P. 1
MAHARAJ LIBEL CASE & BHATIA CONSPIRACY CASE - 1862

MAHARAJ LIBEL CASE & BHATIA CONSPIRACY CASE - 1862

|Views: 505|Likes:
Published by Sampath Bulusu
The case known as the "Maharaj Libel Case", was tried in 1862 in the Supreme Court of Bombay (as intially Bombay High Court was known as the Supreme Court), before Sir Joseph Arnould. The plaintiff in the suit was the head of the Vallabhacharya sect of the Vaishnavas. The defendant was one Karsandas Mulji, who edited a newspaper in which he wrote a number of articles, exposing the abuses that, according to him, prevailed in the Vallabhacharya sect. It seems that something akin to what was known in Roman Law as Jus Primae Noctes, was claimed by or accorded to the religious heads of the sect; and their blind votaries, in their ignorance and credulity, sacrificed young women at the altar of a foul superstition. The articles created a great stir in the community, and threw the parasites of their temples, and the worshippers of the" holy" religious head, into consternation and fury. The hold of spiritual superstitions was so strong upon ignorant people in those days, that it demanded great courage and determination to expose and denounce practices which, if essentially lewd and repulsive, were sacrosanct in the eyes of the ignorant and orthodox classes. Karsandas braved public odium, and persisted in his course in the face of threats and persecution. The result was that the head priest, the subject of the attacks, sought legal redress. He filed a suit for defamation against Karsandas. In doing so, he threw himself unwittingly into the arms of an enlightened court, and a fierce and fearless advocate. Karsandas was lucky in securing for his defence the services of Anstey. Anstey's brain was inflamed by the tale of trickery, fraud, and filth, which was placed before him; and he came to court determined to expose the foul practices, and crush a dangerous delusion. Few could withstand the scathing and relentless cross-examination of Ansteyleast of all anybody with a dark and dubious record. It is not necessary to narrate the tale of credulity and corruption, licence and degradation, elicited in the course of the evidence; nor is it necessary, as Edwardes puts it, "to trace the gradual conversion of the high-toned mysticism of early Hindu religion, into a debasing anthropomorphic superstition." The case excited great public interest; and the contemporary press referred to its result as "triumph over public immorality". The true significance of the case is stressed in the concluding portion of the judgment of Sir Joseph Arnould: "This 'trial is spoken of as having involved a great waste of public time; I cannot agree with that. No doubt, much time has been spent in hearing this case; but I would fain hope it has not been all wasted. It seems impossible that this matter should have been discussed thus openly before a population as enlightened as that of the natives of Western India, without producing its results. It has probably taught some to think; it must have led many to inquire. It is not a question of theology that has been before us. It is a question of morality. The principle for which the defendant and his witnesses have been contending is simply this that what is morally wrong cannot be theologically right that when practices that sap the very foundations of morality, which involve a violation of the eternal and immutable laws of Right, are pursued in the name and under the sanction of religion, they ought, for the common welfare of society and in the interest of humanity itself, to be publicly denounced and exposed. They have been exposed and denounced. At a risk and a cost which we cannot adequately measure, these men have waged determined battle against a foul and powerful delusion. They have dared to look custom and error boldly in the face; and proclaim before the world of their votaries that their evil is not good, that their lie is not truth. In thus doing, they have done bravely and well. I may be allowed to express a hope that what they have done will not have been in vain; that the seed they have sown will bear
The case known as the "Maharaj Libel Case", was tried in 1862 in the Supreme Court of Bombay (as intially Bombay High Court was known as the Supreme Court), before Sir Joseph Arnould. The plaintiff in the suit was the head of the Vallabhacharya sect of the Vaishnavas. The defendant was one Karsandas Mulji, who edited a newspaper in which he wrote a number of articles, exposing the abuses that, according to him, prevailed in the Vallabhacharya sect. It seems that something akin to what was known in Roman Law as Jus Primae Noctes, was claimed by or accorded to the religious heads of the sect; and their blind votaries, in their ignorance and credulity, sacrificed young women at the altar of a foul superstition. The articles created a great stir in the community, and threw the parasites of their temples, and the worshippers of the" holy" religious head, into consternation and fury. The hold of spiritual superstitions was so strong upon ignorant people in those days, that it demanded great courage and determination to expose and denounce practices which, if essentially lewd and repulsive, were sacrosanct in the eyes of the ignorant and orthodox classes. Karsandas braved public odium, and persisted in his course in the face of threats and persecution. The result was that the head priest, the subject of the attacks, sought legal redress. He filed a suit for defamation against Karsandas. In doing so, he threw himself unwittingly into the arms of an enlightened court, and a fierce and fearless advocate. Karsandas was lucky in securing for his defence the services of Anstey. Anstey's brain was inflamed by the tale of trickery, fraud, and filth, which was placed before him; and he came to court determined to expose the foul practices, and crush a dangerous delusion. Few could withstand the scathing and relentless cross-examination of Ansteyleast of all anybody with a dark and dubious record. It is not necessary to narrate the tale of credulity and corruption, licence and degradation, elicited in the course of the evidence; nor is it necessary, as Edwardes puts it, "to trace the gradual conversion of the high-toned mysticism of early Hindu religion, into a debasing anthropomorphic superstition." The case excited great public interest; and the contemporary press referred to its result as "triumph over public immorality". The true significance of the case is stressed in the concluding portion of the judgment of Sir Joseph Arnould: "This 'trial is spoken of as having involved a great waste of public time; I cannot agree with that. No doubt, much time has been spent in hearing this case; but I would fain hope it has not been all wasted. It seems impossible that this matter should have been discussed thus openly before a population as enlightened as that of the natives of Western India, without producing its results. It has probably taught some to think; it must have led many to inquire. It is not a question of theology that has been before us. It is a question of morality. The principle for which the defendant and his witnesses have been contending is simply this that what is morally wrong cannot be theologically right that when practices that sap the very foundations of morality, which involve a violation of the eternal and immutable laws of Right, are pursued in the name and under the sanction of religion, they ought, for the common welfare of society and in the interest of humanity itself, to be publicly denounced and exposed. They have been exposed and denounced. At a risk and a cost which we cannot adequately measure, these men have waged determined battle against a foul and powerful delusion. They have dared to look custom and error boldly in the face; and proclaim before the world of their votaries that their evil is not good, that their lie is not truth. In thus doing, they have done bravely and well. I may be allowed to express a hope that what they have done will not have been in vain; that the seed they have sown will bear

More info:

Published by: Sampath Bulusu on Jul 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/17/2012

pdf

text

original

Sections

^»>?fN>«VlV4N/?

Vtv^/»\yri/TV4\/JV*'»4^

^

m
?V'r

^s;^,m'A'^.:^r^\'

n. r

?^>,

^%^f:

ii^r,'-^it'^± ^;

'^^^

^^m

^

.

,x.

"

1^-

^

2^

REPORT
MAHAEAJ LIBEL
AND OF THK

CASE,
(JA8E.

EHATTIA C0N8PIEA(JY
CONNECTED WITH
IT.

JABUIATI-UEE BEIZRATTAIJEE MAHARAJ,
vs.

KAESAInDASS MOOLJEE,
AND

EditOT ajid Proprietor,

MIABHAI EUSTAMJI HMUi,

Printer,

"

Satya Prakash.''

'^€^^\^rP^<^

BOMBAY
rrintnd at
t1in

:

BOMBAY (tAZETTE
1^62.

Press.

PEEFACE.

The
a
trial

following

sheets

have been compiled and put in
to

this

form
of of

with a view to give

an extended circulation
unparalleled
report
of

the

proceedings

which has created an

sensation

on

this

side

India.

They contain
Bhattia

a

full

the

Maharaj

Libel

case,*

together
of the

with a copious account of the
Conspiracy,

the

defendants.
is

origin, trial and conclusion which arose out of the pleas put in by The argument in the demurrer first hied by the

Defendants

also

given in

full.

one.

The Maharaj Libel case is in all respects a most extraordinary The plaintiff belonged to a fraternity, the members of which
collectively,

pretended individually and
according
to

to

be incarnations of God and
works,
are

the

spirit

of their

theological

even

superior

to

God

himself.

Their inequitous
all

pretensions
followers.

tacitly

acknowledged
nature rises
sanctions
in

and openly avowed by
rebellion

their

Human
wdiich
its

against

the

morality
adultery
!

of

a

theology

and
the

imperatively

enjoins

and fornication with

teachers

as

only

means
If it

of salvation that

be said

the

Maharajas exercise absolute control over
votaries,
it

the
that

minds and bodies of
falls

their

would

be

a

statement

short

of the

truth.

Adultery with

joined

but an absolute necessity
this
is

them is not only enwithout which no man can expect
in

happiness in
licentiousness

world or

bliss

the

next.

A
for

course

of bestial
of this

their

beatitude

of heaven.

The consequences
the
first

horrid

and revolting superstition, were
a judicial
vs.

unfolded
of

time

before

tribunal

in

the

case

Jadunathjee
of

Brizrattanjee
it

Maharaj
expected,

Karsandass
not
in

Mooljee.

The

cause

morality,

was
with

could

but gain by the
the justiness the
challenger.

trial

and
of

the

defendant

honest

confidence

of his cause accepted the

challenge

and

in

turn

dared

The eyes

India

were rivetted

* The

varioiis

extracts

and translations produced during the

trial

arc also published in this report.

M 10815'?

VI

TREFACfi.

The disclosures in court startled the outside proceedings. They were revelations of a theology the most hateful, a morality the most outrageous and filthy, a body of religious guides who may be described as living incarnations of Satan. Nor was the
on the
world.

produced by these revelations confined to the was a subject of almost daily comment in the Some watched the proceedings with English society and newspapers. anxiety, many with mingled hope and fear lest by some mischance the work of reform may be indefinitely postponed, and all with interest.
extraordinary
sensation
It

native

community.

The
dant,
prise,

fierce
all

zeal

with which the plaintiif sought to crush the defenin
his

by

the

means
reflect

power,

will

not be

a

matter of surstruggle.
criti-

when we
either

that to
his

him

it

was a life-and-death
or

He
his

must
power

confound

assailant,

submit to the just
fail

cisms of the press,

which

cannot in the

long run

to

undermine

to corrupt and defile the homes and beds of hundreds of The defendant and his friends did what the law expected Fresh from the To them it was a labour of love. them to do. perusal of works, imbued with a healthy tone of morality, they could Some idea of the not tolerate relig-ious vice or relia-ioi^s debauchees.

families.

firm
of

hold

which

this

loathsome system ot religion has
of the
in

on the minds
in their

its

followers,

may

be formed from the fact that nine of the most
Phattia caste,

respectable leading

mercial dealings daily
sincere religious

members come
to

who

comfrom

contact

with

civilized

influences,

convictions,

oi'ganized a conspiracy to

defeat

the ends

of justice, of

Ijy

threatening
in

put in motion,

that most terrible engine

punishment

India

social

excommunication.
In
this

The
respect
it

trial
is

of the libel case occupied full twenty-four days.

quite unprecedented in the annals of judicial administration
rise
it

in India.

The ordinary reader cannot but

from the perusal of the
afforded

report with a sjjontaneous conviction that

has

him a more

accurate
that

glimpse into the interior of a section

of native society, than

which could be had from works professedly treating of native manners and customs. The report cannot also fail to be of material value and impoi-tance to professional men embodying as it does the arguments of the able counsel on either side.

C

NTENTS

PAOl The Alleged Libel
...

1
...

Plaint set forth by Jadunathjee Maharaj

3 5

Argument on a

Special

Demurrer
..
.

filed

by the Defendants

Judgment on the Demurrer

18
21

Pleas set forth by the Defendants

Conspiracy Case arising out of the Pleas

SO
81
.,

Trial op the Bhattia Conspiracy Case

Argument on

the Motion of Arrest of

Judgment

48
58
59 60

Sentence of the Court

Trial of the Maharaj Libel Case
Examination of Witnesses
for the Plaintiff

Argument on

the Motion of a Non-suit

72
85

Court's Decision on the above Application

Speech for the Defence

87
for the

Examination of Witnesses

Defendants

93
95 152

Extracts and Translations produced before the Court

Rebutting Evidence

for the Plaintiff

Speech for the Defence on the Rebutting Evidence
Speech for the Plaintiff on
tlie

177
185

Defendants' Case

Judgment Judgment

of the Hon'ble Sir

M. Sausse
Arnould

194 204

of the Hon'ble Sir J.

THE MAHARAJ LIBEL
THE ALLEGED
(Official Translation of an Editorial Article

CASE,

LIBEL.
" Snfi/a Prakash" Gujrati Newspaper,
1860.)

in the October,

of the 2\st

THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE HINDUS AND THE PRESENT
HETJiROlJOX OPINIONS.
In
Kaliyitg
the

Purans
will

and other
arise
false

Shasiras
religions

of

the

Hindus

it

is

stated

that

in

the
will

there

and

heresies,

and impostors and
to

heretics

cause
to

adverse

pers'iasions

and

adverse

religious

systems

be

established.
since
is t\ie

According

the

Hindu Shasiras
of the

five

thousand
the

years

have

now passed away
themselves
it

commencethat

ment
as

Kaliyug.

From
five

Hindu

S'/astras

demonstrated

during this period of

thousand years as

many new
be
the
birth

persuasions and religious systems

have arisen among the
as

Hindus, should
yet
tlie

all

considered spurious hensies.
of
it

Now,

four

hundred years have not
Maharajas.
Valabhacliarya
of

elapsed since

VakiM, the
is

projenitor

of the

In the books of
took
place
;

Vaishnava
11th
event
of

persuasion

written

that

the

birth

of

on

the
this

Waisakh

Tad

of

Samvant
to this

1535,
day,

the

day

the

week Sunday

since

381 years have elapsed
In

and since

the beginning of the KaViyxg five thousand years have passed.

The

sect of

ValabJiacharya

then
the

originated
followers
;

wiihin

the the

Kal'niwj

itself.

of Sad/ni, of
to

R msneld,

the
;

the same way as the followers of Dada, Ramanandi, the SIteJanandi and other sects
all

arose

so

the sect

Va'abhacharya arose
the
declarations

these

sects

have arisen

in

the

KaVyug,

therefore

according

of the the

Hindu Shasiras they must be
as
to
sonr.e

heterodox.
the gates

Jadunathjee
of the
fort

Maharaj
to

snys

that

in

same way

one goes

from

to

proceed

Walkeshwar and some one

Bjculla,

so exa^ tly

the original

courses

of

the

Veds and the

ways.

What
necessity

a deceitful proposition

by-ways must not

Purans having gone forward, have diverged into different this is. Out of one religious system ten or fifteen branch off. The course of religion and of morals must be one cnly.
to

What
take

is

there

quit

the

straight
?

road

by which
has
;

to

go

to

Walkeshwar, and
other
the
sectary

the

circuitous

route

of

Bycalla
dust

Each
tb.e

sectary

made every
is

a
for

heretic,

and
thus
?

one has

scattered

upon

other

what then
as

necessity

acting

But we have already made known
has come
forth
to

that

regards

the

weapons
will

with
oppose

which the Maharaj
the

defend

himself,

those the

very

weapons

Maharaj,

and annoy him.
Maharaj cannot
ariae,
is

The

JNIaharaj

considers

of

GoJ

;

he cannot then assert any
said
allege

patticular

statement statement

of

Hindu Shustras as the work Hindu Shastras is the
in

false.

The

that
like

the

that

the
sect

Kaliyug
of the

here-

tical

opinions

will

false.

Then

several

other sects,

the

Maha-

rajas

has
it

arisen

in

the

Kaliyug, consequently
one.
is

it

is

established

by the

Hindu Shastras

that

is

a

false

and

heretical

The
is

sect

of the

Maharajas

heretical

and one delusive
the
the

to

simple
according

people
to

;

that
is

proved

by the genuine books of the
above.

Veds,

Piirans,

&c.,

what
and

intimated
it

Not only
the

this,

but

also

from

works

composed by the Maharajas,
a

is

proved that

Maharajas have raised up
to

nothing

but

new

heresy

dis-

order.

Behold

y/ith

regard

the

subject

of

Bramh
:

how

Gokulnathji

has

amplified

the

original

stanza,

what a commentary he has made

^tWTlfi- ^?[T H[7T[?q;l^^

^f^^JT^^ HI^rj^lCRR

Fr^[R ^R[R^^^^[^?^^'-f
" Consequently
before

: II

3

II

he himself has enjoyed her, he should

make
him)

over his
his

own
and

married

wife

(to

the

Maharaj),

and he should
Maharaj)

also

make

over

(to

sons

daughters.

After

having got married,
of her
(to

he should before having himself enjoyed his wife
;

make an offering own use."
Alas
!

the

after

which he should

apply

her

to

his

what a heresy
Maharaj
is

this

is,

what a sham
Ved,
in

this is,

and what a delusion
in

this

is

!

We

ask Jadunathjee

in

what
that

what

Paran.,

what

Shastra,
to

and in
Maharaj
daughter

what law-book
or
also
to a
is

it

written

one's

married wife should be made over
enjoyed.

a

religious
to

preceptor
!

before being

Not only
our pen

one's wife, but one's
will

be made over
utter

Alas

!

in

writing

this,

not

move

on.

We

are

seized with

disgust

and

agitation.

and

to

throw dust in their eyes,
to

To render blind people who see with their eyes and in the name of religion and under the pretence
wives and daughters,

of religion

enjoy

their

tender
?

maidens,

than this

what greater
sects

heresy and what greater deceit

In the Kaliyug

many

other heresies

and many
ever

have arisen besides .hat of
ed, such

Valabhacharya, but no

other sectaries have

perpetratsect of the

shamelessness,

subtilty,

immodesty,
severe

rascality,

and deceit as have the
our

Maharajas.

When we
us,

use

such

terms as

these,

simple

Hindu

friends

are

wroth with

and

in consequence

of that wrath
in

of theirs,

we

have
people,

had and

have

much

to

endure.

But when throwing dust
enjoying the

the eyes

of simple

the Maharajas

write in their books about

tender maidens,
spring
grieve

the peoples' wives

and daughters,
pen at

and they enjoy them accordingly, great flames
once becomes
their

up within our
over

inside, our

heated

on

fire,

and we have

to

our

Hindu

friends

and over

weak powers
Jadunathjee

of reflection.

Maharaj has commenced issuing a small work styled "
;

The Propagator
the propagation
people,

of our own Religion'
of religion ?

we ask him
wish
to

in

what way do you wish
in

to

effect

Your

ancestors

having scattered dust

the

eyes
false

of simple

made

them

blind ?

Do you
to

make them
to

see,

or

taking a
still

pride in the
?

upholding

of your religion,

do you wish
propogate

delude simple people
to

more
then

Jadunathjee
do

Maharaj,

should
a.

you wish
course

or

spread

abroad religion,

you personally adopt

virtuous

of conduct

and admonish your other Maharajas.

As

long

as

the pre-

ceptors
for

of religion

shall themselves shall

appear

to
to

be

immersed

in

the

sea of licentiousness

so

long

they

not

be

competent

convey

religious
to

exhortation.

Gokulnathji
persuasion

having com[)Osed the commentary abovementioned, has attached

your
writer

Vaishnam
of

a great

blot

of ink.

Let

that
to

be

first

removed.

Scorn the
defile

the commentary.

[Oh, you] Maharajas, acting up

that

commentary,
destroy
as
at

the

wives

and daughters of
that of

your devotees.

Desist

from that
ffsticcd.

and
long

once

immorality such as
so,

the

company
give
to

at

the

Ras

As

you

shall

not do

for
;

so long

you cannot

religious

admonition,

and propogate your

own

religious

faith

do

you be pleased

be assured of that.

THE PLAINT SET FORTH BY JADUNATHJEB MAHAEAJ.
IN

THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
May

Plea Side.
The
fourteenth

day

of

in

the

Christian

Year One Thousand

Eight

Hundred and

Sixty-one.

