6 Ran ( P C ) 142 စီရင်ထုံးပါအဆုံးအဖြတ်ကိစ္စ။[Part Thirteen]

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

6 Ran ( P C ) 142 

BHOGILAL BHIKACHAND AND OTHERS (Plaintiffs)

                      V.

ROYAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. (Defendants).

PRESENT: VISCOUNT HALDANE,LORD ATKINSON,LORD BLANESBURGH,LORD DARLING and LORD WARRINGTON OF CLYFFE.

စီရင်ထုံးပါအဆုံးအဖြတ်ကိစ္စ။[ Part Thirteen ]

————————————————————————

6 Ran ( P C ) 142 

BHOGILAL BHIKACHAND AND OTHERS (Plaintiffs)

                      V.

ROYAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. (Defendants).

PRESENT: VISCOUNT HALDANE,LORD ATKINSON,LORD BLANESBURGH,LORD DARLING and LORD WARRINGTON OF CLYFFE.

(On Appeal from the High Court at Rangoon.)

Appeal No. 103 of 1926 from a decree of the High Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction (June 15.1925) reversing a decree of the Court in its Original Jurisdiction (June 24.1924).

At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships intimated that the appeal would be allowed, and that the reasons would be delivered later.

December 16. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD BLANESBURGH.

J.C.* 1927 ,Dec. 16.

ပထမပြဿနာနှင့်ပတ်သက်၍၊ပရီဗီကောင်စီကစီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၁၅၄နှင့်၁၅၅တွင်၊အောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်သည်ကိုတွေ့မြင်နိုင်သည်-

[Upon the first allegation the respondents' case really was, that there never had been any parcel containing diamonds made up anywhere.

This was apparently the statement of the anonymous letters referred to by the Calcutta office in the above letter of the 10th February, 1923.

It was accordingly not suggested to the witnesses that the postal packet 217 was other than the parcel packed at the office of the first appellant.

What the respondents did try to prove was that in that parcel there never had been any diamonds at all if for no other reason than this, that the appellants had not the diamonds to put into it.

This was the contest and in the course of it, evidence of the utmost particularity was adduced by the appellants and tested at every point by the respondents.

The merchants from whom the jewels had been bought produced their account books: the persons present when the parcel was made up explained in detail what then happened.

In the result the learned Judge in his judgment expressed himself very clearly.

On the first point he thus stated his conclusions:-

“That the plaintiffs, On or about the 2nd October, 1922, were in possession of diamonds of the description and value alleged by them is amply proved.

They have called witnesses who made the sales, and their account books have been put in; the translation of these account book entries and connected exhibits have taken much time, and I have spent many hours in checking the witnesses' statements.”

As to the packing of the parcel the learned Judge also held that the account of it as above stated should be accepted. 

And all this was the view of the Appellate Court as well.

There the appellants' possession of diamonds was no longer even contested by the respondents, and as to the making up of the parcel the learned Judges say, "We see no reason to doubt that a parcel was made up containing them." 

On these findings it might have been supposed that, subject to the result of the alternative issue of the fraudulent conspiracy, the respondents' case was at an end.

Registration, posting and insurance of the percel so made up had been duly deposed to, and the evidence on the point had not been challenged either in cross-examination or by counter evidence.]

[ anonymous letters = ပစ်စာများ ]

[ utmost particularly = အစွမ်းကုန်စေ့စပ်မှု ]

———————————————————