1791-01-31 (static/transcriptions/1791/01/248.jpg)

(85

Monday 31 January 1791.
against Mathew Dawson Esq
Trial
Deft’s advocs then called a wts to prove some accost on [which] they wish to examine Ramsunder had named as one of the writers that compared the revenue accost wth the accost of the Coty.]
I wrote the paper [from] and the paper W. I copied [from] at Moidapur from the Company’s treasy accots at the time when the entry was made in the book. I copied W from the books of the Coty, at Nemeichern M’s when the mr was referred to him as Arbr [At first the wts says that W. is a true copy as written in the book, and afterwds he admits that the greatest part of the exhibit is added or interpolated by himself & it appears that W, when stript of these additions, will contain only these words “surjinarmin Roy of Ruckeapore, on account of deposit 3516..3..6. In Calcutta 2483..12..6=6000.” Which words and figures do not appear to have any reference to the cause.]
He adds, “I never saw the books of the Coty till they wre produced at the arbrs.”
He said also something, but nothing material abt Exh: U.
I observed that beside the objections abovementioned, there is another which appears to me to deserve attention, and which is applicable to all these extracts from the books of the Coty, viz, that they are partial extracts from one side of an account.
As to the Compy’s Treasury accounts the Deft might have had the originals by means of a Subpoena to the officer in whose custody they are, but he has not sent such subpoena nor taken any
other