Bombay to Wit.
Leathes,
tant,

Brizruttonjee, Maharaj, by Charles Edmund Karsandass Mooljee, of Bombay Hindoo Inhabiand Nanabhov Rustomjee, Raneenah, of Bombay Parsee Inhabitant, and therefore
his

—Jadunathjee
complains of
to

Attorney,

or
in

otherwise,
the

persons
for

subject

the jurisdiction
religion
to the

of

this

Honorable
is

Court,
religion

in

an

action

case

that

whereas the

of

the

Hindus
to

a

of

vast

and
ex-

unknown
in
force

antiquity,
in

and accordingly
of

same and
in

the
of are

usuage,
India,

custom and practice
honor and
all

the

Island

Bombay and

other

parts
still

great

traordinary

respect and
to

pre-eminence have been and

awarded,

by

good

and

worthy Hindus

the

members

of a certain
as

caste or class

of

Hindus
chiefs

called

Brahamins,

and
said

to

the persons
of

called

Maharajas,

and being the present
to

and heads of the
religion,

class

Hindus

called

Brahamins, and accordingly
opinion
of
all

the

said

Hindu

and

accordingly to
so
called

the belief and

good and
still

worthy Hindus, the said
infinitely

persons

Brahamins always have been and
to all the other

are

considered

superior in worth
religion,

and dignity
books,

castes

and
of

classes of society into

which by the

sacred-

laws,

usages and

customs

the Hindus,

the

Hindus

residing in

the Island of

Bombayaforesaid,and

in the other parts of India

from time immemorial whereof, the memory of
are divided,

man is

not to the contrary have ever been and

still

and whereas

also there are certain
to

sacred books of the

Hindus

called

Parans, Veds and Shakastras, and according
of time the present age of the world
called
is

the

same

and according
are

to

the computation
into called

and distinguished
respectively

four
to

periods of time,

and distinguished
Yaq,
called

by them divided Yugs, and which

wit

Satya
last

Yug,

the

Tteia
also

the

Duoapar

Yug and
or

the
age,

Kali or

CaliYug, which said
also

mentioned
is

Yug
is

the earthen

iron

and whereas
and a Hindu

the plaintiff
priest

now

and always has been a Brahamin and a Maharaj
and
a good,
true,

high

of high

caste,

honest,

just,

and

faithful

Euliject

of our

Lady

the Queen,

and

as such has

behaved and conducted himself, and
alvva}'s

until

committing of the grievances by the defendant as hereafter mentioned was
esteemed and accepted

reputed
all

by an I

a^non:Tst

all

his neighbours

and

by and amongst

the

Hindu

in'iabitants

of

Bombay

aforesaid,

to

be

a person

of

good name, fame,

credit,

and

reputation,

and

for a

long period of time previous to and until the committing of the grievances

by the defendant
during
all

as hereafter mentioned,

he

th.» plaintiff tlie

had resided

in

Hombay member
or

aforesaid,

had

the time deservedly obtainel
also

t!ie

gtodwill of

Hindus and
still

otlier

inhabitants thereof,
of

and whereas
ancient

the

plaintiff

has
wit

always
called
guilty,

been
the

and
sect

is

a

a

certain

Hindu

religious

sect

to

of

Va'bhadiaria
tiie

the sect

of the

^Jaharajas,
grievances
of

and has not ever been

or until

the time of

committing
to

of

the

by the defendant as hereafter mentioned been suspected
heterodox
opinions
in

have been
or

guilty
or

holding

matters
to

connected

with

his

religion

of

offences
to

improper conduct hereafter menti ned
plaintiff

have been charged upon and
such
offjnces

imputed

the

or
of

of

any of them,
the
said

or

of

any other
the

or

improper

conduct,
of

by
the

means
opinion

which

several

premises

plaintiff
•,

before

the

committing
obtained

grievances

by the defendant as hereafter mentione
credit

had deservedly

the

good
of

and

of all

his
to

Hindu

neig'ibours

and other good and worthy
any
wise

subjects
at

our

said

Lady,
yet

the

Queen,

whom

he

was

in

known
greatly

to

wit

Bombay

aforesaid,
state

the

defendant
of tlie
plaintiff,

well

knowing the premises,

but

envying the happy
maliciously intendhis

and condition
injure

plaintiff

and contriving and wickedly
of a Braha.nin

and
in

ing to
of a
tion

the

his

good character,

and

said character

j\laharaj

and High

Priest,

and

in

his

said

good

name, fame,
our

credit

and

r-^putaall

and

to

bring

him
be

into

public

scandal,

infamy and disgrace
worthy subjects of
those

with and

amongst
the

his

Hindu neighbours and
to

other

good and

Lady, and

Queen,
that

and
he,

cause

it

to

suspected

and be ieved by
of

neighbours

subjects,
in

the

plaintiff,

had been anl was guilty
said
religion,

holding

heterodox

opinions

matters

connected with

his

and

that
to

he

improper conduct hereafter mentioned

have

been

had been and was guilty of offences and charged upon and imputed to him,
on the twenty-first day
at

and

to

harass

and oppress him heretofore

to wit

of October one

thousand and eight
paper,

hundred and
published
at

sixty,

to

wit

Bombay
in

aforesaid

in

a certain news-

printed

and

Bombay

aforesaid,

the

Gujratee

language

and
other

character,

but circulated amongst and real and

understood

by divers

Hindus

and

inhabitants of

Bombiy
translated

aforesaid,
into

and of other parts of India,
English language
designedly
is

called the

Satt/a

Prakask,

which
of

being

the

as

follows,

that

is to

say, the light

truth,

falsely,

wickedly,
designedly

willfully,

and
to

maliciously

did
or
of

print

and

publish
of

falsely, willfully,

and maliciously caused

be

printed

published,
the

and and

concerning
of and

the plaint. ff, the

and of and concerning the

religious

opinions

plaintiff

conduct and character of the plaintiff as such Brahamin, Maharaj and Hindu High Priest, of and concerning the said sect to witcalled the sect of Valabhacharia,
concerning

and

of

and concerning the the

plaintiff

as

and being a
aforesaid,
false,

Member
false,

of

such

sect,

and of

and concerning such other circumstances as infamous and defamatiry libel, which said
defamatory
libel

a certain

scandalous, malicious,

scandalous,

malicious,

infamous,

and

was by the defendant printed and published and caused to be printed and published in the same newspaper on the day and year aforesaid at Bombay aforesaid, in the Gujratee language, and character, and was and is accordingly to the tenor and
in
the
in

words
the

and

figure

following,

that

is

to

say

— (Here

follows

a copy of the alleged
fact

libel

Gujratee

language

and character.)

And

the plaintiff in

says that

the

said

false,

scandalous,
to

malicious,

infamous,
published
is,

and defamatory

libel

so printed

and published

and caused
into

be

printed and

by the defendant as aforesaid correctly translated
according
to

the

English
the

language
English

was and
translation

the tenor,
libel.)

following

;

that

is

to

say,

(Here

follows

of the

alleged

By means
has

of the
is

committing of which
injured
in

said grievances

by the defendant, the
in

plaintiff

been

and

greatly

his

character
in
his

of a

Brahamin and
good name,

his character of

a

Maharaj

and

UinJu High
into

Priest

and

aforesaid

fame,

credit

and
said

reputation,
said

and brought

public

scandal,

infamy and disgrace with and amongst the
good

Hindu Inhabitants
in
to

of
so

Bombay,
that

and

other

and worthy
neighbours,
the

subjects

of

our

Lady, the Queen,
and subjects

much

divers

of those of

inhabitants of
in

Bombay,
grievances
plaintiff"

whom

the innocence and integrity
occasion
of

plaintiff

the

said premises
said

were unknown, have on
have
been and

the

printing

and publishing of the
slill

from thence hitherto suspected and believed and
to
to

do

suspect

and believe the
heterodox

be

a person guilty
religion,

of holding

improper and

opinions in
so

matters connected
aforesaid

with

his

and of
to

the

offence^

and improper

conduct

as

charged

upon and imputed

from thence

hitherto

him by the defendant, and have on that account shunneJ and avoided the company and conversation of the plaintiff"
still

and have wholly refused and
and
to

do

refuse

to to

have any acquaintance or discourse with

bring
to

and other

gifts

and presents
been and

him

as they were before

used and accus-

tomed

do and

would have done again had not the said grievances been so committed
plaintiff

aforesaid,

and the
otherwi?:,

has

is

by

reason of

the committing

of the

said

grievances

greatly

injured,

and damnified.

To

the

damage

of

the

plaintiff"

of

liupees

Fifty

Thousand,

and thereupon he brings

suit,

&c.

THE AEGUMENT ON A DE^IURHEK FILED BY THE
DEFEiNDANTS.

SUPREME COURT.-Plea
(Before the Hon'ble Sir
First Day,
Jad'inatlijee Brisraltonjee

Side.

M

Sausse, Kt., Chief Justice.)

Tuesday, 2nd July 1861.
vs.

Maharaj
instructed

Karsandass Mooljee and another.
Collier

Mr. Bayley, with Mr.
for

Scohle,

by Messrs.

and Leathes, appeared

the

plaintiff".

Mr. Anstey, with Mr. Dunbar,
defendants.

instiucted

by Messrs. Acland and

Prentis,

for

the

This case was

set

down

for

argument on a demurrer
to

filed

by the defendants.
hcics standi
in

The
the

demurrer was on
Court in that

vai'ious

grounds

show

that the plaintiff

had no

form

of plaint.

6
Mr.
on the
Baijlet/

took
that

a preliminary
they had
not

objection

that

the
the

defendants

could

not

be

heard

ground

complied

with

Rule

of

the

Court

No.
at

19 of
least

1825, which required that on
of the

the

margin of the demurrer and paper books, some
be
rule
specified.

grounds

of

demurrer
submitted
set

shouldjfir

Mr.
cause

Ans'ey
been

that
to

the

had

been

complied
to

with and that
entertained.

sufficient

had

forth

entitle

the

demurrer

be

He

adduced

English authorities

in

support.
said there

The Chief Justice
demurrer.

was no

rule

in

this

Court which prohibited a special
discoui-aged

But

the

Court has,

since

he had the
prohibiting
to file

honor of presiding here,
a
special

such demurrers.

There

was no rule
margin
with

demurrer,

and therefore a and he

party cannot be said to have no right
the
reference

one.

He

thought that under the authorities,

given
to

in

the

to

the

grounds in the body

was

sufficient,

could

not

refuse

proceed

the

hearing.

The

objection

having been
his

overruled,
certain Jadunathjee Brizruttonjee

Mr. Anstey opened
Maharaj

argument by stating that a
and
two
Parsi,
forth

was

the

plaintiff,

persons,

Karsandass

Mooljee,

a

Hindoo,

and

Kanabhoy Eustamjee Raneena, a

were the defendants.

He
demurrer,

stated that

the plaint
in

set

was

clearly

open on the face of
general
:

it

to

a general
policy.
it

not

included
of

the

special

grounds.

That

ground
that

was public
in

The grounds
was not
surmised
to

demurrer
alleged,

set forth specially

are as follows

First

the

plaint,

stated,

or

specified

that
to

the

alleged

improper
are
or
in
to

and heterodox opinions

have
they

been
are

imputed

the

plaintiff,

what
the
of

what
that
or

extent
of the

improper
or

and

heterodox
or

according
are the

manner and Hindu religion
the
said

to

or

Valabhacharya,
it

what were
stated,
if

doctrines

religion

sect.

Secondly,
are,

was

not

ic.

what
are
to

the

alleged
extent,

offences

and improper
to

conduct
religion

and

to

what extent,
of the
said

they
sect

any

contrary

the
in

said
force

or

the

doctrines

on

the
it

alleged

custom or practice
stated, &c.

in

Bombay and
in

other parts

of India.

Thirdly,

was not
the

what

is

the alleged

custom,

usage, &c., and

by

what persons
the
it

and

sects

same
or

is

followed

and observed
&c.

and
it is

particular whether

same
is

is

a
to

Hindu
the

or

a Christian

usage,

Fourthly,
&c.

nowhere stated that

contrary

doctrine

discipline
to
is

or custom,

of

the Hindus, kc. for the
wives,

Maharajs under pretence of

religion,

enjoy

the

tender maidens,
offence charged in

and daughters of the people. Fifthly,
the

for that
it

there
is

no

specific

against

defendants or

either

of

them.

Sixthly,
offence
or

not

stated,

&c.

what sense

the
or

expressions
applied

"

heterodox
plaintiff

opinion" and "
or

and improper conduct" are understood

by the

the Maharajs,

the

Hindus

generally.

Seventhly,

that

the
that

said expressions are insensible

and ambiguous, and have no meaning in law. Eighthly,
that

the

several

inuendoes,

alleging

the plaintiff and

other

Maharajs are guilty
of

ot

rascality

and shameful conduct, and

defile

the

wives

and

daughters
are

their

devotees

and

other

Hindus

by

criminal
libel,

intercourse

with them,

&c.,

not

warranted by the

words of the supposed
to

nor supported by
Ninthly,
that

any inducement
translation

or introductory
is

averment
incorrect,

which the inuendoes
the
are
are

refer.

alleged

altogether
libel.

and
there
libel

sense
divers

of

it

repugnant,
errors
in

and

at

variance
forth

with the
libel,

alleged

Tenthly,
translation

that

clerical

setting

the

whereby
that

the

and
of

unintelligible

and

insensible.

And,

eleventhly,

there

are

omissions

/

material

statements

and averments,
Gokalnathjee

especially

as

to

the

alleged

commentary
to

and

book

published
libel

by

one
to

and by the

plaintiff himself,

and

which the alleged

purports
31):

be

a reply.
tirst

Anstey

would

contend that on the
action.

grounds of

public

policy,

the

Court

should not entertain such
not

an

He
of

had made many researches and
an
attempt
like
this,

enquiries,

and
or

an

instance

could

be

discovered

wherein

a
or

Maharaj

Hindu High
the
late

Priest,

sought,

by the

machinery of Her Majesty's Courts,
to

by that of
It

East India Company's
to

Courts,

enforce the discipline
to

of his
it

sect.

behoved
that

the

Court

decline
find

to

lend

its

jurisdiction

such
for

uses
the

:

else

might

be

the

Court

would

itself

helping
doctrines.

some impure

sect
is

propagation
asserted
is

of most

immoral,
?

irreligious,

and beastly

Now

what
plaint,

the the

origin
plaintiff

by the Maharaj
priest

If

one can discover any

meaning of the

a

of a

sect

which

came into biith in the sixteenth century, at the same time when our gracious King Henry VIII. purified his own Church by much the same means. He is regarded with singular respect amongst the Brahmins, who in their turn are similarly revered by the the Maharaj, the a Hindu to venerate Hindus and disregarding his duty as
:


to

defendant employed expose the
entitled

his

leisure

time
of

to

set
sect.

at

nought the authority
It

of the

Maharaj and

immoral doctrines
a
different

the

was

declared
so

that
treated

the

Maharaj
he

was

treatment,

but that
the

not

having been
his

by the defendant
claimed
clearly a spiritual

he was disparaged and lowered in
these
offence

eyes of

devotees,

and
it

therefore

damages.
for

Mr.

Anstey said that on the
plaintiff

face

of the
s».4s

plaint
forth

was

which the
It
it

sued,

for

the

plaint

his

spiritual
to

ascendancy

over the
this
office

Hindus.
for

was contrary
not

to public policy that
libel

he should
private

be allowed
character,
for

come
against

into his

Court,
as

was

a

cencerning
could find
his

his

but
a

Maharaj.

He

(Mr.
to

Anstey)
establish

no authority
ascendancy

such

suit,

where

a heathen priest attempted
for
libel.

spiritual

by means
in

of

an action
Acts
of

The
and

rule of non-interference

in
to

religion

has

been laid down
the

the

Parliament,
this

applied

by

Charter

India,
rule
to

and
be

learned
in

counsel

urged,
it

that

Court would
to

not allow that

good

violated

a matter where
to

was

impossible

know before-hand
Suppose,
to

the

enormity
that

of the

mischief likely
are
to

result

from such

interference.
sole

for

illustration,

the

defendants
religion

religious

reformers,
all

whose

view

is

promote the

truths

of natural

and

get rid of

superstitions

and
the

religious

abuses,
past,

which are
will
?

but

of

very modern
take
it

growth,

and not

to

be traced to
to entertain

mysterious
suit
to

not a

the Court

to
is

be against public

policy

a

stop

them

suit

by

which

it

endeavoured

to

support the ill-gotten

authority

and presumed ascendancy of the
authority
course
Courts.
of
all

plaintiff?

and
of

will

not public policy refuse to
in

allow

such

to

extinguish

the

progress

reformation
to

a

smooth

and

unobstructed
the Charter
case
it,

?

He

(Mr. Anstey)

found his own view
for

be

always

entertained

In the Asiatic Journal
promise
of

May 1832 was
which
the

the report of a
Justice

by Hindu
of the

of

breach
that

marriage,

in

Chief
should

who decided
Sir

observed

Hindu
the

religious
of

matters

and

usages

be

kept out
in

Supreme
Peiry's

Court.

In

case
p.

the
his
this

Khojas
Lordship
Court

and Memons, reported
laid

Erskine

Oriental

Cases,
to

122,

down
vs.

the

doctrines,

which
reference

Mr.
to

Anstey
the

conceived

be
the

that of
case

(reads

the passage).

With
10

same question
Cases,
p.

in

of Ardaseer

Cursetjee

Perozebye,

Moore's

Privy

Council
(reads

414-19,

the the

Lords of Council are found expressing themselves thus
of
this

the

passage).

On

authority

case,

which

is

so

strong

in

point,

will

8
the

Court lend
?

itself

to

support

this

ecclesiastic,

this

Maharaj
England,

to

enforce

his

spiritual

authority

If the

scene

were changed from India
even
there
this

to

where the Judges take
lend
or
its

cognisance
the
exist

of spiritual

suits,

Court
the

would

not

jurisdiction

to

Church
there,

Kstabiished,

inasmuch as although

Ecclesiastical

Courts
to

Christian

a Court of
refers

Common Law
to to

never

intervenes,

and
carried

declines
so
far

entertain

such

matters,

and

parties

those

Courts.

This

is

that,

where the

Ecclesiastical

Court has power

entertain

an action of defamation, the Court of
to

Common
of that

Law
an
either

never

assumes

a

concurrent jurisdiction
in
illustration
of

ent

ain

such

a

suit,

as

partaking

ecclesiastical

nature

his

arguments.

Mr.

Anstey

contended

this

action

was im[)roperly
which
from

brought,
usages,

because his

lordship

had not
of the

the judicial
sect

knowledge of the Hindu doctrines,
Yalabliacharya,

&c

,

and

especially

modern
his

of

upon
the the
suit

plaintiff

based his
;

authority,
this

and
Court

consequently

lordship
of
are.

must
those

disallow

going on
faulty

or

that

being

not

congnisant

matters,
this

plaint

was

in

not

setting

forth

what those

doctrines, &c.
to

To
the the

test

he would assume the

first

of the

alternatives just

named
and
his

be

true.

He
by

would therefore read from authorised works on
enormous and horrid
plaint

Maharaj

doctrine

practice,

what are

canons of

faith

and morals, of

which

Lordship

was

assumed

to

be judicially
are
to

cognisant.

Mr. Bayley.
what the
jJ/r.

—We
—I

argue the
is,

demurrer

;

the
do.

facts

are

admitted.

As

to

Valabhacharya
Anstey.

sect

we have nothing
unless

to

say you have,
of those
sects

your assumption
doctrines.

is

wrong,

that

his

Lordsip

has judicial

cognisance

and
no

Chief Justice.
have
it.

—I

say

I

have

such

knowledga

nor

am

I

called

upon

to

Mr. Anstey
plaintiff,

said that the second alternative therefore
to so

was now the only one open

to

the

namely that the Court was confined

much

of his doctrine and discipline as
tor its insufficiency.

was
first

properly averred in his plaint
point in the demurrer was that

That averment was demurrable
it

The

was not stated or

specified in
'i'lie

the plaint

what the alleged
it

heterodox opinions or the sect of Valabhacharya were,

learned counsel contended that
for that

ought

to

have been so
every action

stated,

and the

plaint

was therefore bad, and the reason
to

was

that in
forth

the defendant has right

an
of in

answer,
the
plaint

to

have the alleged

libel set

fully,

and that the statement on the
to

face

must be such

as to enable

the
to

Court

give

judgment
vs.

as opinion on law,

support

of

which argument he referred
vs.

two

cases,
first

Solomon

Lawson, 8
omission

Q

B.

823 and Cartwright
the

Anderson, 5 B. and A.

In the
that
set
to

of these
in

the

of a letter in

count for
to

libel,

and

in

the

second
libel
is

of a
out,

word

a document

were held material
of inducement or

the plaint.
or

Again when
no

there the

must be by way
libel,

inuendo,

both,

sufficient averments,
it

explain

and

if

there

are
to

not

such

avern ents,
libel

then

is

libel.

For
the

want
plaint

of such
is

necessary

averments

connect the

with

the introductory

matter,

held

insufRcient,

Grey

vs.

To

call

a person
cited.]

a " damned

fool,"

Cooper 9 L. J. 9 Exchequer, and Robinson vs. Clarke. and a clergyman a " dunce," were not held libel
as a

[cases
forth

It

has been well settled

duty incumbent on the non-conformists
to enable

to

set

the doctrines

and

practices
libel,

of their body

the

Court

to

judge of inuendoes
casft

connecting
it

them with

Ilartley vs. Ilerrick,
positive

8 Ttrm

Reports.
plaintiff

In the present

should have been

shown by

averment that the

wjw a lawful

priest.

9
for

he sued as

priest,
liable,

and that

his
to

sect

was a

sect

capable of being

protected

at

law
it

and that he was

and how,
to

be damaged
of a Catholic
ot

by the slander.
j)riest

In

another

case

has been held not a

libel

publish

that he

imposed a degrading
to.

penance upon a man, in the absence
the censure
of

the

averment that such would expose him
pervaded
our
law,

his

superiors.

