Present : Mr. Justice Middleton and Mr. Justice Grenier.

PATE v. PATE et al.

D. C, Kandy, 16,307.

Partnership-Capital over Rs. 1,000-Proof-Parol evidence-Executed. contracts-Executory contracts-Ordinance No. 7 of 1840, s. 21.

In an action between partners for an account of the partnership, the capital of which exceeded Rs. 1,000, and which was not constituted by any deed of partnership,-

Held, that the prohibition against parol evidence contained in section 21 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1840 applied only to executory contracts,, and that parol evidence was admissible to prove a partnership already dissolved for the purposes of an action for the settlement of partnership accounts.

D. C, Kandy, 52,568 followed.

APPEAL by the plaintiff and the second defendant from a dismissal of an action for an account of a partnership from the first defendant. The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of Middleton J.

Sampayo, K.C. (with him H. J. C. Pereira), for the plaintiff, appellant.

Walter Pereira, K.C., S.-G. (with him F. J. de Saram), for the second defendant, appellant.

Bawa (with him Van Langenberg), for the first defendant.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 17