ELPHINSTONE C.J., delivered oral judgment (with which Prichard and Burton JJ, concurred) allowing the appeal with costs as against the 1st defendant, and ordering judgment to be entered for the plaintiff for $600 and costs as against the 1st defendant, and dismissing the appeal with costs as against the 2nd defendant. Elphinstone, C.J., has supplied the following note of his judgment as far as it affected the 1st defendant.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the order of Mudie, J., dismissing her suit for damages for wrongful attachment of her property. The 1st defendant was alleged to be responsible for the wrongful attachment which was actually effected by the bailiff.

By a decree dated the 3rd February, 1930, passed in Civil Suit No. 2249 of 1929 in the Magistrate's Court at Kuala Lumpur, One Fonseea, the son of the plaintiff in the present suit, was ordered to pay the sum of $477.61 to Periathamby, the 1st defendant in the present suit. Periathamby then applied for execution of the decree against Fonseea. His application was in the form prescribed for use under section 235 of the Civil Procedure Code, and concluded:

"I, the undersigned K. Periathamby, of Kuala Lumpur, pray for execution of the said decree by issuing an attachment against the defendant's shop No. 325, Batu Road, Kuala Lumpur, carrying (sic) Motors and Motor accessories and furniture to be pointed out by the plaintiff" (i.e., Periathamby).

On the 14th June, 1930, a warrant in the form prescribed for use under section 267 of the Civil Procedure Code was issued to the bailiff to attach the movable property in the defendant's shop No. 325, Batu Road, Kuala Lumpur. It is admitted that the shop at 325, Batu Road, and the movable property therein belonged, not to Fonseea, but to his mother, the plaintiff in the present suit.

On the 20th June the bailiff, accompanied by Periathamby, came to 325, Batu Road, to execute the attachment. The plaintiff said in his evidence:

"I told the bailiff the shop did not belong to George Fonseea, but to me. He said Periathamby wanted attachment because my son owed him money. I said it was not my son's shop. The bailiff spoke to defendant No. 1. But No. 1 insisted on attaching. I told the bailiff I bought the shop in May, 1929. The bailiff told Periathamby to go and make further enquiries. He did not agree."

The evidence of the bailiff was substantially to the same effect. Periathamby said:

"She (the plaintiff) said it was her property. I did not believe it. I told her so. I know George Fonseea had described it as his property. I had the copy and showed her the statement. She did not show me any documents. If she had done so, I would not have attached the property."

The question is whether on the facts Periathamby is liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff by the wrongful attachment. The first question to be decided is whether the distress was wrongful. This depends on the construction of the warrant. Did it direct the attachment of the movable property in 325, Batu Road, irrespective of whether or not it belonged to Fonseea, or did it direct the attachment of such movable property only as belonged to Fonseea? The warrant reads:

"These are to command you to attach the movable property of the said defendant as set forth in the list hereunto annexed or which shall be pointed out to you by the said plaintiff."

And the schedule reads:

"The defendant's shop No. 325, Batu Road, Kuala Lumpur (up to amount of claim and costs)."

MUDIE, J., said in his judgment:

"Though No. 325 is not the defendant's shop, the attachment of it was authorised though it was wrongly described . . . . in this case the writ authorises the attachment of No. 325, Batu Road."

With all respect I feel unable to agree with this view. In my opinion the words "the defendant's shop" in the schedule is an integral and essential part of the description. I also think that the words in the body of the warrant "as set forth in the list her