The

same doctrine
from
to

and

Mr. Anstey
to

remembered the Lord
injunction
insufficient
for

Justice

Knight Bruce,
the

when Vice
pulpit,

Chancellor,

refusing

grant

ejecting

a clergyman
the
sect,

on

ground that the

affidavit

was

to

show that
hfe

which he belonged,
as

had

the

same view
world.

of the

decencies

of spiritual

and morals

the

rest

of

the

English
cannot
Statute

In Burn's

Ecclesiastical
in

Law, he found it a temporal court for mere
by
law.

clearly laid

down

that

a

man
the

be

proceeded against
offence

heresy,

except

where

made such

punishable

The
slander,

learned

counsel here pointed out the distinction between a written
in

and an unwritten

and said that
it

order

to

constitute a

libel of

an imputation
it

on your conduct in profession,
that
to

must

be

such an imputation as to make

probable

you would be injured

in

your circumstances.

Suppose that the

plaintiff

had professed
he

be a priest

of the goddess

Bhowanee,

but not being recognised as an authority,
his
illegal

deserves

no protection of law,
libel.

and no amount of imputation on
vs.

profession could

be construed into
entertain the

In Morrison
libel

Langdori,

2 Fuller 724,
being called

the

Court refused to

action for

brought by a jobber

for

a " lame duck."

In

other cases

it

has

been
to

laid

down

that

where the imputation was cast upon one appearing
he could not recover. The
It

on the face of the count

be unworthy

of the protection of law, in libel

learned counsel then went on to remark upon the law of libel as regards an alien.
at

had been

one

time

held

that
;

an
but
to

alien

cannot sue on ground that he had no local allegiance, and
it

was a resident abroad
that he has

now

has been held that he

can but that he ought to show
cases, said

some ground
to

invoke the protection of law.
case
in one of

These

Mr. Anstey, would
because
in
it

apply

strongly

the

present

H. M.'s Chartered

Courts,

has
case

been so decided by the highest authority,
of
for

viz.,

Lord Brougham's judgment
and
law

the

Mayor of Lyons
a period of 201
this

vs.

The E.

I.

Co.

We

have possessed India, and especially Bombay,
free
gift,

years

by right of conquest and
ever

during that period

no action of
that

sort

has
to

come before the Court, which furnishes a cogent argument
bringing
to

no

law

existed

warrant the

of

it,

and

this

of

defamation

of

a

spiritual

man was
the

never communicated
that the

the

Natives

by the Crown.
&c.,

Mr. Anstey now
insensible

came
6
vol.

to

objection

words " improper

conduct,"

were

and

ambiguous,

which therefore constituted a good ground of demurrer. In Evans vs. Hutton, Jurist 1052, the words " Her Majesty's Government" were held ambiguous,

&c.

Who

was

to

define

the

words

?

the

plaintiff

talked

of

a

custom and usage,

but

he did not define whose

custom or usage,
for

what was

improper,
sects

what

was

heterodox,

and according
the
other.

to

what

doctrine,

there

were a thousand

of Hindus,

each

hating

A
is

define

what
(or

Reverend friend (Dr. Wilson) had very properly asked, how can we " heterodoxy," that is " the other opinion," until we know what " the

opinion"

" doxy")

is ?

How

could his
the
?

Lordship,
the

prevented
the

by

common law from
&c.,

enquiring

into

heresy as

respects

»Scotch,

Irish,

Protestant,

determine

the imputation " heterodox" in this case
plaint,
it

He

(Mr. Anstey) submitted that on the face of the
of discipline

seemed that

it

was a mere matter
merely

that there
to

was no malice on part
a public
duty.

of the

defendants,

who were
were not
counsel

actuated
the

by a motive
language
the

perform
In
vs.

Those

inuendoes
the

justified

by
at

of the of

libel.

support
,

of this
vs.

statement

learned

cited

length

cases

Ilem

Solomon


10
Laicson,
divided
Goldstein
into
vs.

Hurst,
the

and

Clement

vs.

Fisher.

The

only

libel

tangible
of

can be
sect of

two heads,

one imputing the
their

orthodoxy

of the doctrines

the

Maharajas,
these

and the other denouncing

immoral

practices.

The

plaintiff'

alleges

that

imputations have brought

him

into

contempt, but

he

does not

say in what manner.

These inuendoes have no meaning at all. and license should be accorded to a fair

Mr, Anstey urged that the utmost indulgence
criticism,

and that the alleged

libel

was a

fair

and a

liberal

criticism

of a

book written some years ago by one

Goculnathjee Maharaj,

Protestant
action at

and of a commentary written thereon by the plaintiff" himself. There was not a single be made the subject of an or a Eoman Catholic journal which would not
the instance
of

the
is

other for

imputing heresy

to

each other,

if

it

be

allowed

that

the

so-called heresy

a

libel.

The
for

alleged libel

was a legitimate denunciation of
of protecting

a

faith

not partaken of by the

writer

the

purpose

the

innocent

from

being led into
against
until

a path of immorality and wickedness.

Every Protestant writes a polemic
Protestant,

the

Catholic,

and every Catholic against

the

and they

will

do

so

end of time, and yet neither of them shall be lawfully chargeable with libel. That book of Judanathjee called the " Propagator" ought to have been mentioned in the
the
plaint.

When
to

preceptors
criticism,

of religion

neglect their

duty they become
into

unfit

for

their

post,

and hable

which could not be

construed

a

libel.

If these
offence

inuendoes
said,

be construed as libel, then St. " Come ye out of her, &c."
insisted

John must be held

liable for

that

when he
the

There was one ground of demurrer
article

which Mr.
in

Anstey was

upon,

which was that the translation of the
official

contained

plaint

improper,

and not an

translation.
to

In conclusion Mr. Anstey urged that the Court
interfere

ought not,

on ground of pubUc policy,

in

religious

matters of the Hindus,

and submitted that the demurrer ought

to

be

allowed.

The
Sir

following

is

the extract
in

of the

case of Attorney

General

vs.

Wilkinson, before

Knight Bruce,

reported

the

London

Times of the

18th March

1844

:

{Froyn the " Times" of the 18th March 1844.)

Attorney General
"
of the
affairs
il/>-.

vs.

Wilkinson.
an Injunction
to

SimpJdnson, and Mr.
of Wilkinson,

Rolt

moved
to

for

restrain

three persons

names
of the

Monk, and McPhall, from
belonging
Baptists,

interfering or

meddhng with
Dissenters,
of

the

Meeting House
or

the

Society
in

of Protestant

called

the

Particular,

Calvanistic

at

Huncoat,

the

county

Lancaster,

and

from acting as

Trustees
regulated,

under the Indentures of Trust,

under which the meeting-house

was held and
of the

and

to

restrain

McPhail

in particular, from officiating as minister

same meeting-house.
bill
;

" The information and

were

filed

at

the

relation

of

George Lawson,

one of three surviving trustees


to

(of
acts

whom

the

two defendants,

Wilkinson and

who was Monk,
pur-

were the others),
particularly
poses,

alleging various

of misconduct

on the part of the three defendants,
a
debating room
of
for

in

making use of the meeting-house
adherents
conversing
to

as

political

allowing their
serivice,

express

their

opinions

the

preacher,

by applause,

during the
•particularly

loudly,

and even
that

smoking,

during the preached
held

same time, and,
Chartist
doctrines,

(with

regard

McPhail)

he

had of

late

and had denied
namely,
the

one

of the of

most material

religious
for
sin.

doctrines

by the congregation,

eternity

future

punishment


11
" Mr.
Roll

read

several affidavits,

in

which

it

was sworn, that McPhail,
present,

had on one

occasion, called on such
to hold

members
to

of the congregation

as were of Chartist opinions,
;

up

their hands, for the

excommunication of such members, as were not Chartists
deponents
in
that

that

he

had
;

admitted
that

the

he did

not

believe
in
of

in

eternal

future

punishment
while
hats

McPhail
in

had been

the

meeting-house,

the

pulpit,

smoking,

there
or

were,

the

body of the building, large numbers
pipes,
;

colliers,

wearing their

caps,

and smoking short black
to

and

all

this

on

a

Suuday,

when Divine
extracts,

service

ought

have

been

performed

and that

McPhail

had read

(and

commented on them,) from the Morning Star, and from Eichardson's Black Book, during his sermons, and advocated therein Chartist doctrines.
" His Honor observed the deed of trust required that the minister of the
house
should
believe
this.

meetingfor

in

the
said

doctrine

of eternal
see,

punishment

in

a future

state

sin

committed in
proceeding,
or manager,

He
the

he

did not
did
the
to

as

matters stood,

and on an interlocutory
the

and

as

information

not
order
the

pray anything in
as
to

nature

of a

receiver

that

he could make
what,
or

"Wilkinson
doctrines
or

and
and
a

Monk.
habits
of

He

had no
sect,

means
pulpit

of judging,
to

according
scandal,
so.

peculiar

their

amounted
or

indecency

whether smoking,

reading

newspaper,

in

the

meeting-house was

What might
now

be indecent, or scandalous in the Catholic

Church,
said,

might be viewed in a very
all

different light,

by many
question.

sects

;

and

this

His Honor
doctrine,

with

respect

to

the

congregation

in

On

the

point of

as
do,

regarded

McPhail,

the

case

seemed

tolerably

clear

;

without

saying
it

what he might
not

on another application,

and an amended record, he thought,
to

would

be

safe,

under present circumstances,

act

against

the

two gentlemen,
case,

Wilkinson and
looking
point
at of

Monk.
whole

His Honor was not
evidence,
it

satisfied

that
to

there

was a

in

which,

the

would be right

act

against

McPhail,

except

on

the

doctrine.

" Mr. Russell, having addressed the Court on that
did not believe
in

point, asserted that, if

Mr. McPhail
.

the doctrine of eternal future punishment, he had forsworn himself.
it is

.

.

He
for
of

swore, " that
all

not

true

that

he

does

not

believe,"

and that was
under,
.

equivalent,

purposes,
to

(and particularly when uttered
his

by a man,
so

in

fact,

a charge

perjury,)

saying
said,

"

he does believe "
he
expressed
of
to

and

so

.

.

" His Honor
religious

that

neither

approbation

nor disapprobation,
side.

in

a

or

moral point of view,
affidavit,

what had been said on either
the
trustees,

The
was,

case

on

the

bill,

answer and
to

as

was

not,

with

sufficient

plainness,

established

warrant the
to

Court in

making an
were an
of the

order

as

to

them.

It

however,
doctrines,

otherwise

as

the

minister.

If there

officiating
it

minister,

holding

not

in

conformity
of trust.
. .

with the provisions

deed,

would

be

a plain
charges,

and manifest
coming
felt

breach

Comparing the general with the
the
point

particular

from
to

such a quarter as they did.

His Honor, upon the evidence before
on

him,
the
felt,

bound

come
as the

to

the

conclusion,

that,

he had

last

adverted

to,

minister
that, so

did
far

not hold

the

doctrine

that the

deed of trust

required.
to

His
the

Honor

minister

was concerned,

he was bound

grant

injunction."

12

Second Bay, Thnrsday, ^ih

Jul//

1861.

Mr.
case

Baijieij,

with

whom was
plaintiff,

Mr.

Scoble,

stated

that

he

appeared
surprise
his

to
at

argue the
the
friend,

on

behalf of the
of
irrelevant
in

and

that

he
to

was
the

taken

by
by

great

quantity

argument
to

addressed

Court
gave

learned

Mr.

Anstey,

and

answer
a

a

sentence to

which he

utterance,

he

would

merely

say that as this was
the
rule

demurrer not on any matters of substance, but purely of form,

has been violated,

and the Court could not
vogue
Couusel would

allow
for

any

of those eleven
in

points

without overturning the rule which has been in
here for
his

centuries

England
to

and

many

years.

The

learned

address a
to

few observations
general
is

shew
and and

learned
cases

friend

had no locus standi and no

right

go into

demurrer
to
it,

the

cited thereon.

Where a
referred
to

party

files

a special demurrer he
to

bound

therefore

could

not,

and has no right whatever

argue

poinsts

on

general demurrer.

As

to

this

point

he

what
in

is

invariably
it

relied

on

by lawyers,
special

—Comyn's
cases
cited

Digest and
party

Stephen's
all

Pleading,

which
to

is

laid

down

that in
specified.

demurrer a

waives

points,

and adheres
title

the particular points

The

by
of

his

learned

friend

under the

of

inuendo were not applicable here by the laws
frivolous.

pleading,

and every point taken by him in that respect was
Procedure Act,
restored
vvhich

The EngUsh
superfluous

Common Law
here,

was passed in 1852, and had not been introduced
of old

merely

the

simpHcity

pleadings,

brushed

away
refer

the

growth of technicalities and abolished special demurrers.
of the
clause
of

Charters

by which the modes the Supreme Courts in

of procedure

in

He would Common Law
that

to the

language
in

are

pointed

the
in

India,

and

from

he

would

be

justified

saying that

special

demurrers are not allowed.

Chief Justice.

—Mr.

Bayley,

you

need
to

not

trouble
special

yourself

about that.
but
the

It

has

been the practice here
discountenances
for I

for

a long time

take
It
will

demurrers,

Court

them by not allowing
going to

costs.

be useless your

arguing

the point,

am

not

change that rule of the
still

Court.
the

Mr. Bayley, however, would
incorporated
in

say

that

English

technical
vs.

points

are

not

here

by the Charter.
Perry's
ot

In the case of the
Cases,
p.

Queen

Alloo Paroo, reported
Justice
to

Sir

Erskine

Oriental

551,

the
to

Chief

decided

that

the technicalities
point
to

English law

and pleading are not
merely what
the

be applied
here was,

India

;

and the
would

be decided here was be
decided in
the

not

law

but
of

what
course,

ultimately
that

Privy Council.
for

Mr.

Bayley 's

contention,
as

was
the

the

plaint
here,

was
the
of in

sufficient,

there

was no such
called

thing

a

declaration

in

procedure

and the learned counsel
definition

the

attention

of the

Court

to

what was

a plaint
Lexicon,
analogous
special

(reading

of

" Plaint,"

from

Comyn's Digest, and Wharton's
at

Law

Edition
to

1860).

The mode
exist.

of procedure

common law
was
it

adopted here was

that

the English

County Courts, but in the

latter the technical

system of

demurrers does not
the cause

The matter
the points

to

be
to

discussed
assert

whether the plaint

contained
learned

of action,
tied

and
to

he ventured

that

was

sufficient.

His

friend

was

down

mentioned in the special demurrer, and he
plaint
in

could not therefore

digress

from them,
a point
If

and attack the

substance.

His arguwere

ment had branched
not contrary
tied
to

out into
policy.

whether certain parts of the plaint were or

public

a

man demurs
Mr.

specially,

be

waives

all

points

and

is

down

to

the

special

ones,

and

Bayley

had

shown

by

authorities

that

his

13
learned
friend

had no

rlglit

to
vs.

argue general
Reilb/,

points,

they

not

having

been

set

down
opinion

on the margin.
that
vs.

In Parker

3 M.

&

W., the

Court

expressed an

a party could not go beyond the points mentioned in the margin,
Anderson,
1

and

in

Arbowin
state

Q. B. Reports,
be

it

was decided that the
side,

paper

books

must

the

points intended to

made on each
done
to

and that counsel
case.

could not

go out of
these

them.
the not

That

had

not

been
not

so

in

this

Therefore

on

both

grounds,

defendant was

entitled

go

into

the

question

of public policy,

and

he

could

be heard.
laid

This Court cannot,
in

nor can any Court travel

one

inch

beyond what has been
the

down

the

demurrer book.
admitted

Turning
all

to

another
of

part of
plaint,

argument,
learned

he

(Mr.

Bayley)

said

that having

the

facts

the

his

friend could

not argue that

the translation of the article was incorrect.

Cliipf Justice.
original
to

—But
is

suppose

there

is

a repugnancy
at that f

between the translation and the

document, how

the Court to
translation.
if

come
of

One

of the rules of the Court

is

recognise only the

official

Suppose the original Guzeratee
the

document
is

differs
is

from the translation
that
difference,

of

it,

and

one

grounds of the
such
set

demurrer

that

there

then the defendant cannot admit
said
it

translation.

Mr. Bayley
document,
vs.

was

not

necessary
set

to

out

the
vs.

translation

or

copy of a
(Craft

although the original
Wi7is.

must be

out

{Zenobio

Aktell

6 T.
official

R.),

Boyd, 1
to

Saunders.)
friend

The
was a
a

rule

of
;

this

Court as regards

translations

alluded
shall

by

his learned

fallacy

as the rule

only said that
the

no document

be given in

evidence
as

without
the

translation
in

signed by
plaint

Chief Translator,
signed

which

had been
Flynn,
the

done here,
Chief

translation

the

was
the

made and
was

by Mr.
being

Translator,

and

the

language

of

plaint

"

which

correctly translated,"

and the demurrer admitted

that.

Chief Justice.

—That

may
to

be good law in

England,

but

it

would not apply here,
that

where the practice has been
be
read in Court,

have documents translated.
its

Surely

document

must

which cannot be done without
that
it

being

translated.

Mr. Bayley observed
at

was not open
;

to his learned friend to take

that objection
point,

that

stage,

it

was

quite

premature
at

he

now

sought

to

traverse
of

the

and
in

therefore

he could not
did not justify

demur
his

the

same time.
friend
to

The

rule

pleadings
at

in

force

Bombay
The
for,

learned
the

traverse

and demur
to

the

same
action
plaint,

time.

learned
viz.,

counsel next
it

called
libel.

attention

of the Court

what
of
sanctity

the
the
in

was
the

that

was

for

The demurrer
the
plaintiff

admitted the

whole

introductory

averments respecting

and the

peculiar

which as a
that

Maharaj he was held by Brahmins and others,
publication

the

publication

of the

libel,

the

was a
learned
it

false,

scandalous,

defamatory and infamous
argued that
it

libel,

the

special

damage,

&c.

His

friend,

however,

was
eleven

not

a

libel,

but Mr.
Libel
in

Bayley

contended that

was,

to

determine
p.

which he read the

definition

of

Wrongs
objection,

and Remedies
that
for

by
did

Addison,
not

576.

One

of

the

points

of the

demurrer was

the

plaint

impute any
lie,

specific

offence,
is

but

that

was a
for

frivolous

an action of

libel

can

and the
on
the

libeller

punishable
the
it

slandering
that
the

another
libel

m
the

his protession.

After
it
it,

admitting

face

of
&c.,

demurrer

was
he

published,

and that
rebut
to

was

false,

scandalous
it

was

idle

and

frivolous

for

defendant to

and say that

contained

no

offence.

Mr.

Bayley then
the

said

had

no desire
if

shrink

from answering the objections raised on
it

ground of public

policy,

the

Court deemed

was necessary

for

him

to

do

so.

14
Chief Justice.
plaint
is

—I

have

simply
I

the
not

plaint

in

libel

and

the

demurrer

that

the

informally
in
this

treated.

do

know how

the

question

of public

policy

comes

before

me

demurrer.

3fr.

Bayley.

—I

understand your
policy.

Lordship does

not

ask

me

to

answer the points

raised

on ground

of public

Cliief Justice.

— So
to

far

as

the

grounds
but

of special

demurrer embrace those

points,

I

am bound
of public

to

give consideration to them,
in

I

am

not

bound

to

entertain

the

question

policy

a separate
hear
it.

form.

If Mr.

Anstey had shewn any authority 1 would

have been bound

Mr. Baijley
answer
of
tlie

then

being
that

relieved

of

so

much argument,
at

proceeded

to

remark

in

to

an

ojection,

however

obscene

and disagreeable might be the character
the
trial,

evidence
the

which would be brought
hearing
the

forward

there
case

was
of

nothing ta

prevent
vs.

Court from

action.

He

referred to

the

Sudasundseii

hoknath Mulh/, Morton's Cases, decided
of

in the

Supreme Court

at Calcutta,

which was
that

an action
action

crim.

con.
;

between two

Hindoo
of

parties,
vs.

and the Court

held
Vol.

the

was

sustainable

and in the case
twenty-two

Queen

Dr. l^ewman,
brought

1

Dearsly's

Crown
Dr.
the

Cases,
;

there

were

charges

of libel

against

Dr.
libel

AchilH by

Newman

one of the pleas was justification of every fact stated in the
case

and though
the

circumstances of the
information

were of a most indecent character,
brought
?

it

did not prevent

criminal

from
libel

being
here

to

trial,

and the
it

defendant
the

was

fined

£100.
his

Now

what

was the
Looking

The

chief

part of

charged
wives

plaintiff

and

brother
devotees.

Maharajas with being in the habit of
at

defiling

the

and daughters of their
which
will

the

improper character
case
is

of

the

evidence

come

out,

said

Mr. Bayley,

Dr.

Newman's
first

a precedent that

such obscene cases

can be
said,
it

heard.

Keferring to the
to

ground of objection in the demurrer, Mr. Bayley
this,

was unnecessary
was

state

more than
of the
it

that

the

plaintiff

has a cause
set

of action.

It

said that the doctrines

Hindu
is

Keligion should
to set out

have been

out.
is.

In actions

professedly grounded on custom

not usual

what the custom

(Wentworth
Policies

on Pleading, Edition of 1797,
derive out
it

1

Vol., p.

230).

