JUDGMENT

Aitken J:

The Plaintiff instituted this suit by a plaint which was filed on 13 April 1937. On 15 November in the same year, after judgment in default against one Defendant had been set aside and a similar judgment against another Defendant had been refused, the Plaintiff took out a Summons in Chambers for leave to make very substantial amendments and additions to his plaint.

This Summons in Chambers was adjourned into Court on 25 November 1937, and argued before me in open Court on the same day. The arguments were lengthy and properly so, and occupied the time of the Court for the whole day. My decision was reserved until the 29th of that month, when I read a written ruling dismissing the application with costs.* At the hearing thereof Mr. Seenivasagam appeared for the first and fifth Defendants, Mr. Kit Seng Khong for the second Defendant, & Mr. Huntsman for the fourth Defendant; the Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Briggs and Mr. Farr.

The fate of the Plaintiff's application is still uncertain, as an appeal has been lodged against my refusal of leave to amend; but the Defendants' Solicitors brought in their bills of costs for taxation between party and party before the Assis