1778-02-09 (static/transcriptions/1778/02/013.jpg)

1778. Sittings. [Monday] Feb. 9.

a decree for money, the defendant against whom the Decree was, might retire with his Money and Goods into Calcutta, and then they must come to this Court to obtain executions. If the Decree concern’d Land then they would bring Actions here against those who carried the Decree into execution, and then also the cause must be tried over again in this Court.

J. H. I agree there is great inconvenience in this Doctrine, and yet I think it is much less inconvenient than the Doctrine of considering their Judgments as conclusive, because it is well known they are exceeding corrupt.

Binnodram Gose
v
Banarassey Gose.
The examination of the Witness Soberam Podar now went on.

Soberam Podar. Swore that the account which he said on Saturday was in another book, was in the book then, and now, produced. That the whole account of Juggutram was kept in the name of Kisno Persaud who was the Son of Juggutram, that money paid to Mr. Rous was
/ also