Bill

of

Exchange and Marine
to

their

origin

from the custom of merchants,
in

and no custom used ever
custom of

be

set

in

declarations

such actions.
to

In an action founded upon a
set

bankers,

has

been held not necessary

out the custom.

Bellamy m. Marjoribanks,

6 Exc.
could

Supposing we were setting out a
that be done ?
to state

libel

by

setting out
to

the doctrines of Christianity,

how
is

No
;

two persons can agree as

what those

doctrines

are

;

it

impossible

them
in

different
difficulty

who is say what the doctrines of Christian Rome, Geneva, England and Scotland. With
a

religion

are

?

They
religion
out,

are the

the

Hindoo
to

increases
to

hundredfold.

Supposing that the doctrines
is

ought
is

be set

how
an

was that
than
the

be

done with a religion which
Eeligion,

so mysterious,

which
;

older

by

centuries

Christian

and

has

so

many

ramifications

and

how
set

could

unfortunate barrister, whether

an old practitioner here or a new

arrival,

out what the

Hindu
for

religion

is.

that

purpose.

None but Brahmins study it, and some thirty years are required The learned counsel would show that, according to the strict rules
plaint.

it was not necessary to set out such matters in the from Stephens on Pleadim/ and passages from Comyn's Digest,

of law,

He

cited
it

cases
is

shewing that
the

not

necessary

to

state

what
libel

the

law presumes.

Irrespective

of

this,

learned

counsel

contended

that the

can be understood without the setting out of the doctrines, inasmuch

15
as
it

charged the
friend to

phiiiitiff

with breaches of the moral law.

The numerous
desired
vs.

cases cited

by his
little

learned

impeach the plaint of introductory averments, gave the Court but
not support
other
vs.

assistance,

and did

the

argument

to

the

extent.

founded upon by the

side

upon

the case of Solomon
in

The arguments Wright, are cut away
afterwards,
class,
libel.
if

by the case
wherein
point
sent
to
it

of"

Lofann

Malcolmson,

the

House

of Lords two years
to

is

decided

that

though defamatory
that

matter

apply

a
for

if

the

inuendo

a particular person,
the
libel

person

can bring an
to

action

In the prethe plaintiff

case

unquestionably points
that

the

class

of

Maharajas, and
it

satisfactorily

shews

he

was
of

one

of

them,

and

that

applied
cited

to

him,

he

can

bring
are

an

action.

The

case

Goldstein
or

vs.

Fox and other
apply
locus

cases
to

by Mr. Anstey,
libel.

those

of oral

defamation
plaintiff

slander,
his
sect

and did not
have no
to

a case of

The
not

argument that the
entitled
to

and
law,

standi,
to

and
a

that

they

are

the

protection

at
this

seemed

Mr. Bayley

be

strange

conception of

the

law administered in

country.
for

Chief Justice.
there

—The
then

3 and 4 William IV. puts that
rights.

to

rest,

there

is

a clause

which bestows upon the people here equal
3fr.
Bajjleij

went

on

to

argue
if

the

objection

that
to

the

plaintiff

must
aliens,

be
it

treated

as

an
he

alien.

He

said
his

that

any persons
friend

were

be

treated
land,

as

must
a

be

himself and

learned

as

foreigners

in

this

and

not

the

plaintiff,

descended from
subject

liege

of years.
cited

the
last,

the original inhabitants of India, who describes himself to be Her Majesty the Queen, and a resident in Bombay for a number To shew how Her Majesty's Courts lend their assistance to foreigners, he well known case of the Emperor of Austria vs. Louis Kossuth, decided in
of

May
the

reported

7 Jurist N.

S.

by V.

C.

Stuart
First

and

also

K.

vs.

Peltier,

where

libel

was
a

on
libel

Napoleon

Buonaparte

when
It

Consul,

and

E.

vs.

Lord George
the

Gordon
of

for

on the Queen of Spain.
the
their

had been
cloak

urged that the denunciation
of
religion,

the

conduct

of

Maharajas,
devotees,

who
was

under the
not

defiled
to
this,

wives

and

daughters

of

a
for

libel.
itself,

In

answer

he

(Mr.
too

Bayley)

need only say that the plaint spoke

and that the argument was
at
this

premature,
ings,

and not worthy the consideration of the Court
cited

stage

of the

proceed-

and he
with
of

the

case

of

Thorley

vs.

introductory

averments
practising

were similar to the present
hypocrisy

The Earl of Kerri/, 4 Taunton, where the case, and where the Earl had been
religion

charged
Courts

under the cloak of

and that was held by the

Queen's

Bench
was no

and

Common
in

Pleas
the

to

be

a

libel.

Again
from

it

had

been

argued that there
the
profession

allegation
;

plaint,

that

abstinence
it

women was
to

of the

Maharaj

but the learned counsel deemed
absurdity
less

unnecessary
of
it,

notice

such a monstrous

argument,

which bore

on
in

the

face

for
this,

abstinence

from

women
are
cold
free

is

no man's profession,
children

and much
arrive
at

a climate like
a

where the
than
that
in
it

passions

warm, where
and are
to

puberty at
at IG.
in

much
Again

earlier
it

age
said

the

countries,
to
;

by Hindu law of age
cast

was

was
ous

all

people

imputation upon
that

people

illegal

profession

and obnoxia legal

to

law

but
the

he

contended

the

plaintiff

has

been in
on

enjoyment of
the
face

profession,

and

argument
for

therefore

bears

contradiction

of

it.

There
have
for

was
been

no authority
in

Mr. Anstey

saying

that

during

the

period
this

the
sort

English

possession

of

Bombay
evidence

there
of

has

been
of

no

case

of

on
in

record,

Morley's

Digest bears

many

cases

actions

of libel

brought

the

Zilia

16
vSudder
plaintiff

Courts.

Even supposing
redress
for
is

that

there

are

no

precedents,

that

does

not

preclude

seeking

a

grievance

on the established principle of law,
AsJdet/
vs.

that

where
been
the
fact

there

is

a

wrong there

a remedy.
the

White
in

;

Embrey
this

vs.

Owen 7 Exe.
has
not
against

Another
granted
plaintiff,

argument
to

was

that
here,

law
(Mr.

of

defamation

spiritual

cases

the Natives
in
his

but

Bayley contended)
but in his

was a

libel

not

spiritual

capacity,

private character,
sect of

and the mere

of his being
disentitle

a Brahmin,
to

a Maharaj, or a member of the
at

Wallabcharya, did not

him

seek protection
safe
;

law.

If such

a doctrine were allowed,

no Brahmin

in

the

land

would be

he could

be

slandered
to

and

libelled

with impunity,

and

redress
of
as

denied to

him

because

he happened
of the

be

a

spiritual

person.

The

Institutes

Menu and
to

other

sacred

books

Hindus shew
learned
counsel
rejected

that

a Brahmin was

considered

a powerful Divinity.
the

Another objection was that the words " improper conduct" are
;

unknown
libel
is

English law
without

but

the
it

denied
(cited

that
several

to

be

so,

for

if

a

libellous

an inuendo,

can be
to

authorities).

Taking the whole
of

article
all

from beginning
the
It

end
to

it

'was

a
to

libel

upon the character
the

the

plaintiff,

and

that

Court

had

do,

was

determine whether

special

points
to

were
the

allowable.

had been

complained

that
it

no

specific

offence
to

was
lay a

attributed
specific

defendants,

but Mr.

Bayley urged that
alluded to
to

was not necessary
learned

charge.
discipline

The
of

case

of the
sect,

Quakers,

by

his

friend with

regard

to

the

the

was not
malice,
It

applicable

this.

The

other

complaint

was
as
onlyto

that

there
is

was no

allegation
libel.

of

but he answered that that was unnecessary
latter part

malice

implied
as
so.

in the

was said that the
say
that
to

of the article

was

tangible

libel,

but

he

would

the
state

whole

of

the

article

from

beginning

end was
libel.

It

was not
article
if

necessary
in in

how
and
it

the

plaintiff

was

disgraced
to

by the
out the
to
the-

This

was an
article,

a
this

newspaper,
case
it

was only necessary was complete
correct,

set

whole of the
translation

as

the

article

in

itself.

As

being

not

official,

he said

was quite
the

and bore
the

the

signature
counsel

of

the head

translator

of the

Court.

As

to

clerical

errors,

learned

was-

not
there

satisfied

that

there

were

any
errors

such

errors

in

the

copy of the

plaint,

although:

might

be some

slight

which inevitably occur in copies written by native
English language,

clerks

imperfectly acquainted with
issued

the

and not a single

certified

copy

that
free

from the

offices

of the Master

and Prothonotary that he had seen, had been

from them.

cross to
frivolous,

If the argument were allowed, the omission of a dot to an"i"or a On the whole he submitffed that the demurrer was a single " t " would be fatal.

and should be dismissed with
Anste'j, in

costs.

Mr.
objection
to

reply,

said

he bowed
public

to

the

decision

of his Lordship overruling his

raised on the

ground of
demurrer.

policy,

and therefore

confined his

observations

the

points of special

Before

entering

upon

the
to

arguments of his learned

friend,

he read the clause of the
in
principle,

3

and 4 William IV.,
inducement

show that

his Lordship

was
say
his

right

though the modus operandi was
without a

different.

He
is

then

proceeded

to

on authority,

that

good

the

inuendo
in

nothing,

and

that

arguments had turned not upon the formal passages
passages.

the

plaint,

but upon

material

Erom
of

the

plaint

it

did

not'

appear in what

way

the

defendants
It

were guilty
to

of the

alleged offence,

and which of the two defendants, on

record.

was material

know which
the
other

them committed the alleged grievance, because one was a Parsee and a Hindu, and the former might claim more freedom of criticism than the

17
latter

would,

and

sice -versa.
specifically

It

was
action

not

stated

in

what
his

their

offence

consisted,

and
the

here was nothing
case of a

charged.

He

illustrated

argument
Christian,

by the
in

suppositious

Christian
it

bringing
as

an

against

another

wliich

case

Court would take

matters
law,

affecting

the
of

Christian

religion.
left

The morality
people
of the

of the
it

West
is

is

known

to

the

while

that

the

East

is

very vague,
of

and therefore

necessary that
specified.

the

imputations

on the

moral

character
specification
difficulty

the

latter

must be
there

If the
to

doctrine that

no such

was required was adopted,
in

would be no end
involved,
in
for

the
the

inconvenience
eyes
of the

and

which the Court would
has

be

thereby

in

Maharaj the defendants might be guilty of
in

blasphemy
that
it
is

taking

his

godly
to

name

in

vain

such

a

manner.

It

been urged

not necessary sue
set

allege

a custom in

pleading,

but Mr. Anstey contended that
alleged,

where

parties

on a case involving custom,
out
to

that

custom must be
to

though
is

it

might not be
virture

at

length.

The
of his

plaintiff
sect.

ought

have stated that chastity
that
of a
it

a

according
for

the

tenets
to

The
doctrine

argument
in

would be

difficult

and
or
to

not safe

a

pleader

set

out

the
it,

case

Christian

clergyman,

ground that no Christians agree on
the
case

applied,

said
or

Mr. Anstey,
rather

with reversed force
religions,
is it

of

Hindus,
there

where
be

from their

religion,

many

was

necessary
tribunal
discipline

that
to

should

averments of the
a self-styled
the

doctrine.

The Court

not the proper
to

determine a suit where
sect.

god

or

Maharaj seeks

enforce the

of his
to

He

never
of the

denied

difference

between a written and an oral
he said was that both written

slander

as

the

liability

slanderer,
this

but
it

what

and unwritten defamation agree in
a

if

has

been uttered or published concerning
for

man

in

his

profession,

then

it

becomes necessary

him by

clear

averment

to connect

that

slander

not

only

with the special damages,
to

but

with

the conduct
in

of his profession.
his

The Maharaj had chosen
he ought
that
to

declare

that

he had been

slandered

profession, but

have shewn the connection
liable to

between the imputation and the profession, and
superiors.

he was
to

a censure from
con.

his

Suppose the Court was
a
sect

sitting

in

Madras

try

an action of crim.

among
to
to

the Nairs,

on the
wife
in

Malabar Coast,

where the custom prevails of two
it

or

three

brothers

having

one

common, would
parties

not be

necessary

for

the

Court then
Parliament,

enquire
respect

what

religion

the

belonged
not

to,

and, under

an Act of

their

usages.

This

Court could

entertain an action for crim. con.
offence
is

where the

parties are

Hindus, because by the Hindu law the

made

subject to a criminal jurisdiction.
side,
is

The very book
Zilla

Morley's Digest


to

alluded to
entertain
that

on the other
questions

full

of cases

in

which the

Courts

have refused
It

of caste

and those partaking of a

spiritual

character.

was urged
in

the

malice
libel
this.

must be presumed, but he (Mr. Anstey)
warrant the Court in

said

there

was nothing

the

alleged
to

to

presuming malice.
since

The
years

alleged hbel

amounted merely

A

book

has

been

published
the

many

promulgating
the

a doctrine,

plaintiff

followed

suit,

by one Goculnathjee Maharaj and, in commenting on the doctrine,
bounds
of

defendants
these
of the
in

used terms of
books,
alleged

reproach

within

the

legitimate

criticism.

In
conof

reviewing
struction

the

defendants

denounced their
said

doctrines,

that
libel.

is

the

true

libel,
is

and Mr. Anstey

this

was no
of a

The whole
point
into

the

matter

the

hbel

speculative,
to

with the
inuendo.

exception
It

tangible

which
parts,

might be observed from
one
offensive

looking

the

may
sect,

be

divided

two

impugning the orthodoxy of the doctrines of the
and immoral
practices,

and the other impugning
contended that
it

their
fair

and the

learned

counsel

was a

and legitimate

criticism of the sect.

The

criticism referred to

a

historical fact, viz., the history

18
of the

Hindu

religion
of

from the

1

6th century, and to the philosophy of the doctrines of a sect, and

on the authority
learned
that
his
fully

opinions

expressed

by Lord EUinborough and Lord Campbell, the
could

counsel
case
relied

maintained that such criticism
in

not

be held a

libel.

He

believed

was not
on
the

the

least

affected

by the arguments of
demurrer.

his learned friend,

and

he

eleven

grounds of the

Thursdai/,

\Wi July 1861.
his
to

The Chief Justice
was open
besides
to

this

day delivered
Statute

judgment
raise

to

the following

effect

:

-It

the

defendant under the

any question of general demurrer
he
the
is

those specified,
as

but by the

Court's

rule

No.

90
to

confined to

such
of

special

grounds

are

stated.

The defendant
it

was
matter

limited

eleven

grounds

special
to

demurrer exhibited by him, and

was with these
per

alone

the Court

had now

deal.

By
to

the

rules

of

pleading

irrelevant

might be rejected
inutile

and cannot
vitiatur

be

made

ground of special demurrer.
all

The

principle

Utile

non

was applicable

those
as

grounds of demurrer.
to

Now
allegation

the

first

ground

of
is

the

special

demurrer,
the
doctrines

which

is

that

there

was no
his

that said

improper conduct
that
this

contrary to
plaint

of Vallabhacharya, &c.,

Lordship
clearly
to

portion

of the

containing
(Vol.
so
2.)

the

averment of character

was
is

he held mere
(Styles 11

surplusage

by Chitty
1.

from

whom

the

precedent

evidently taken

Precedent

M.S.),
to

the

words

"By
in

means whereof," &c.

were shewn

to

be not traversable according
lie

the authorities

in the

same book.
for

No
to

special

demurrer could therefore
the
first

on

this

ground,

and consequently
it

His Lordship's opinion
plaintiff

ground

failed.

His Lordship would not hold

necessary

make

the

averments which the special demurrer insisted he ought to have made, for what is meant by " heterodoxy" appears from the libel itself where that word occurs and where
it

also,

in

His Lordship's
that
certain

opinion,

sufficiently

indicates

what

it

relates

to.

It is clearly

stated

there
is

sects

are

heterodox by
is

the

Hindu

Shastras
that

or

sacred
alone

books,

and

it

admitted

that

plaintiff

one

of

that
special

sect.

On

ground

Hia

Lordship would not allow
dantly
clear

this

point

of the

demurrer.
to

by the

libel

which goes on very much

This was made abunidentify the " heterodoxy" with

" heresy."

The
conduct
principle.
libel

second

ground of the demurrer that there was no allegation
to

that

improper

was contrary

the

religion

of the
it

sect,

&c.,

must be overruled on the same
insisted

A

great the
itself

deal

was

said

and

was very much
alone.

on

that

this

was a

against
libel

Maharaj as a high
it

priest

Now
as

that

was a mistake.

Looking 3 B.

to

the

is

charged against the
sect

plaintiff,

a Maharaj, as a Brahmin and
case
of

»s

a member of the

said

of Vallabhacharya.

The

May

vs.

Brown,

19
&nd C.
the

138,

is

a 'direct
various

authority
it

to
is

shew
a
libel

that

plaintiff
to

in

characters,
this

against

when a him
plaintiff

libel

is

of

and concerning
so

individually,

that

it

appeared

the

Court,
his

was a

libel

against (Levsis

the
vs.

in

his

individual

capacitj'-,

segregated from

character

of priest.

Walter
plaintiff

3 B.

and C.
to

in

notes

to

May

vs.

Brown?)

If the

Court were to hold the
that
is

bound
do

make

such

an

averment as was here demanded,
conduct imputed to

would be
not

to

hold

him prima facie
to

guilty of the

him.
to

A
treat

Hindu
both
has

more bound
cognisance

so

than an European.
the

This Court
to

is

bound
This
are

upon an equality and
no
judicial

to

administer

same
of
allege

law
moral

every
if

one.

Court
such,

of
to

any

peculiarities

conduct
in
his

there

but must leave the defendant
of plea.

come

in
to

and

them
is

ovm

defence

by way

The

plaintiff is

not

bound

anticipate

what

merely matter of defence.

As
of the

to

the
to

third

cause

of the

demurrer the same rule applied which
this

his

Lordship
purpose

had applied

the

first

two.

Also

usage
is

was
not the

sufficiently

pleaded

for

the

inducement where the same
his

strictness

required as in the rest of the plaint.
fourth

For the same reasons
stated
to

Lordship

overruled
it

cause

of the demurrer

which

that

there

was no

allegation

that

was contrary
exculpate
specific
;

to the practice of the

Maharajas

enjoy

the

tender maidens,
the
plaintiff

wives,

and daughters of
to

their

devotees.

His Lordship did
imputations.
in this

not

think

that
fifth

was bound

himself from
offence

these

The
way.
in

ground,

which alleged that no

was charged, arose

There are two defendants named
singular

in the plaint

yet throughout, the word " defendant"

the

number was
in

used.

There was a rule no doubt that accuracy must be
vs.

observed,

and a case

point

(Walford

Anthony,
to

8 Bingh.) was adduced by Mr.
that

Anstey.

His Lordship was reluctantly obliged

allow

cause

of

demurrer

;

it

was,

however a small point.

As
applied

to the sixth cause of the to
it

demurrer, the observations his Lordship had already made,

and

it

must be
also

overruled.

by the
levelled

libel

and

so

the
acts

The " heterodox opinions" are sufficiently defined words " offences and improper conduct," because these are
charged
to

at

certain

specific

have been done by the
of

plaintiff.

The seventh

cause

which complained
as

certain

expressions

being

insensible
libel.

and

ambiguous, was also overruled,

the
the

expressions
several

clearly

appeared in the
alleging

The
other

eighth

cause

stated

that

inuendoes

that

the

plaint/ff

and

Maharajas are guilty of rascality and shameful conduct,
of their

and

defile

the

wives and
&c.,

daughters
are
not

devotees

and other Hindus
of the
libel,

by criminal intercourse
nor

with them,

warranted by the words

supported by

any
his

inducement
Lordship

or

introductory
forced
of

averment
the
that

to

which

the

inuendoes
of

refer.
libel

This cause,
itsel

said,

on

Court the consideration
the
the

what the

was.

His Lordship was
had
very
of
to

opinion

learned
libel

Counsel
opinions

(Mr.

Anstey)
facts.

for
if

the

defendants
looking

properly

divided

into

and

Now,
as
it

on

this

part
it

the libel the Court

found any

one of the inuendoes not supported by the Hbel,
allow
all

would

be

the

duty

of the

Court to

the

demurrer
argue

to

that.

His
to

Lordship had

atttentively
first

gone through them
of

and must say that
attempt
class
to

did

appear
historical

him
It

that

the

part

the

article

was

an

upon
at

facts

brought to
is

bear

upon the opinions of a particular

of people

the

present

day.

law-

20
ful

for

any person and
to

to

take

up

the

history
if

or

the historical

opinions

of

any

sect

or

class,

reason

upon
thus

them,

and

he
yet

fairly
if

and honestly
be

produces

opinions

not

in

unison

with

what others would form,

there

no malice he
libel

would not be

guilty

of libel.
this
sect,

Now

far

it

appeared to
the
so

his

Lordship that the
of
its

was

levelled

against
logic

its

opinions,
perfect,

—and
but

writings
there

members.
to

The

reasoning

might
the

not be
plaintiff.

far

was nothing
article)

shew personal

and mahce

against
that

(Reading
a
historical

a portion of the
point

His Lordship remarked that
but his

was arguing
say
the

in

of view,
coarse as

—a

comparison of the ancient Hindu

religion

with the new.
to
to

The words were
they

and vulgar,
the

Lordship was

not

prepared
alluding

that case

were

libellous
vs.

against
cited
sect

plaintiff.

