Laville J:

The facts and arguments sufficiently appear from the Judgment below.

In this summons the defendants apply that plaintiff should give security for costs in this suit in the sum of $1,500 - on the ground that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the State.

The suit is by the widow and a son as executor and beneficiary against the creditor-administrator of her husband's estate in johore for breach of trust.

It is conceded by plaintiff that she resides out of the jurisdiction and is a woman of no substance and that she cannot find even $750 security but it is argued by her Counsel that the usual rule that a plaintiff who resides out of the jurisdiction should put up security for defendants' costs does not apply in this particular instance.

He bases his argument on the wording of s. 369 (i) of the Civil Procedure Code FMS which makes the order to put up security one for the discretion of the Court and quotes a written judgment by Poyser CJ, FMS in Raub Civil Suit No. 12 of 1938 * which has not yet been published in which the question was argued as to whether the discretion allowed by the Civil Procedure Code was an unfettered one or had been limited by the