing the Board that Hashim "deposited with us the sum of $7,100 which he stated was the amount in his hands due to the Kampong Kling Mosque." In the letter of 6th March Mr. Salt mentioned that Hashim had handed him several accounts amounting to $2,004.08 and Mr. Salt inquired whether the Board had any objection to his paying out these sums. On 13th March the Board replied that it had no objection to the payment from the deposit of any bills properly due to be paid, provided the receipted bills were kept by the appellant.

Out of the $7,100 the appellant made payments amounting in all to $6,061.06, leaving a balance of $1,038.94 in his hands. The propriety of the payments is not in dispute. The respondent Board in which the property of the Mosque became vested in June 1940 by virtue of an order made under Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Ordinance (Cap. 175), demanded payment by the appellant of this balance of $1,038.94. Mr. Salt refused to pay, claiming that he had a lien upon it for an untaxed bill of costs for professional services rendered between 25th February 1939 and 3rd July 1940 "to the trustees and Committee of the Kling Mosque, Malacca".

The bill was drawn up on 22nd August 1940 and contains 180 items. No charge is allotted to any particular item but a single charge of $1,250 is made in respect of the bill as a whole.

The respondents sued for the $1,038.94 as money payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for money recovered by the Defendant for the use of the Plaintiff.

The defence was that the Defendant had rendered professional services to the former Trustees and Committee of Management of the Mosque who were entitled to an indemnity from and/or a lien upon the Mosque funds and that they acted legally in subrogating their rights to the Defendant and/or in acquiescing to the Defendant exercising his lien upon the said sum of $1,038.94.

Mr. Salt described his clients as the Trustees and Committee of the Kling Mosque. I do not know how there comes to be more than one trustee of this Mosque. The rules provide for one trustee and no more. The second trustee Said was not a trustee at the time of the irregularities, that is to say, between 23rd July 1937 and 23rd July 1938.

Mr. Goho submitted that if Mr. Salt was owed a single dollar with which the funds of the Mosque were legally chargeable the action must be dismissed. I do not agree. Unless Mr. Salt established that the funds were chargeable to the extent of $1,038.94 the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for the balance. There is no definite evidence as to what sum if paid by the trustees to Mr. Salt could be recovered by the trustees from the funds of the Mosque. Some of the items in the bill of costs certainly could not have been so recovered and no specific sum has been proved as being a proper charge on the funds. Some at least of the work was occasioned by the Board's inquiries into the affairs of the Mosque and it was the default of the trustee which gave rise to these inquiries.

Whoever Mr. Salt's client may have been it was not the trust fund, and his claim for his costs was against those who employed him.

As he wrote on 5th October 1940 "unless we receive satisfaction we shall return the money to the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Board and bill the trustees and Committee members direct". This would h