His

Lordship after
counsel, said

of

Lefanu
for

Malcolmso7i
that

by the

plaintiff's

he

knew

of

no

authority

holding
of their
action

any one

of hundreds, thousands, or millions

of people accused

(because

members)
a

of subtlety, immorality, rascality,
for

immodesty,
rest of

&c., has a right to bring his
libel, his

on that ground as
of
diflterent

a

libel

on himself.
it

The

the

Lordship observed,
apostrophised,
last

was

character.
acts

In
to

the plaintiff was

singled

out and

and

was charged with
of the
article).

alleged
it

be committed by himself.
to

(Reading the
direct

portion

That,

appeared
it

his

Lordship,
the

was a
as

charge against the existing

body
to

of

Maharajas,

points

out

plaintiff

one of

them,

and
the

it

tells

him

come within
in

case

of
in

Tabail vs.

The two grounds charged here as hbellous Tepper before Lord Ellenborough, which was cited
desist.

argument.
after

Again

Carr
libel,

vs.

Mood

that

Chief Justice
said,

held

the

same
on

doctrine.

This

part

of the

however.

His Lordship
express
relates to

would come before the Court
further
as

on future occasion,

and

he

would therefore

no
long
to

opinion

it

now.

Then

there

was another inuendo which
to

"as

the

preceptors

of religion

&c." but the Maharajas are not stated in the inducement
Therefore
inuendo,
according
the
rules

be

" preceptors of religion."
to

of pleading,

the

plaintiff

had no right

sustain

this

and
to

this

cause

of the

demurrer.

His Lordship
it

said,

must

be allowed.

As

the

ninth ground of demurrer,
stated

had
the

been

abandoned
counsel

by
for

Mr.
the
.

Anstey,
plaintiff

and His Lordship merely

therefore

that

learned

was wrong
T. R.)
It

in
is

saying

that

in

England a
sense

translation is unnecessary (Zenobio vs. Axtill

6

a rule of

common

and of law.
if

As
must
^

to

the

tenth ground
to

of the

demurrer,

the clerical errors

were considerable, the

Court would not yield
occur
in
this

them.

But

they did not appear

considerable,

and as

some

country,

the point

taken must be overruled.

As

thought
plaintiff

it

the eleventh and last ground referring to omissions of books &c.. His Lordship must be overruled. The office of a special demurrer is to point out to the what amendment he should make in his pleading. Now this the defendant
to

had not done, but
necessary
to

his

Lordship did not think that
set

either

of

those

books

was

at

all

be further

forth.

The

special

demurrer was on the

fifth

and eight points allowed.

Mr. Bayley.

—As

we have
cannot

virtually

succeeded

we ought
is

to

have the
in

costs.

Chief Justice.—1
costs
to

allow

that.

There

no

authority

favour

of

giving

a plaintiff of a demurrer

allowed.

21
3f)\

Bayky

asked leave

to

amend
will

the plaint

on
to

the fifth

and eighth
on

points.

Chief Justice.
copy.

—The
to

plaintiff

have liberty

amend,

amending

defendant's

The Defendants

have a

fortnight to plead.

THE PLEAS SET FORTH BY THE DEFENDANTS.
The
nor
or
is

defendants,
of

either or

any

either

plaintiff

above in
&c.
for

by Samuel Lavvford Acland, their A.ttorney, say that they are not them guilty of the said supposed grievances above laid to their charge part thereof in manner and form as by the of the same or any that behalf alleged, and of this the defendants put themselves upon

the

Court,

And
said
plaint
religion

a second
to

plea

in

this

behalf the

defendants

say

that

the

persons
of the

in

the

alleged

be called Maharajas were not nor are the preceptors
plaintiff

Hindu

therein

mentioned in manner and form as by the
this

above in that behalf
&c. the said persons were
to

alleged

and of
for

the

defendants

put themselves upon the
behalf the

Court,
that

And
not nor are
called

a third plea in this
chiefs in

defendants say

the

or

heads

of the class
as

of

Hindus

in

the said plaint alleged

be

Brahmins
this

mannner and form

by the

plaintiff

above in
&c.
the

that

behalf alleged

and of

the

defendants put themselves
plea
in
this

upon the Court,
to
is

And
the

for

a fourth

behalf

the

said

plaint

defendants

say

that

a Hindu High Priest of high caste or a preceptor of the Hindu religion in manner and form as by the plaintiff above in that
plaintiff

hath

noc

always

been

nor

behalf alleged

and of
a
fifth

this

the
in

defendants
this
to

put themselves
defendants
sect

upon the Court,
say that the

&c.

And
sect

for

plea

behalf the

supposed religious
or the sect

by the said

plaint

alleged

be called

the

of Vallabacharya

of the

Maharajas, and of which sect the
is

plaintiff is

by the same

plaint alleged to be a

member
of

a

sect

of persons

holding
to

professing

and observing
of the

religious

opinions

and

practices

a very modern date
altogether

wit

of the
at

date

15th century
religious

of the Christian

Era, and

repugnant

to

and
in

variance

with

the

doctrines
plaint
this

and

practices of the

ancient

Hindu
of

religion

the

introductory
also

part

of the

said

mentioned,
the

and the
a

usage custom

and practice

therein

mentioned,
sect
this

without

that
as

plaintiff is

member
above in
Court,

an ancient Hindu
behalf
alleged

religious

in

manner and form
defendants

by him the

plaintiff

that

and of

the

put

themselves

upon the

&c.
for

And
alleged

a
as

sixth
is

plea

in

this

behalf
set

the
in

defendants
the

say that so

much

of the

libel

next

hereinafter

forth

Gujerati

language

and character

22
that
is

to

say

^

£[^A

>i^>il^

>ll^Rl^l

^\i{\^

^Idl'll

mhr{[ H^
was and

^i;^^l'^

being literally
tenor
tary,

and accurately translated
following

into

the

English

language

is

to

the

and

effect

that

is

to

say
of

" (Oh)

Maharaja's acting up

to that

commendestroy
this

defiling

the

wives

and daughters
that
of

your devotees desist from that

and

at

once
the

immorality
said

such as
libel

the

company

at

the

Rns festivar
the

without

that

alleged

being

duly

or correctly translated

by James Flynn,
English

Esquire,

the
or

sworn Chief Translator
is

of this
in

Honorable
said
plaint

Court,
alleged

into in

language

was

according

to

the

tenor

the

manner and form
&c.

as thereby

alleged,

and of
for

this

the

defendants
plea
to

put themselves
said
plaint

upon the Court,
to

And
causing to
that
is

a seventh
printed

the

as

the

printing
of

and publishing and
said

be

and

published

the

following
of

part

the

supposed

libel

to

say
are

[here

follows

a

great

portion
alleged

the

libel

in the Gujrati
to

language].

Which words
correctly

by the said
into

plaint

and and

surmised

be

therein

duly and

translated
to

the
follows

English

language,

to be according to the tenor following

that

is

say

[here

English

translation

of
of

the
the

above

portion

of

the

libel].

The defendants say
grievances of
there
called

that
.at sect

before

and at the
at

time
divers

committing the said supposed
places
in

was
the

Bombay and
of
in the said

other
also

India

a certain

sect

Hindus

Vallahacharr/a
plaint

and

called

Yaishnavas and in the said

supposed

libel,

and

also

and hereinbefore named and holding professing and morals opposed
to to

and

practising

certain opinions

as

to

religions

the ancient

religious

and moral laws of the Hindus, and more particularly
moral laws as prescribe
of to

such

of

the said religious and
their Gods,

the

Hindus, the observance of piety towards

and

chastity,

sobriety

and virtue towards
all

and amongst
and true
eternal

themselves
are

for

that,
to

whereas by

the

said

last

mentioned laws

good
are
or

Hindus

bound

believe

and

to

hold
is

that the

Gods and
ot

their

laws

and unchangeable and that

the

Godhead
and

not

capable

being procreated

begotten
to

by man,
be a

and that
or
to

it

is

a wicked

impious thing
a

for

a mere

man
for

to

pretend

God

be capable of begetting

God

or

to

practise

impostures

in

that behalf on

any

people,

and that

it

is

altogether

against religion

and morality

maidens

before marriage to have carnal intercourse with

any
yet

man,

or for wives to have

such

intercourse with
aforesaid,

any
said

man
sect

but their own husbands,
then
did
hold,
profess,

nevertheless before
practise,
is

and

at the

time

the

and

amongst other impious, wicked, and

anti-social opinions, the opinions following, that

and the naturally begotten and adopted sons of such leaders are the Incarnations of the Gods Brahma and Kristna and themselves Gods and are
to say

that the leaders of the said sect

and ought
sect with

to
all

be worshipped implicitly obeyed and served as Gods by the members of the said
the

minds,

bodies,

and properties
worship
implicit

of such sectaries,

and that the neglect of
is

any such
gravest
the
said

to

perform the

said

obedience
of
the

and

service,

a
in

sin

of

the

character
sect
to

and
love

that

it

is

the

duty

female

members
love

particular
lust

of

the

said

leaders

with

adulterine
service

and

sensual

and

perform the said worship,
to

implicit

obedience

and
the

with their bodies

by submitting

have carnal

intercourse
of

[with
so

any
to

of

said

leaders]

whensoever called upon or

required

by any

the

latter

do,

albeit

such
in

female

members

are or
or

may

be
in

unmarried maidens or wives of other
marriage
to

men and
the
said
to

no wise married

betrothed

the

said

leaders
said

;

and the defendants aver that before and at the time of
leaders
of the
said
sect

the committing

of the

grievances,

pretenend
aforesaid,

to

be

such

Incarnations

and Gods as aforesaid and

have such capacity

as

and

23
entitled
to

be

so

vrorshiped,

implicitly

obeyed,

and served

as

aforesaid,

and
on

permitted

or sanctioned
service,

the

performance in manner aforesaid
practising

of such worship
sectaries

implicit

obedience and
the

thereby
in

great

impostures

on their said
aver
that
leaders
of

and
at

Hindu
of

people

that

behalf.

And

the

defendants

before

and

the
sect

time

the

committing of the said
over the

supposed grievances the

of the

said

were dispersed
about

Presidency

of

Bombay and

other

parts

India

and were in number
Gossains,

70 in all and were called indiscriminately Gomais and also Maharajas and in fact were
libel

Gurus,
the
said

Achari/as,

Vandravun
one
of

Maharajas in the said supposed
the
plaintiff

and

plaint

and hereinbefore mentioned,

and
in

that

was

the

said

Maharajas,
as
of

and the defendants
authority

aver

that

and by

the

religious

books

of

and

received

certain book called

by and among the said sect and in particular in and by a " Vitha lesha Katna Yivema," and the commentary thereon, every such
as

leader

is

described

the

husband of many women
only
is

(to

wit

his devotees)

even although

himself
sport

may have no wife or with many women (which
the
plaint

one

wife

and as the

ocean
in

of

wanton

amorous
libel,

the

sea

of licentiousness

the

said
sole

supposed

and

in

hereinbefore

mentioned)
;

and

also

as

one whose
aver
the
that

aim

is

wanton
at

amorous sport with
then received by
character,

many women
said
sect

And

the

defendants

before

and

the

time of the committing of the
the

said

supposed grievances

said

religious books of

and

contained

many

passages of the like indecent and immoral

and whereby in
also

direct

terms
said

adultery

and

fornication

are

encouraged and comto gratify

mended, and
their

whereby the
this
life,

sectaries

were then taught and instructed
them, and especially at
the
life

passions
said

in

and they do

so

gratify

Ras
and

festival

in

the

supposed

libel

and

plaint

mentioned as
in

surest

way

of pleasing

the

Gods,

and procuring

eternal

happiness

a

future

and

other

false

heretical

and immoral opinions were then inculcated without any opposition from the and with
said
libel

said leaders
of the

their
to

connivance
wit
the
said

and acquiescence,

And

in

particular

in

and by one
in

books

commentary of the
respectively
called

said

Gokulnathjee

the
in

said

supposed

and

plaint,

and
to

hereinbefore
wit
to

mentioned

and and

also

and by another

of the

said
said
it

books

"

Sidkant

Rakasya'

also

in

and

by
of

another
the
said

of

the

books,

wit called " Kavi

Charitra," and in
the
sect
effect

and by others

books

is

mentioned

and

professed

to

that

among
said

the

principal

laws,

doctrines
is

and commandments of the said

of Valabhacharya of the

to

say

were the following, that
leaders

to

secure

the

firm
are

support
the

of

some one
principal

and

to

worship
soul

the

God

in^

him

incarnate

only

means
of the

of the

deliverance

of the

from the body and the salvation thereof, and the re-absorptlon
essence,

thereof into
sect
to

the

Divine
sense
sacred

and that
with

it

is

the duty
to

of every

member
and

said

forsake the
said

of shame

reference
of the

public

opinion
to

the

commandments
to

of the

books

and laws
to

Hindus and

be suppliants
to

some of such
he
tlie

leaders for salvation,

and

be

humble

before

him
his

and

believe

that
to

said

member

is

not

a

man, but a woman servant virtues and the greatness of
in
all

of such

leader,

and
to

praise always
his

his

—the
and and

said
to
to

leader's
faith

name,
to

and

obey

commands
his
all

put

his

acts

and words and
sectary

be ever
wife

associate

unto

service
is

consider

himself the
of his
said

said

and
to

his

and children and
enjoyment

that

his as the property

leader

and
to

offer

them and present every thing and even
leader
for

the said sectary's
for

wives

and children

the

said

his

and use and
before

the

trans-

formation
shall

thereof into

the
to

nature
use
or

of the

great

God Brahma

he the said sectary

himself presume

enjoy

the

same,

and that by acting otherwise the said

24
eectary
to

shall

and

will

become

guilty

of sin,

and incur the Divine punishments appointed and
at the
sect

the

same,
of the

And
said

the

defendants aver that before

time aforesaid in and by
aforesaid
to

others
called

books of and received

by the

said

as

wit

one book

" Chorasi Vaishnava-Ki-Barta" and also to wit another book called Rus Eus, and also to wit another book called " Chaturshloki Bhagvat," and to wit " another book called Pushti Parvha Maryada Tika," and to wit another book called " Svadharma Vardhak

circulated in

Annay Samshay chedak," (and which last mentioned book was and Bombay aforesaid by and under the authority of the
and
under
the

is

printed, published,

and

plaintiff himself,

and by

authority
of the

of

a certain society of
sect
to

the

said

sect

for

the

propagation
to

of the

doctrines

same

wit

a society then
the
plaintiff

and now
is

called

wit

the
also

Vaishnav
founder,

Dharma
to

Prasarak of which Society
also
it

was and
it

a

member and
stated,

and president,) and
the
effect

in
is

and by other books
the
to

was
doth

professed,

and
the

maintained
said leaders

that

creed

of the

said

sect

that

God
in
like

of

whom

so

pretend

as

aforesaid

be the
or

Incarnations

abide

the

houses of

and in union with the members thereof by
excessive
to
affection

with adulterine love

unto that in the

whereof an adulteresss makes abandonment of body, mind, and wealth,

her adulterer.
saves

And

that
that

when God
displeasure

is

displeased

with any sectary his
that

or

her

said
is

leader

him from
the said

of

God

but

when
the

the

said

leader

displeased
leader,

with

sectary

none can save him or her from that displeasure of the
said

and that
her
to

therefore

the

sectary
please

ought
tlie

to

serve

said

leader
also

with

his

or

body

and

wealth

and

leader leader
to

aforesaid,

and
only

ought
that
as

necessarily

worship in

an equal manner the said
such
that

and
are

God

and
God,

he or she can only by worshipping reward
excellent
for

leader the

go
said

the

heaven

appointed

a
the
or

the

worship

of

God and
that

leaders
or

manifestly

Being himself.

And
to

the

punishment of him
or
distinct

her
shall

who
be

holds
that
of of

his

her leader and

God

himself

be
a

different

beings

being
or

born again in the condition
her

of

bird
front

called

Sichana,
his

and the punishment
be

him

who

sits

with legs folded in
of a

before

or

her leader shall

that
or

of being

born again in the condition
displays his or her

serpent,
his

and

the

punishment of

him
ass,

her

who
again
the

learning

before

or

her leader shall be that of being
condition
of

thrice

born

dumb and

thrice

again

born

in

the

a
his

dog
or

or

and that
shall

punishment of him or her who displays
of being
or

activity

before

her

leader

be that

born again in the condition
the
soles
for

of or

a bird

called
to

Jarakh and the punishment of him
his

her

who shows

of

his

her

feet

or

her

leader

shall

be

that

of

being born again

and

ten

years

remaining in the
order

condition

of a serpent and
shall

the

punishment of him or her who disobeys the
to

of such

leader

be

the

going

Asepatra and other dreadful
the
or

hells,

and the

forfeiture

of all

merit

before

God

and and

that
his

punishment of him or her who performs worship
to

without seeing
of
of

and

paying

her respects

his

or

her

leader

shall

be

the

sterility

such

worship,

that

the
shall

punishment of him or her who divulges the
be
that
of being
thrice
libel

secrets

his

or her

leader or of
in the
is

God

again

born in the condition of dog,

and that

Kalliyug in

the

said

supposed
to

and plaint and hereinbefore mentioned there
to

no

means
and
and
wit
as

of salvation that

similar

worship

wit

the

worship of one of the said leaders
each his
or
all

therefore

the

said

sectaries

should
that

regard
all

her leader as
things

a being

greater

than
sin

God and
of
is

people

and

are

God's

and that consequently the
incarnate
as
aforesaid)

adultery

and
only

dishonesty
for

does

not

affect

God nay own him (to
of

but

ordained

the

world to wit the

followers

the said sect, and that
love

if

any persons
are

shall

say

that
;

it

is

sinful

to
all

entertain
relations

adulterine
abide,
spirit

towards

God,
of
C'

such persons

ignorant

fools

for

in

God

and
of

the

two species
with
the

man and woman
when he
and
or

do not
(to wit

exist,

but
as
is

that

both

are

the

God, and that
is

nsequently
his

incarnate

aforesaid)

commits adultery, he

at

play
in

own

spirit

in

that
of

no

sin

incurred
this
to

either
to

by God
wit
to

to

wit

incarnate

said

leaders

any

them

or

by

world
the

the

female
religious
for the

members
preceptors

aforesaid
of the
to

and that

God himself
their

had granted
permission
said
to

Veds
be

wit
love

Hindus
wit the
the

at

request

to entertain

adulterine
to

God Krishna
aforesaid,

God
and

of

whom
in

the

leaders

pretend

Incarnations

as

and

in

form of sheperdesses

be

adulterously
at

and carnally known and
request
of

enjoyed

by the

said

God
of

that

like

manner
same
by

the

16,000
in

sages

who were enamoured
of shepherdesses
as
aforesaid,

another

God,

the

became
the
said

and

were

the

forms

carnally

known
the

and

enjoyed

and

all

shepherdesses

aforesaid

loved
that

and he became an adulterer and made them happy,
aforesaid
is

and

God to wit incarnate God as their adulterer God to wit incarnate as
love,

all

form and that he

is

in
life

the
of

form of father and of husband and of son
devotees

and

of 'adulterer

and sustaining the
is

by
but

adulterine

and that they
for

who say
hell,

that
as
it

this

sin

are

iynorant

and not devotees,
the
is

but

wishing

the

love

of of

and

were
to

asses

feeding
to

on

dunghill

knowing not
on the
is

the

pleasures

the
is

garden
life
;

and

whom
bj
for

eat

sugar
it

death and

to feed

rubbish of dunghills

And
in

that

experience
that

is

clearly

known
night
is

that

there

no love in

any thing
of the

like

adulterine

love

by day

and

and

amid
to

the

engagements
object

adulteress

her
for

household
that

work,

her mind

directed

the

of meeting

her

adulterer

and

during her separation from him and by reason thereof,
attire

she loaths
fools

her

food

and precious
is

and

dies

of excessive
before

grief,

say that such love
that

loathsome to wit
aforesaid,

God.

And that And these,
at

they
the

are

who
aver
said
to

defendants
in
to

the

several

matters

are

more

fully

and

large

set

forth

the

several

books

of and

received

by the
said

said

sect

and

that

they
this

crave

leave

refer

the the

same books
defendants

respectively

when produced and shewn unto
the
sect
is

Honorable Court.
according
to

And
said
false

aver

that

in

the

premises
disorder

the

ancient

Hindu laws and
sect

religion

a

new

heresy
delusive

and
to_

and

altogether

a
in in

and
ved

heretical
it

and

withal

a sect

simple

people

and that
written
or or

par-

ticular

is

a

heresy,
or

a sham
or

and a
sacred

delusion

and a doctrine
the
said
to

not

any
as

or

puran
that
before

shasira

books
be

of

Hindus
Maharaj
be so

law
to

book
a

aforesaid

one's

married

wife
or

should
that

made
is

over

a

religious

preceptor

being enjoyed

one's
it

daughter should
a necessary

made
sect

over.

But the
aforesaid

defendants further

say
said

that

nevertheless

consequence
said

of the as

commentary
before
to

of the

Goculnathjee,

so

received

by

the
wife,

aforesaid

that

a

member
to

thereof has

enjoyed

his

own married

he should make her over
should
also

his
to

leader

wit
said

to

the

Maharaj

and that he the said member
after

make

over

him
to

his

member's sons and daughters and that
his
wife,

having got

married

and before having himself enjoyed
of her

he the said member should make an offering
;

the

said leader to

wit
said

the Maharaj aforesaid

after

which he the said member

should
reason

apply
of the

her
said

to

his

the

member's own use

;

and the defendants aver that by
orthodox believers
in religion

heresy,

sham and

delusion they were as

and morality seized with disgust and indignation and that they were and are of opinion that there can be no greater heresy or deceitt han thus, to blind people and throw dust
4

26
into
their

eyes

and

in
to

the

name and under
the

the

pretence

of religion

to assert the right

of the
30
his

said

leaders
as

enjoy

tender

maidens and wives and daughters of the people
the composers and

blinded

aforesaid,

and the defendants aver that not only the said Goculnathjee by
also

heavy composed commentary abovementioned, but
all

compilers
grievances

of

the

said

other

books

had before the committing of the said supposed
Vaishnava pursuasion
in
to

thereby attached
ink

to the said

wit

the
to

said

sect

a great blot of

and reproach, and that
did
so

acting

according

or

up

the the

said

commentary
of

the

Maharajas who
of their

act

were necessarily guilty of
to

defiling

wives and
sea

daughters

devotees,
so
to

and themselves appear and
so

be do

immersed
so

in

the

licentiousness,

and by
acting

appearing
that

long
for

as
so

they
long

appear and do

not desist
not

from

so
to

up

commentary
nor
the

they necessarily shall

be

competent
their

convey religious
religious
faith.

exhortation

can

give

religious

admonition

and propagate

own
and

And

defendants aver
said

that

before

and at the time of the committing
worshipped and obeyed

of

the

said as

grievances,

the

Maharajas were commonly

served

Gods and Incarnations of the great God Brahma
the
said

by

their

male and

female

devotees in

supposed
in

libel

and plaint
as
in

and hereinbefore

mentioned with

such

adulterine love

and

mann-er and form

and by the said books of and received
in that behalf
is

by the

said

sect as

taught
in

and inculcated
consequence
discredit

and as hereinbefore
crimes and

set forth,

and that thereby

and

thereof great
dissertion

scandals

were committed
sect.

and

occasioned,

and great
the
well

and

brought upon and into the said
practice

And

in

particular
as

defendants aver
in
of,

that
as

it

was then the common
same,

and then
believed
to

commonly and
to

the

said

sect

without the
of,

reputed and

be the general practice
the
aforesaid

by and

for the

most part

the said Maharajs to act according

teachings
to

and instructions of the said commentary and such other books and have
in

as

aforesaid,

and and
said

obtain

right

of

their

said

pretended
intercourse

incarnations

and
to

godships
defile

in

the

name

of

the

said

religion

carnal
or

with and
aforesaid.

their

female
further

devotees

being

such

wives

daughters

as

And
before
still

the

defendants
at

aver that according to the

Hindu Laws and
breasts

religion aforesaid
it

and

the

time of the committing of the
for

said

supposed grievances
of any

was and
not

is

unlawful and criminal
his

any person
such
to

to

handle the

woman
by the

being

wife

or

lawful

concubine or to throw goolal upon the

same

or to take indecent

liberties

with her person,
religion

and that
of the

offences

then
to

were and
adultery,

still

are

said
it

law and

accounted
at

and deemed

amount

and that nevertheless
grievances and
to

was before and
is

the

time
said

committing of the

said supposed

still

the

practice

of the

Maharajas publicly as well as privately
breasts
of

lay

their
sect

hands
albeit

upon and hold and handle the
neither
goolal

of the

female
said

devotees of their

said
cast

wives nor lawful concubines

them the

Maharajas and
defendants

to

and throw
before

upon the breasts of the said devotees

And
to

the

aver

that

the

time of the committing of the said

supposed grievances, the plaintiff himself then being such

Maharaja as
fact

aforesaid

confessed

and declared and
that

two merchants of
practised

the said
the
said

sect

as the

was that adultery was thereof, and he then further
evil

then

theretofore

among
into

Maharajas
to other

alleged

they
their

had been corrupted thereunto and
having

manners

through or by reason of

come

contact

and intimacy
the
it

with the pilgrims who
aver that
also

eschew marriage and are called
the

Varkats.

And

defendants

shortly
stated

before

committing

of

the

said

supposed grievances

had been
one

recently

and declared by a Maharaj of high

station in the said sect to wit

Jevanjee Maharaj to drivers respectable

members

of the said sect, that he the said Maharaj

was

27
unaole
said
at
to

prevent his
devotees
of the

said

brothers
said
sect.

from

committing
the

adultery

or

fornication

with

the

female

of the

And

defendants

aver

that

both

before
of

and

the

time
said

committing of the said supposed grievances the licentiousness
in

many
in of

of the
the

Maharajas was a matter of notoriety

the

said

sect

and generally among
of

said

followers

and had

frequently

been

denounced by

some
and
in

the

latter

Guzerathee
publication
of

pamphlets,

newpapers,

handbills
this

and

placards
that

by

other
at

means
the
said
sect

amongst the natives of
year

presidency, and

particular
of

end
sect

the

Christian
at

1855

the

Bhatias,
of the

who
the

then

were members
of

the
said

incensed

the
at

number

of instances

defilement

women
when

of the
said

by

Maharajas
assembled

the

temples

where and on
the

occasions

the

women
in

were

for the

purpose of worshipping

Gods and Maharajas aforesaid
together
in

conformity

with the teachings aforesaid, convened and met
at

a public
that
to
for

meeting and therethe
said

came
said

to

a

resolution

and did resolve
should

to

the

effect

future

none
or
in

of
to

their

wives or daughters

be

ever

allowed

to

resort

the

temples

the

Maharajas

for

worship

except at

and during
said

certain

stated
to

hours
the

the

morning at end during which hours
of the
retical,

they

the

Maharajas would
daily
to

knowledge
religious

said

Bhattias

be entirely

occupied

with

certain

exercises

of their

insomuch that they would be then wholly unable

have any
that

intercourse
plaintiff

with

any
as

of the

women

last

aforesaid,

and the

defendants
before
of

aver

the

himself

such

Maharajas

aforesaid
in

some
the

months
course

the

time of the committing of the
with
a

said supposed

grievances did,

a
of

conversation

Bhattia

of

the

said
of

sect,

assert

and

undertake
or
to

the

defence

the

adulterous
did

debauched conduct

the

said

Maharajas
maintain
to

excuse
last

the

same,

and

then
effect

and
ihat

to

that

end

profess

and

the

said
of

mentioned Bhattia in
that

there

was no

crime or sin in

the practice

adultery, and
sustain

on the contrary the same was wholeof

some
that

in

itself

and

effectual to

and increase the vigor and strength
said
practice
in
fact to

man, and
Guicowar
or
five

he the

plaintiff

had

so

found

and known the
asserted

be from his

own

experience

thereof as
as

well

as from that of the athletics of the Court of the

each of

whom
as

the

plaintiff

then

was

in

the
for

habit

of keeping
or
last

four

women
exercise

concubines

and

of

preparing

themselves

a wrestling
the

other

athletic

by a preliminary
then
also

coition

with

one

or

more

of

women

aforesaid.

And

the
the
is

plaintiff

defended

and extolled

promiscuous coition

enjoyment of divers females the blood of the
greatly

man

and professed that by enjoying the same becomes and
further aver that
plaintiff

heightened
of the

and improved.
committing of

And
the

these

defendants

before

at

the

time

said

grievances

the

was

and commonly

reputed and
to

known
of
to

the

society

morals
of the

and
said

be

and in Surat and elsewhere in India to be addicted in Bombay women of loose and light life and to be himself a man of debauched in the habit of receiving women and amongst others female devotees
his

sect

into

private

apartment and
of
his

to

chambering and wantonness and
but
not

to

taking indecent
lawful
of the
of

liberties

with
in

women
to

said

sect

being

his

wives

or

concubines,
said

and

particular

that
in

about 8 a certain
of the

or

10 years before the committing
at

supposed
aforesaid

grievances
in

wit

room
said

Beyt

in

the

Presidency
the

Bombay

which
cast

room
upon

certain
their

women
until

then
the

were,
said in

plain-

tiff

scattered,

threw

and

persons

cfoolal

room was
said

filled

and darkened with the same, and

that

he the
liberties

plaintiff

then

the

room
being
to

60

thereby
of the

darkened as aforesaid took indecent
said

with a y»ung person
his

there

one

women

of his

sect

but

not

being

wife

or

lawful

concubine

28
an extent which

by

Hindu
his

Law

is

deemed
to

to

be

and

in

fact

is

highly

criminal

and in
course

fact equivalent

and tantamount
hands her
year
a

the crime of adultery to wit the indecent liberty

of laying

hold

with

breasts

and handling the same, and further
did
in

in

the

of the

Christian

1860 the
forth,

plaintiff

a certain
sect

conversation

to

wit at

Bombay
mises in
last

aforesaid
this

with

certain

member
into

of

his

said

confess

and admit the
of the

pre-

averment
the

set

and further

that
for

in

the
space

course
of one

same
a

year

aforesaid
in
his

plaintiff did

retire
to

and
at

the

hour or thereabouts
with
certain

remain

private
said
sect

apartment

wit

Bombay
on

aforesaid

alone

female of his

but not being his wife
her.

or lawful

concubine and then and there
occasion
in

have carnal intercourse with
Christian
in
his

And
at

that

another

the

course

of the pkintiff

year

1860
said

before
to

the

committing of the said alleged grievances

the

private
of his

apartment
sect

wit

Bombay
of the
last

aforesaid
or

had

carnal

intercourse
of

with

a

female

and not being a wife
th..

lawful concubine

him

the

plaintiff.

And
said

lastly

that

within

course
the

year and before

the

committing
of his

of

the

supposed
affected
disease.

grievances

plaintiff

became
called

and was by
Great or
the defendant

reason

debauched
the

conduct
venereal
before

with

a certain
the

disease

the

French Pox
Karsandass

otherwise

And
time

defendants

aver

that

Mooljee

was

and

at

the

of the

committing of said supposed grievances a

member

of the

said sect

and that being such member thereof and being greatly zealous
thereof and

for the

honor and

well being
aforesaid

much
to

affected

and grieved by reason of the crimes and scandals
of

and anxious

promote a reform

the

said

sect

and

of

its

said

leaders
plaint,

in the premises,

he then being the editor of the newspaper mentioned in the said
libel
is

and

in

which the said supposed
did

by the
and

said

plaint

alleged

to

have been pub-

lished

cause

and procure
therein

to

be

printed
articles

and published by the defendant Nanabhoy
writings

E,ustomjee
first-named
of the
said

Eanneenah
sect

certain
to

which
fact

were

by

him

the

defendant designed
in

promote and which did in

promote a reformation
the

the

premises

amongst other matters.
of

And

defendants

further

aver that
plaintiff

before

and at the time

the

committing of the said supposed grievances the

had commenced the composing, printing, publishing, and issuing among the members of the said sect of a certain small Guzerati book or work styled or named the " Swadharma Vurdhuk unnay Samshay Chedak" and also certain papers in another
Guzerati newspaper
to

wit
in

called

the

Ghabook

for in

the

purpose

of

assisting,

defending,

and maintaining, and
papers respectively
in

fact

the

plaintiff did

and by the said book, newspapers, and
of

assert,

defend,

and maintain the cause

them the

said

Maharaja's

the
of

premises
the
said

and the truth of the doctrines of the said
Maharajas and in a portion
plaintiff
to

sect

and the morality thereof

and
small
or

to

wit

in

the

first

number
small

of the said

a

Guzerati book or work the
so
to

by an

article

or essay therein

by him inserted
book or work
of entering
to

caused
effect

be publicly

notified

the

readers

of his
or

said

the

that

any person who was

or

might

become

be

desirous

into

any controversy with him the plaintiff on any subject must enter into the same accordingly and that any Hindu must be considered to be a dishonest person who will or doth not write in accordance with the doctrines of the Hindu religion to wit the ancient

Hindu
the

religion

aforesaid.

And
and

that

the
in

plaintiff before

the

time

of the

committing of
to

said

supposed

grievances
profession
sect
to

had

also

his

said
his

book or work caused
part to

be
it

printed

and

published a
of the
sect

declaration

on

the

effect

that

was the

doctrine
r.he

said

and of the
aside

plaintiff

as

such Maharaj

thereof as aforesaid, that

said

ought

lay

and

act

in

c':^ntravention

of the uaid Yeds being sacred

29
books
of
as

the

said

Hindus

and
that

containing
before

the

said

laws

of

the

said

ancient

Hindu
and

religion
to

aforesaid.

And

the

committing of the said
Christian year
to

supposed grievances
the
plaintiff in

wit on

the

29th

day of September in the
called the

1860
the

by the
or

said

newspaper
on his

Chabook caused
part
to

be printed and published a statement
that
in

declaration

the

plaintiff's

the

effect

same

way
to

as

some
to

one goes from the gates

of

the

Fort
the
said

(to

wit

of

Bombay
to

aforesaid)

proceed
the

Walkeshwur
courses

and some one
said

from
the

same Fort
Purans
the
in

Byculla so exactly
said

original

of the

Ved and

the

supposed
religious
different

Libel and
of
to

plaint

and hereinbefore mentioned and wherein

said

ancient

laws

the

said

Hindus
of a

are

contained having
religion

gone forward had diverged into
a different morality

ways

wit ways

different

and

of

from the ancient Hindu religion and

morality.

And
in

the defendants aver that the said last mentioned, publications or
plaintiff in th6

any
other

or either

of

them
to

no wise exculpated the

premises but on the contrary
said

confirmed the

said
rajas

repute

and notoriety of
from
as

his

immorality
ancient

and proved him and the
religion

Mahasectaries

be heretics
it

the

said
in

and

morality.
that

And
and

the

defendants

say that

is

true

stated

the

said supposed libel

no other Hindu

have ever perpetrated such shamlessness, subtlety, immodesty,
the
said

rascality,

deceit as

have
the

Maharajas,
simple
the

and that they by
maidens,

their

practices

aforesaid

thrown

dust

into

eyes

of

people

and that the said Maharajas have written in
the
people's

their

books

about

enjoying

tender

wives

and daughters and
sprung
to

have enjoyed them
the
their

accordingly,

and that great flames of zeal have
that the
of

up

within
over
the

hearts

of the
friends

defendants thereat, and

defendants

have had
friends,

grieve
that

Hindu

and the weak powers
have
scattered
blind,

reflection

of those
in

and
of

plaintiff's

ancestors

the

dust
if

of falsehood

the

eyes
to

simple
or
to

people

and thereby made
abroad
the
religion

them

and that
to

the

plaintiff

wishes
course

propagate

spread

he

ought personally

adopt a

virtuous

of

conduct

admonish

said

other

Maharajs

to

do

the

same.
the

Wherefore they
said

the

defendants

published and caused
the

and
of

procured to
this

be published

supposed libellous

matter in
causes

introductory

part

Plea set forth as
are
8th.

they

lawfully

might

for

the

aforesaid

and

this the defend-

ants

ready to verify,

&c.

And
libel

for

a
all

eighth

Plea in this
statements

behalf

the

defendants
therein

say

that
is

the

said

supposed
true
in

and

and

every

and
the
libel

matters
defendants
or

alleged

and are

substance
to

and

effect,

wherefore
said

they

published

and

caused and

procured
aforesaid

be

published
the

the

supposed
are

they lawfully
&c.

might

for the caus^

and

this

defendants

ready

to verify,

15th August

1861.

)


30

THE CONSPIRACY CASE ARISING OUT OF THE PLEAS PUT IN BY THE DEFANDANTS.
(Soon
after

the

above

pleas

were
a

put

in

by
of

the

defendants, Parbhoodass,

the

manager
jee
or

of the Maharaja's case, obtained

copy

them,

and

visited

several Bhattias,

and informed them that if the pleas put in by the defendants were proved, JadunathMaharaja would lose the case. In consequence of this, several Bhattias held three
four
private

meetings,
invited
to

in

the

last

of

which

it

was resolved that the
to

whole
to

Bhattia
frustrate

caste

should
inteniions

be

subscribe

their

signatures

a document intended
resolution,

the

of the

defendants.

In pursuance of
in the

this

a general

meeting of

the

Bhattia community
6th

was held
In
this

Mahjan
it

oart,

close to the

Elphinstone Institution

on

September

1861.

meeting
called
to

was resolved that whoever
according
to

gave

evidence
caste.

against

the Maharaj,

should

be

account

the rules

of the

As this resolution was illegal, the Editor of the Satya Prakash charged nine Bhattias, who took a leading part in effecting the above resolution, with conspiracy. The preliminary
the

examination
Court,

of

this

charge,

commenced on
Esquire,

the

11th of September
Magistrate,
days.

1861,

in

Fort Police
the

before

W.

Crawford,
being
the

Senior nine

and terminated

on

16th

November 1861,
Sessions.

after

heard

for

The Magistrate comthe
Sessions

mitted the case to the
the

On

3rd of December when

opened,

Hon'ble Justice Arnould in charging the
:

Grand Jury spoke

as

follows

with

regard

to this conspiracy case

" There were two cases of conspiracy. One of them was a charge of misdemeanour in which Goculdass Lilladhur and eighc others were indicted for conspiring to obstruct and defeat the course of justice, by dissuading and preventing certain witnesses from giving evidence in a case pending before this Court. His Lordship said he had not looked over the authorities bearing upon the indictment, but from the analogy of law and decisions in somewhat similar cases, he had no doubt that the charge would The facts were these. The Editor of the Rast well lie against the parties concerned. His Lordship supposed Go/tar Karsandass Mooljee was the name of the gentleman, published an article containing certain charges and imputations against the Maharajs, The one of whom has brought an action of libel against the Editor and publisher. Editor has, in that case, put upon record certain pleas of justification, to the effect that the charges were perfectly true, and in order to substantiate those pleas, it was
only,

necessary
Civil
side

for

him
this

to

summon
It

a

number
favor

of witnesses
that,

at

of

court.

appeared

then

with

from giving evidence in a body to concert measures to secure their object, in other words, to obstruct impede the course of public justice. There was no doubt that the alleged object of the meeting amounted, in effect, to the charge preferred against these parties, and His Lordship might mention that they were properly brought up to stand the trial. it was one in which the Maharaj the case was in no way against the Maharaj himself had set the Supreme Court in motion, for obtaining redress from those who, he considered, had published false imputations against him. However, if any parties, acting on his behalf, attempted to dissuade and prevent others from giving evidence in they would be guilty of obstructing and defeating justice. The question this court, would be, was there evidence to sustain the indictment ? The evidence recorded, His Lordship would confess, was conflicting and not, upon the whole, clear in some points. But having read the depositions, he thought the jury would be justified in returning a true bill against the parlies charged with the conspiracy. His Lordship was of opinion that, on the face of the depositions, a sufficient case was made out, and the Grand Jury might safely return a true bill, leaving the Petit Jury to deal with the evidence
witnesses
in of the

Editor,

trial of the cause, on the view of preventing those Goculdass Lilladhur and others

the

the

met and

;

such

as

it

was."

31

THE TRIAL OF THE BHATTIA CONSPIRACY CASE.
SUPREME COURT.-Crown
FOURTH CRIMINAL SESSIONS OF
(Before Sir Joseph Arnould
Thursday,
\2f.h

Side.

1861.

Kt.,)

Deaunber 1861.
bench precisely
at

His
following

LoRDsbiP

took

his

seat

on

the the

ten

o'clock

when

the

gentlemen were empannelled on

Petit Jury.

Mr. .John Chatten.
Mr.

J.

—Foreman.
Mr.
,,
,,

Ross.

J.

A.

Men esse.

W.
S.

Maidment.
Train.

C. D. Viegas.


,,

Nusserwanjee Byramjee.

J.

M.

Gillighan.

„ C. F. Heycock. C. Henderson. ,,

Anundrao Babajee. and „ Fazulbhoy Noor Mahomed.
,,

Messrs.
the
dock.

Bayley and Barton applied

to

the Court to allow their clients to

sit

outside

The request was complied
names
Canjee
of nine

v/ith.

The
Kirpall,

defendants,

Goculdass

Lilladhur,

Luckmidass Darajee, Adut
alias

Shamjee,

Mooljee

Moorarjee,

Damodhur

Hurjee

Damjee Heera,
called,

Ragoo Shamjee, Dyal
prisoners

Jairaz,

and

Bhugwanjee

Dwarkadass,

were then
five counts.

and the
prisoners

answered.
not
guilty.

The indictment was read

over containing

The

pleaded

Messrs. Anstey and

Dunbar

instructed

by Messrs. Acland and Prentis
for

for the prosecution.

Mr.

Barton,

instructed

by Mr. Sangster

Adut

Kirpall

and

Dyal
Collier

Jairaz,

Mr. Bayley, with Messrs. Green and Connon instructed by Mr.

and Leathes

and Messrs. Bickersteth and Cleveland,
sworn when

for

the

seven

other

defendants.

The jury were

Mr. Anstey
indictment

opened the case

by

stating

that

there

were

several

counts

in

the
less

which charged the defendants with conspiracy and that conspiracy was not
on the plea side of

conspiracy for being directed against the public.
to be tried
this

There was a certain action which was yet
it

Court,

and that

was

for

preventing

persons from

giving evidence for the prosecutor in this action, and preventing

them

likewise from appearing.

Every one of the counts
first

in

the

present
in
this

indictment
case
is

will

be supported

by evidence.
is

The
of

witness that

will

be called

the

prosecutor,

who

the

editor

a

;

.32

Native newspaper,
that
in

and

is

likewise
in

the

defendant

in

the

libel

case,

and the printer

of

paper

is

also

a party
in

that action.

There were certain

articles

which

appeared

the

newspaper
to

question,

advocating the views of the Reform party, that term being
Politics.

applied
labours

Eeligion
it

and not
to

to

The
point

prosecutor in the performance of his literary
to
all

considered

be
of

his
all

duty

to

the
that

truism,
is

which

is

admitted
is

by

learned

men and

scholars

countries,

that

good in

religion

ancient,

innovation,

and that that which tends to break up those time-honored institutions are of modern such as " Suttee" and " Infanticide." all these impediments are of recent date

There

is

nothing
family

sacred

in

these

practices.
to

The
party.

prosecutor belongs to the

Reform party,
to violate
to

because his
his

have belonged

that
social

He

believes

that

if

he was

principles,

he

would

lose

all

privileges.

What
and
to

he

desired

was
rest.

restore

that
to

which was traditionary in
action

all

its

pristine purity,

expose the
to

In respect

the

pending against

the

prosecutor,
of the

he was
publication
for

prepared
of the
to

abide

by the consehe

quences,

and pleaded the

justification
it

alleged

libel,

would

retract nothing.

In that action

was most material

him

secure

the Bhattia witnesses.

As

soon

as

it

became known that he required
so

their evidence,

every means of intimidation

had been employed,
of the
law.

much
or
riot,

so

that

it

became necessary
proved

for

him

to seek the protection

On
a
to

the
rout

first

day that the conspiracy broke
which would be
fiom the commencement of the
bills

forth,

there

was neither more
There would be
There were caste

nor

less

than

by
and

witnesses.

witnesses

ca%d

speak

conspiracy.

meetings held at
the
case.

which hand

had been
to

distributed,

an

influential

member of
in

caste
It

had been tampered with

prevent

him from

assisting

the
in

prosecutor
those

his

would be proved that the defendants took an active part

meetings.

(1.)

Karsandass Mooljee, examined

by Mr. Anstey

—lam
of
for

the Editor of a newspaper

called

the
is

Rast

Goftar

and

Satya

Prakash.
are
I

The
at

name
the the

the

sect

to

which

I

belong

Vallabhacharia,
or

and the

Maharajas
India.

head of that
defendant of a

sect. libel

There are
action

about sixty
the
plea

seventy
of this

Maharajas in
Court.

am

on

side

The
sect,

action

was brought
justification.

an

article

which appeared in
I
I
stated

my
to

newspaper.

I

have

put in a plea of

In
the

that

article

the

doctrine
call

and

discipline

of the
trial

and the conduct of
plea

Maharajas.

am

prepared
witin

witnesses
will
is

at oral

the

on

my

of justification.

The
of

evidence

of those

nesses
this

be

and

documentary

evidence.

One
I
of

those

documents
the

used

trial

used in the plea of
verse

justification

—a
I

document
have

regarding

interpretation

of a

Guzerati

by Goculnathjee

Maharaj.

subpoenaed
of

many
attend

witnesses,

Bhattias,
transpire

and have invited many.
before

If the

names

some
no

those
to

witnesses
the

should
caste

the

trial,

it

would do harm.

have

right

meetings of the
took
out

Bhattias.
for

In consequence of information I
the
prisoners
in

received

from

Bhattias,

I

summonses
I

on

the

9th

of

September,
before

and

on

the

11th

of September

made a statement
in

prisoners'

presence

Mr.

Crawford.
I

There

were many Bhattias present
I was
witness
place.

Court

—about
as

2,000 or 3,000.
disturbance.
this

As
[Mr.
the

was going

away

assaulted.

I

left

without

n:aking
assaulted,

any

Bay ley
of the

objected to

saying

by

whom
said,

he

was

was
as

after
to

conspiracy

had taken
conspiracy

Mr.
so,

Anstey
then
this

there

was no evidence
was permissible.

yet

the

date

but

if

question
the

This indictment was

" of conspiracy with
Bhattias.
that

others

unknown"

— and
say

witness
the

had

said

he

was assaulted by other
ended
give this
yet,

The

indictment did

not

that

conspiracy

had
to

but
overt

found
act

the action

was

still

pending.

He

had a perfect right

new

which had occurred

a

33
indictment, and would cite authority for the right. Mr. the finding et' this Bayley objected on the ground that the defendants were not present. Justice Arnould Mr. Bayley begged the Court to take a note of that objecsaid that made no difference.
before
tion.

Mr.
I

Anstey

said

the

witness
Bhattias.

had

already

sworn

that

the
or

present.]

was assaulted by

Nothing was said by myself

defendants were by the defendants.
I

I returned to the Court, and obtained the protection of the

Magistrate.

never assaulted

any of the defendants.
Gross-examined

hij

Mr.

Barton.

—"

I

am 28
under
in

years

of

age.

I

belong

to

the

Keform
to

party.

I

do

not consider
filth.

myself
It

the

influence of the Maharajas.
filth.

This
filth

alleged libel I did not consider
let
it

was

no

way

I did not consider

it

be

known

throughout the

world

that the Maharajas had
to

connection

with our

wives

and daughters.

(His

Lordship threw out as a hint

Mr. Barton that there
spoken
of
in

was
very

a

book which

we

all

respected,

where very
said
it

foul

things

were

the

plainest

language.

Mr.

Barton

was

not

a

newspaper.

He

thought the matter

entirely different.)

Witness continued

:

—"
is

I

consider

that

publication
party.

would conduce
is

to

public mor:i!ity.
in

The defendants do

not belong to
It

the

Eeform
I

There
full

a

split

the

caste

difference of opinion.

not a caste row.

am

a

member

of

my

caste.

Cross-eramined by Mr. Bayley.
lished.

—"
I

»

It

was in the Satya Frakash,

this libel

was pub1858.

My

co-defendant
for five

in

that

action

was

the

printer

of

it.

I have been connected
in

with the press
I

or six years.

was

editor of the

Satya

Prakash
against

June

had on several occasions previous

to this,
left.

published

and written

the
their

Maharajas.
practices.

I have not abused

them

right

and

I

have

for

some years shown up

I have not become more abusive as time rolled on.
the year

I

remember
was a

that a meeting

was held

in

1858 on account

of

my

attacks.

I don't

know

that persons were then
report

appointed
of

to take proceedings for libel.

I don't recollect if there

of the

proceedings

that meeting published in the

Satya Prakash on the 28th of June 1858.
all

There are about
guides.

10,000 Bhattias
look

in

Bombay, and
for

look

upon the Maharajas as
not as God.

their spiritual

I

upon the Maharajas as

spiritual guides,

The Bhattias have
done
so,

looked

upon
I

the!h as

more than God

150

years.

The Banyas have always
less

so far as

know.

I decline to say if I
I

am

worth Es. 1,000, or any

sum.

1 pay the
this

expenses

of this prosecution.
line

am

the sole

member

of

my

family

who has taken

independent
myself.
I

of conduct.

Not more than
that

fifty

have subpoe-naed about thirty-five
have
told

Banyans have taken the same view About four witnesses in the libel action.

as

or five Bhattias

me

they

were
third,
is

intimidated.

Two
the

of

those

men were
did
of
this

called before the

Police to give evidence.
his

A

Khatao Muccoondjee, was
not
set

called but

not

answer
I

to

name.
that

Goculdass Tezpall

paying
apart
letters.

expenses

prosecution.

don't

know

Goculdass

Tezpall

has

a fund
I
don't

for that

purpose.
sent
it.

I

have

already

received

Es. 600 in two
police court

anonymous
I

know who

The defendants

were in the

when

was

assaulted.

No

other assault ever took place, though I

attended the police court on several occasions.

Re-examined.
5

"

The

Magistrate

took

proper

precautious

lo

prevent

a repetition

of

34
the
assault.

Mr. Crawford addressed the Bhattias on the following day.
present
I
in

Mr. Forjett was
were allowed
less

subsequently
enter

person,
to

and only a certain number
answer whether I

of

Bhattias

to

the court.
it is

decline

am

worth Ks. 1,000, or any
whatever with the
the

sum,
There
as

because
are not

an

irrelevant
fifty

matter and

nothing to

do

case.

more than
I

of those

who worship

the Maharaj that take

same view
in

I

do.

make a
manner

distinction

between worshipping the

Maharaj

as

God,

and worshiping
Maharaj
the

him

as a spiritual

guide.

I presented the facts

of those practices of the

least filthy

possible consistent with

my

duty as a journalist." were the preceptors of

Mr. Anstey said that the
the

first

plea
is

is

of denial that the Maharajs
;

Hindu

religion

;

the seventh plea,
in
fact

a plea of justification
Issue

the eighth plea, a plea that the seventh

the publication was true

and

effect.

had been joined on

and

eighth plea.
(2.)

Luckmidms Kkimjee, examined
of the Bhattia caste.
is

hij

Mr. Dunbar.
to to

—"

I

am

one of the leaders or
before

head

men

It

is

necessary to take

my

consent

a meeting of

the caste

called.

No

application

was

made

me

to

convene the meeting of the 6th of
before.

September.

I

first

heard that a meeting was

be convened two or three days
it

I

had a communication with Luckinidass Damjee about the meeting before
sent for me.
assemble.'

took place.
the meeting
'

He
will

He

said to
'

me,
is

'

Come
Satf/a

let's

go to

Mahajun's Oart where
?'

I said

Why

the meeting Jo assemble there

He
if

said
is

A

commentary
and on
twenty
on

that has been published in the

Prakash
'

about

Goculnatlijee

incorrect,

account of that the caste are going to assemble

I asked
'

him

he had shown that comfifteen

mentary
Shastris,

to

any

Shastri,

and he

said

'

No

!'

I said

Let us assemble
in the

or

and take
of

their opinion

upon the commentary published
writer, a

Satya Prakash
lived
'

the verse

Goculnathjee.'

Gocu'nathjee was a

Maharaj, who
sect.

some

200

years ago, and his books are looked on as authority in the
the opinion of the Shastris in writing, take their

I said,

We
'

should take

signatures to the writing, and affix ours.'
all

Luckmidass
g,ffix

said,

'

No,
till

let

us go there, they are
the

assembled there.'
writing.'

I said,

How

can

we

our signatures
that
it

we know
to

meaning of the
document
said,
' ;

Luckmidass had
I

informed

me
send
I

the
to

meeting was

sign

a

it

was then that
ail

proposed
shall sign.'

we should
I
said,

the Shastris.

Luckmidass
the

have received a summons from the

They will Supreme Court
this

sign

—we
I

to

give

evidence on behalf o^the

defence,

and
said

if
'

I

go

to

meeting I will raise
not give evidence

objection

have just mentioned.
against the Maharaj.
I

He
You
that

then
are
if

You must
of family,
to

in the
will

Supreme Court
have
to

a

man
I

and your

children

be

married.'

repeated

I

went

the

meeting I should raise

that

objection,

and he repeated what he
further that our arrangeper'^ons

had

said.

then

declined to
in

accompany him.

He

said to

me

ments would be made
evidence
witness
the
against
stating

the

Mahajun Oart by

which any
caste

who might

give
to

the

Maharaj

would be punished by the

[Mr. Barton objected Mr.

what he interpreted from Lukmidass' remark.
fair

Ans'ey argued that
that,

question
I

was a
not

one.

Question allowed.]
caste.

I

understood

by
to

that

if I

gave

evidence

wou+d be expelled from the
could

The consequences

my
I

children

would

be that

I

then

get

them married.
with with Dyal

On

the

following

day

saw Dyal Jaira?
day
of

and Goculdass Tezpal.
the

The

conversation

Luckmidass Damjee was on the

meeting.
I

The

conversation

Jairaz

was
at

at

Goculdass'

office,

opposite
in

the
the

Secretariate

asked Dyal

Jairaz what

took

place

the

meeting of the caste

35
Oart,

and

if

any arrangement had been made
the

to

furnish

tivjde

persons

who m'ght
against

give

evidence

in

Supreme
before

Court on
this

the

side

of the

Safya

Prasask and
to

the

Mnharaj.

I

said,
to

arrangement

was made they ought
Dyal
his
to

have made
'

an

arrangement

prevent

the

Maharaj
if

committing adultery.

said,

I
so

am
or

aware

what
now,
private
place

the

Maharaj

does,

but
lose

any

arrangement

prevent

doing
that

were made
three

the

Maharaj

would

his

cause.'

Dyal

then
;

informed

me

two

meetings

had taken place before the 6th

he said that one meeting had taken

at

Byculla, and another at

Gumma
He
said

Ramjee's place,

and that a writing
of the

had

been
or at

drawn

up

to

the

effect

that

no one should give evidence in favor
said

printer

publisher

of the
Lalljee's

Satj/a

Prakash.

that

a

third
at

meeting
those

had

taken

place

Chimun
present

temple.
of other
at

Dyal

he was

present

meetings,

and

he
as

menbeing
Kirpal,

tioned the
at

names
the

persons

meeting

Byculla

who he said the names

were
of

there.

He

mentioned

Goculdass

Lilladhur,

Adut
of the

Bhugvvanjee
present at

Dw^rkadass,

and

others.

He
they

did

not
all

mention the
there.

names
that

persons

Chimun

Lalljee's

but said

were

By

I understood there

were many persons, 75 or 100. Goculdass Tezpal was present all this time while Dyal was speaking, and Goculdass said that some arrangement ought to be made to prevent the immoral practices of the j\Iaharaj. I said to Dyal, if you had received a summons, you
should speak the truth.
other 10,000 persons

He

said,

'

I will

tell

an untruth

for

the sake of religion, and the
'

who have

signed will do the same.'
it

I said,

If

you

had
vs.

received

a

summons
?'

as I have received

in the libel case of Judoonathjee

Maharaj

Karsandass

Mooljee
assisting

Muthooradass Lowjee's name was mentioned.

Dyal

said that

Mathooradass was

Karsandass Mooljee.
caste.

Dyal
I

said that those

who gave

evidence against the Mahraraj

would be turned out of

am

on good terms with the defendants

particularly with

Luckmidass Damjee.

Cross-examined by Mr. Barton.
conversation with

— " Goculdass
to

was present when

the witness

had the

Dyal

Jairaz.

I wrote

Mr.

Forjett about the meeting."

(3.)

William Henry Crawford examined.

—"
I

I

am
as
it

a

Solicitor of

this

Court.

I

saw
also.

the prosecutor one day at the police court,

and
take

believe

the

Magistrate
be.

saw him

When

I

went

to the

window, the

street

was as

full

could

I saw the

prosecutor
of

hustled about in the crowd, and saw

him

refuge in

a house

on the

opposite side

the street.

Cross-examined

:

"I

saw some of the defendants

in Court.

I can't say I

saw any of

them touch him."

(4.)

Hurjeecun Jivraz, examined.

—"

I

am

a Bhattia, and a mehta in the service of
of our caste

Lukmidass Goculdass
last.

&

Co. I

remember a meeting
arrived.
at

on the

6th of
all

September
the defenor

I attended that meeting.

I arrived there at about five o'clock.

I saw
eight
six,
'

dants there

— they

quarter to eight.

when I Proceedings commenced
were
all

there

I went

away about
before

o'clock,

a
!*

about

a

quarter

or

six

o'clock.

Goculdass and others called a Brahamin, Jetta, thanaye.

Goculdass said,

Jetta,

come here
'

Goculdass was sitting in a shed.

Jetta

stood up.

Goculdass said

to Jetta.

Tell

these

people that no one

slioiild

make any

objection here.
not,

Xo

one shall
sign
!'

make

speeches.
all.

Those
told

who want

to

sign,

sign

!

Those who do

need not

That was

Jetta

that to the people.

Where
fifty

the Setts were sitting carpets were spread.

about twenty-five or

others were sitting on the carpets.

The defendants and About 2,000 or 3 000 persons
were
on
in

were present.
Setts.
to

Of

those sitting on the carpet, twelve or fifteen besides the defendants

The
500

floor

was an
floor.

even

floor

all

round,

and

a

way

the

middle
on

to

go

the

raised
or

About
were

1,500
sitting

or

1,700

persons

were

sitting

the

oatla.

About

700

below.

Mooljee

and

Damjee

were

going

about
out by

arranging for the audience.

Mooljee and Damjee are not Setts.

A

book was read

Adut

Kirpall.

Goculdass said to him, " Adut, read out

of this book,"

and Adut

read.
to

I

heard some part of what was read, and some I did not hear
admission of this hearsay evidence.

[Mr. Bayley objected
admissible.

the

The Court
was
;

said

it

was

It did not matter

whether the matter was written or spoken.]
the

I heard that those
;

who were

of opinion

that

commentary on Goculnathjee's
it

verse

correct should not sign

and that those who were

of opinion that

was not

correct should sign

and that those who did not sign should be punished
a paper, and I heard

by the

caste.

Canjee Shamjee also was reading from
in favour of the printer,

him

say,

'

If

any one gives evidence
jee
'

he

will

be punished

by the

caste.'

Canoutside

said,
;

'

If
!

any
affix

one

does not sign this
signatures,'

he

will

be

excommunicated.'

Cries

Sign

sign

your

I
to

heard.

After the reading was finished the book
It

was handed
the

to sign.

People were told

sign then.

was

said that

no one should leave
sign,

meeting without signing.

Every one who loved

his religion

would

was

also said.

Mooljee and Damjee said, " Brothers, affix your signatures."
signatures.

Then

people began to put their
I don't

I

saw nobody leave
I

after signing, I left without signing.
sign,

know who

signed

the book

first.

saw Goculdass
it,

Lukmidass, Adut, Ragoo and others took the signatures.
ink,

All the defendants assisted in

some were standing with

and some with pen.
the
gate
I

People were a

coming

into

and going out

of the oart.

When
sitting

I

went
it

near

found

bench
there.

placed across in front, and

Ragoo was
'

on

—Damjee
I

and Mooljee were
putting

also

Ragoo and Damjee

said,

Do

not go

away,

brothers,
if

without put

your
:

signatures.'

I attempted to go out,

and
I

Ragoo asked

me

had

my

signature

I

said,

no.
it.

Then he asked me I told him I would
lingered for a short
let

if

would sign
it,

to-morrow,

and I said
!

yes.

I have

never

signed

sign

because I wanted to go out

After I got out of
'

the gate I

time outside, when I heard a person say,
!'

Shut the

gates.

Do
portion

not

any one go out
and then put

and I saw the gates
Afterwards I

shut.

Ragoo was

distributing handbills.
one.

I was
of

going to take one from Ragoo,
that,
it

when a man

present gave

me
to

I

read

a

by.

gave the

handbill

Luckmidass.

[Mr. Barton
the

said the handbill could not be put in as evidence against the defendants unless
bill

hand-

was signed by,
that argument.

or contained the

names

of

some one
the

of them.

Mr. Barton

cited authority

for

Mr. Dunbar said that when
offered

case

was before the Magistrate he
it

(Mr. Dunbar)

had

one

in

evidence,

and

the Magistrate had refused to admit
vs.

notwithstanding he (Mr. Dunbar)
its

quoted the
it

Queen
be
read.

O'Connell.

The Magistrate held
said

identity

must be proved
there

before

could
It

His Lordship
to to the

he
put

could
in.

not

admit the justness of such a ruling.

would be well

have the handbill

Mr.

Anstey

said

were

tsvo

notices.

He

read them

Court and they were put in

as evidence.]


37
(^Tra/islalio7i

of

(ico

Giweraiti Printed Hand-Billx

ilhiribuied

in the meeting

nf

the

6//?

S.eptember^

PUBLIC NOTICE.
are informed the Chief men among the Vaishnavs action Judunathjee Maharai has brought an of libel This man has written in his Satiia Prakash as follows against Karsandass ]\Iooljee. " Eefore one has himself enjoyed her, he should make over even his wedded wife to the Gusaijee Maharaj, and he should also make over to him his sons and daughters. One is to use (one's wife) after having offered her to the Gusaijee Maharaj subsequently manner Shri Goculnathjee to marriage and even before enjoying her himself. In this has made a comment on the work treating of the connection with Brahma.* And the Maharajas enjoy the tender maidens, wives and daughters of their accordingly In this manner it is written and published in the Satija Prrtkask. followers." And man has also stated as follows " In the year 1855 in his plea to the action this the Bhatia community assembled together to make an arrangement about this matter so that at the time of the trial, the evidence of those Chief m.en will be adduced." This is what we have heardf Therefore we make known to jiU our brethren that the community did not assemble on any day whatever to make any such arrangement as that mentioned above. Nor were any person's signatures affixed to any writing or paper to the effect of what is mentioned above. For different purposes other than what is mentioned above, the Chief men's signatures have been made on several occasions. The documents bearing these signatures are deposited with the leading seiias of the comnmnity on behalf of the community. Therefore those who have made their signatures inform the setias here that some of the reformers with a view to support the abovementioned statement are endeavouring to obtain from the leading setias the deposited documents bearing those signatures in order to produce them in Court in evidence in this cause. This is what we have heard. Therefore if this thing should come to pass, and if the persons with whom those documents are deposited should give them up, then the risk appertaining to that, shall be on the heads of those who shall give them This is the sole representation. up. The 4th September 1861. Written by several Bhatias who have affixed their signatures to the former Document (or Documents.^

All

the
:

Bhatia Setts and
present
iShri

all

as

follows

At

:

:

:

(A

True Translation)
(Signed)
J.

Flynn, Chief

Translator.

ADVERTISEMENT.
VaishnavsJ Mahajans§ of Cutch and Abharsa and Halar inclusive of all the Bhatyas, that the community of reformers that are opposed to (our) rehgion have made and are still making several sorts of incorrect, false, and immoral attacks in the newspapers against the persons of the shri Gosayis*| in Bombay. Therefore Goswami shri Jadunathji Brizruttonjee Maharaj^ has brought an action of libel in the Court against an editor of a newspaper and shri Eunchorji Maharaj also has sent a notice for bringing an action of libel, in consequence whereof the reformers have been thrown into great anxiety here, it being impossible to prove this case therefore the reformers with the view of compromising the shri Kunshorji case cf Maharaj have, it is rumoured here; sent a Bhatya from this place to [Mandavi that
it

Be

known

to

all

the

*

[i.

f.

the

Supreme.
X

Being.)
oj

+

{Meaning
I

ihix

is

what

we ham heard

that

he ha^

allege'^.

(Won^hippm

Ynnlirm.)

(Great

Men)

\ (Wgh

VrieH.)

38
he might by making some kind of request to the Vahooji* Maharaj of shri Chotaji Maharaj and by making false representations (to her) obtain in writing a document from the Vahooji Maharaj and produce that document as evidence in the Court and that he might by making a request to Runshorji Maharaj and hy making false representations to him obtain some way or other a document (from liini) to comprnmise Such is the intention cf tlie reformers. the case. We have heard that they have for this purpose sent a man from this place; therefore the Yaishnavs comnmnity of this filace recommend all to and tliis representation paper made to the effert, that if this account be true, no documents of any kind whatsoever should he pissed to the man belonging to the reformers, any one who may hear this information should request shri Maharaj and Runshorji Vahooji Maharaj the shri Chotaji of not to pass any document through mistake or forgetfulness. It is essentially necessary for the Bhatya Mahajans of Cutch, Halar, and Abhrasa to make arrangements (or adopt measures)
in

respect of this matter.

This

is

the

prayer.

Written by the Vaishnavs of

Bombay whose compliments
(Signed)

be pleased

to read.

Narayan Dinanath,
Translator.

W^itness cross-examined

by Mr. Barton

—"

I have read through the handbill.

I believe

the handbill correctly contained the object of the meeting.

By
up

Mr. Bayley
one

:

—"

I would not

know

the book again

if

I was to see
is

it.

It

was bound
I heard

like this

now shown me

(a foolscap -sized

day book

produced in Court.)

Adut Kirpal read from
(5.)

the book."
:

Khuttaoo Liidha, examined by Mr. Dunbar

I

am

a Bhattia.

I deal in cotton.

I attended the meeting.

In the morning of the day when the meeting was held the thanI had heard at Jewunjee's temple that the meeting
caste

naye went round and warned the people.

was

to

be held.

It

was a matter of notoriety among the
to

members

that the

meeting
also

of the 6th of

September was

have been held, and the object of the meeting was
of the caste

a

matter of notoriety.
previously held.

Some members
object of the

knew
to

that

some

secret meetings

had been
caste.

The

meeting was a matter of notoriety throughout the

The

object,

which was a matter of notoriety, was

make an arrangement

respecting
I

the

Ubel case, and to prevent persons from giving evidence against the Maharaj.
the defendants
took place.

met two of
oart
at

— Dyal

Jairaz and Bhugwanjee Dwarkadass
or

before the meeting in the

It

was about one

two

o'clock

in the

afternoon.

I

met them
Eight
or

Jewraz
persons
others.

Balloo's place of business

were

silting there

— — Goculdass
in
to others

Bazar Gate

Street,

within the

Fort.

ten

Tezpal, Khuttaoo Muccoondjee,

my

two brothers, and

Dyal Jairaz spoke

about the meeting.

Khuttaoo Muccoondjee asked Dyal Jairaz

why
it

the people were going to assemble to-day.
to

Dyal and Bhugwanjee both spoke, and

said

make up an arrangement. Khuttaoo Muccoondjee asked Dyal Jairaz if any arrangement was to be made about the Maharaj committing adultery, and Dyal said it was true made any noise about it now, the the Maharaj committed adultery, but if we Maharaj would lose his cause in Court he said we would speak to the Maharaj about
was
:

* {Wife of Maharaj)

39
that afterwards.

Cyal
the
the

said,

'

if

we

are called to give evidence,

and
I

all

put upon our
to

oaths,

we
five
it

will

state

that

Maharaj does not commit adultery.'
(His
longer.

went

the

meeting at

o'clock

in

evening.
to
sit

Lordship

said

as

the

case

would
to

likely last
to their

sometime

was not advisable
night.)

The Jury were allowed

retire

homes

for

the

Friday,

\dtk

December.

Several persons

went there, there were 200 or 300 persons present. The defendants were all there when I arrivt^d. Damjee Before the proceedings commenced, Heera and Mooljee Morarjee made people sit. Gociildass Liiladhiir, Dyal Jairaz, and Bhugwanjee Dwarkadass went aside and consulted
Witness continued
I

— " When

came

afterwards.

together.

Proceedings commenced at about half-past six
together I

o'clock.

After they went aside and

consulted

saw a book with Bagoo Shamjee.
which
it

It

was
up.

about half an hour

after.

He

took the

book

from a cloth in

was wrapped
far as

Goculdass

said,
to

'

Read

this to the meeting.'

Adut read
I could hear

it.

I was as

from the witness-box
the purport of
it.

Mr. Barton

(about

five paces).

what was read.

I

know
in the

[Mr. Bayley

objected to witness

stating the purport of
said he

what was
to

produced.

Mr Anstey
or not.

must reply

the objection
of
to

The book itself could he with the same statement he had
book.
in

made

use of yesterday.

They

had no means
it

knowing whether the bock produced
be a forgery.

Court

was the book
objection.

Mr. Anstey believed

The book was
and wished

not produced

in the Police Court.

Mr. Bayley said he only took the
friend

objection,

to

continue the

His learned

had no right

to let the

jury know in an indirect manner that the
said,

book was not produced at the Police Court.

Mr. Anstey

Mr. Bayley had himself yesterday
clients.

mooted that question, and had given unsworn evidence on behalf of his

Objection recorded

and overruled.]

So

far

as I

remember,

it

said the
;

commentary on

the verse of Goculnathjee

by the
will

printer or

publisher

was

incorrect

and

those
it

who may

not consider

it

incorrect
:

not sign this book, while those
is

who may

consider

incorrect will sign this book

and

those wlio consider their religion

the true religion should sign this book.

And

those

who

may
And,
to

consider that the

present

Maharajahs do not

commit adultery should
and
aiders,

sign the book.

as for the printers

and publishers,

and

their abettors

they will be called
it

account according to law.
caste.
I

law of the

They did not say what The members of the caste were to
as
it

law, but I understood
call

to

mean

the

them
After

to

account, as I understood.

That
about

is

all

remember,
a speech.
distant
'

was a long
me.
is

time

ago.

that

had been read Canjee
he had a paper

Shamjee made
five

Canjee

was standing behind Adut Kirpal when he spoke, and

paces

from

When

Canjee

was

speaking

in

his

hand.

Canjee said,
gods,

Our
and

religion

the true one.

and our
These

religion inculcates bathing, the

worship of the
our religion
;

pilgrimages to

holy

places.

are

unholy comments upon
caste.'

and whoever

may

assist those printers will

be punished by the
Jetta,

Then
*

Can
they

ee sat down.

After that

Adut Kirpal
the Setts

called the crier,

and said
or not
!

to

you ask the members of the caste whether they approve

this speech,
?'

Do And whether
him,
'

would sign the book

after

had

signedto

it

The majority
meeting.
TTc

said
'

yes,
will

we
be

will sign.'

Then

the crier

put

another question

the

said

it

40
necessary to write letters
abroad,

and

will

you

assemble again

if

desired by the Setts ?"

That was by the
would attend.
dants signed
;

direction of

Adut

Kirpal.

Then

the meeting

approved,
first,

and said they
all

Luckmidass Damjee
other

or Goculdass Lilladliur signed

then

the defen-

leading

Setts then

signed.

Then Kagoo Shamjee
gate

went
gate
left

to the

gateway

was open then

—Damjee — was
it

took the book and
I think the

Heera and

Mooljee

Morarjee went with him.

shut afterwards.

The

was not

entirely shut

—a

wicket was

They were taking signatures. Kagoo Shamjee was sitting on a bench placed opposite The bench was not before the gate when I went in. I did not see who the gateway. close to the gate. Those who signed the book, went out. It was quite placed it there.
open.

Only one person

at a time could go through

the wicket.

Ragoo
the

and

the two

defendants,

who were

sitting close to

him

said,

those

who

consider their religion the true religion should
till

not leave without signing.

For three or

four days,

10th of the month, signatures
of

were taken on the
book there
;

verandah at Goculdass

Lilladhur's.

Members
lives in

my

caste

signed the
live,

some men, and some boys.
he signed
All
it.

A

loy

who
I was

the house

where I

ten

years of age, said

After the

tkannaye put

the

question at the meeting, no
at

one raised any objection.

remained

silent.

present

Walkeshwur
to

at

a con-

versation between Goculdass Tezpal and

Dyal Jairaz.
and

I

was not near enough
apart.

hear well.

Euttonsee Callianjee was there.

Corjee Ludha, Callianjee
Callianjee
I

Ludha and Khuttaoo Muccoondjee

were

also present.

Euttonsee

v/ere

sitting

We

were conversing

together and looking at

some

object.

Cross-examined by Mr. Barton.
of a courtezan near by.

" That object

was a Bhattia going
Halaee.

into the

house

I

am

a Cutchee, and not a

I did say before the police

that
door.

the
It

Halaies had excommunicated me.

There was
it

no leather on

the bench near
it

the

was made

of

wood, and those who sat upon
did not sign the book.

must know whether

was

soft or

hard.

By Mr.

Bayley.

— "I

I

saw the book well when

it

was open.
like this

Lights were lighted at the time the book was read.

The book was
I heard

a.
all

book bound
that

now shown me (same

as described

by a former

witness).

was

read.

(Mr,

Bayley examined the witness upon a paper held by himself).
Ee-examined.
the
of
to

—"

I worship the Maharaj

as a spiritual guide.

[Mr. Anstey asked that
in
for

document which
re-examination
it.

Mr. Bayley Mr.
IMr.

had

examined upon should be put
cited

the

purpose
objected

upon.

Anstey Mr.

a

case

to

the point.
to
it.

Mr. Bayley
case
cited

He
was
to

submitted
not
to

that the

Anstey

had no
Anstey
lie

right

The
the

by Mr.
see

Anstey
chose
brief.

point. his

said

that

if

learned
to

gentleman
the

cross-examine

from

brief,

(Mr.

Anstey)

was

entitled

Mr. Anstey

cited Taylor in support of his

argument.

His Lordship was under the

impression that the prosecution were entitled to see the document.
authorities,

He

would look into the

and in the meantime examination should be resumed.]
he said how.

Adut, when he read the
be
protected
;

paper, said that religion, religious preceptors, and reputation, were to
don't

but

I

remember

if

As Adut read
our

I understood

him

to

say that the

printers

accused the Maharaj ahs of adultery with
nothing of that kind in our religion.
that the wives of the

wives

and

daughters,

and

that
to

there

was
this
:

The meaning

of the printers
offered

was
to

said

be

being enjoyed by us.
the chief law
is

members of the caste, should be Our caste proceed against persons
from
the
caste.

up

the Maharaj

before
:

offending

by the law

of the caste

expulsion

T

can't

say

that

book

shown me

by

Mr.

Bayley

was the book I saw

at the

oart.

41
By
is

the Court.

— " The

Sett

is

an hereditary

title.

Among

the Bhattias Jewraz Balloo

considered the principal Sett, as his forefathers were chief Setts."

(6.)

Cliarhs Forjctt, examined.

— " In
it.

my

official

capacity (Deputy Commissioner of
it.

Police) I received a letter.
in the letter I issued

I produce
to

I acted upon

In consequence with

of

something
party
of

au order

a constable to be in attendance

a

small

policemen
letter

to see

that no disturbance took place.

I think the prosecutor

was present when the
to

was

delivered.

The

letter

was signed by Luckmidass Khimjee, Muthooradass Lowjee
to,

and two

others.

I

was not applied

to the best of

my

recollection,

take the

chair at

that meeting.

I passed

by the

place in the evening, ascertained that everything

was quiet

and went away."
Cross-examined by Mr. Barton
offered there."

— "I

did not hear that

any threat

or

intimidation was

By
him

Mr. Bay ley.

—"

I

that he

had better be careful and not

saw Goculdass Lilladhur with reference to the meeting, and told let his party create any disturbance. Goculdass

said that there

He

said the object of the meeting

was no intention on the part of his men to create a breach of the peace. was to ascertain who were the Maharajah's friends, and
It

who were

not

was

at five,

half-past five,

or

a

quarter

to

six,

when

I

rode

past.

I don't think I have any Bhattia sepoys.
(7.)

The
I

gate

was open when I went by."
duty at the
the

George Gahac/an, examined

—"

am

a constable of Tolice, and do
Forjett
I took I

Picquet.

In consequence of instructions from Mr.

went

to

the meeting on

6th of September, at about half-past six o'clock.
lefl

two sepoys inside
took
inside,

with

me, and

a sepoy and a trooper outside.

The two sepoys
said there

I

were

put

outside

by

the request of

Dam.ee Heera.

He

was no

tear of a row.

I recognize eight of
bench.
to
in.

the defendants as being present.

Six of the defendants were sitting on a
about.

Damjee
be
at

Heera and Eagoo Shamjee were walking
the

Goculdass

Lilladhur

appeared

head

of

the

meeting.
to order

Proceedings
told

commenced
keep
silence.

immediately
After that

a'ter I

went

Jetta

called the

meeting
;

them

to

a

book
all

was read by
I
the don't

Adut

Kirpall

the book was handed from a bench

where
After

they

were

seated.

know which

of the defendants

handed the book.

the
to

defendants

signed

book,

people standing about came and signed.
to signatures being

Then
gate

it

appeared

me an

objection

was taken
the
gate.

taken there at the
eight
o'clock.

bench, and the

book was
then
shut

taken

outside

I

went

out

about

The

was
the

— the

wicket

was

open.
gate.

Signatures were then being taken by Ragoo Shamjee and

Damjee Heera
of the
I

outside the

The

people

who had

the book were

standing

at

corner

gateway.

People,

I

think,

might have passed out behind them without being seen.

had a conversation with

for

Eagoo Shamjee and Damjee Heera. Eagoo said the meeting was to ascertain who was and who was against the Maharaj, Eagoo said those who liked might sign, and those who did not like, need not sign. This conversation was before the meeting commenced.
I was intimate with Eagoo before that.
there

Damjee

said the

same
as

as Eagoo,
caste.

and

added that
said

was an

action of lihel in Court on account of

some of the

Also he

that

there were missionaries

mixed up
I

in their caste

the

same
me,

there were
Forjett, as he

in ours.

Then
to see to

Eagoo asked me

to

show him the paper
it.

I

had
letter

got from Mr.

wanted
it

the signatures attached to

had

the

with

but

did

not

show
is

him.

Handbills were distributed in the street by Eagoo Shamjee.

The wicket
language

about two feet
tell

and a half wide.
6

I ara not sufficiently acquainted

with

the

to

what

was

42
read or spoken.

They spoke
book
as,

in Cutchee, while they read from the paper in Guzerati.

I

am

of opinion that the object of the meeting was disclosed both in the paper and book,

more

in the

paper

than

in the

after the former

was read,

they
all

all

shouted.

There was no

shouting after the reading from the book.

I do not think

the

persons present could hear

what was
it

read,

only those immediately round the spot, from the low tone of voice in which
caste"

was

read.

I heard the words "contrary to

and that "the

Maharaja

has

been

served with a
of the two.

summons" read from

the paper, which

made me

think that the, most important
inches long, and

light yellow paper.

The paper was a slip about six The book was half-bound.

inches wide about eighteen

Cross-examined
without any
fear.

—" I
it,

should think there were

2000 people

present.

I ventured there

So

far as I could see there

was no intimidation.

I judged

the people

were anxious

to sign

from their

action.

I saw no force used, or pressure of any kind."

(8)
Fort.

Goculdass Tespal, examined by Mr. Anstey

— "I

am

a merchant, a justice of

the peace, and a chief Sett of the Bhattia caste, and reside near the Bazaar

Gate in

the

I

am

one of the founders of a school at which Bhattia children

are educated.

On

the 5th of September, I heard from Dyal Jairaz that a meeting
at a fair at

was
all

to take place.

I was

Walkeshwur when
'

I heard that.

I asked Dyal what

the noise was about,

and he

said,

Let's go aside and speak together.'

where Khuttao Muccundjee and others were.
a note from Goculdass Lilladhur.'

Then we went to the dkurrumsalla, Dyal then said, Bhugwanjee has received
'

Dyal

said that the letter called for a meeting at
it

once.

I asked what was the subject, and Dyal said,

refers to the
vs.

commentary
Mooljee.
said

of Goculnathjee

and
if

to the action

between
to

Judoonathjee

Maharaj

Karsandass
not.

I

asked Dyal
or

he had referred

any Shastree, and he said he had

He

fifteen

twenty

persons had assembled at

Gumma

Ramjee's and mentioned the

names
said said

of three or four of

them.

He

said that Canjee
to

Shamjee read a paper and
Laljee's

after that

some
a

arrangement
meeting
took

should be
place that

made
day
for

prevent our religion from being upset.

He

that

at

Chimun
names

temple,

and that

he with

others

went

there.

Bhugfriends.

wanjee sent

Goculdass
the

Lilladhur,
of

inviting

him

to

come there with
Adut,

his other

Dyal mentioned

Goculdass,

Lukmidass,

Ragoo, Canjee, Bhugwanjee,

and others as being present.

Dyal

said a discussion took place there regarding the
it

comment-

ary on Goculnathjee 's verse, and that

was resolved a

full

meeting should be held.
the

" The following morning about 7 o'clock I was
with Khuttao

sitting at

shop

of

Jewraz Balloo
meeting.

Muccoondjee,
others

when

Jetta,

the
to

crier,

came

there,

and
for

said Luckmidass,

Petamber and two

had desired
times
that

him

ask
I

my

permission
give

a caste
I

He
half

came two

or

three

morning.

did not

my

consent.
to

am

in

a

position that

my

consent should be obtained.
o'clock,

Bhugwanjee and Dyal came
to the

my

house at

past

twelve

and

we

three

went
;

house of

Jewraj Balloo.

Khuttao

Muccoondjee came

there.

We
it

went upstairs

I asked

Bhugwanjee what the

object of the

meeting was, and he said
to

was about the commentary of Goculnathjee, and a paper was

be

drawn

out,

and the
on

commentary
Djral

refuted

(or

falsified).

The

writing

was
said,

to
'

be

prepared in the Mahjun oart.

asked

me what my
Karsandass
false.
is

opinion

was.

He

you

have received a summons
give
?'

the

part of

Mooljee.

What
said,
'

evidence

will

you
the

I

said I

would say nothing that was
this

Dyal then
that.

It is true that
it
'

Maharaj commits adultery, but as
well
BiBt

question
also

connected with

religion
said,

would be as

to

say nothing about
will

it.'

Bhugwanjee

said

Dyal

Those who as-

KarsandasB

be punished by

the caste.*

I did not attend the

meeeting.

On

the

A
4S
following

day I saw Dyal again
were
passed
at

in

my

office.

He came

of his

own

accord.

I asked

him
been

what

resolutions
it

the

meeting of the 6th.
if

He

said a

writing
for

had

prepared, and

was written there that
caste.
'

any one should give evidence
'

the publisher

he should be punished by the
oart,

I said

Pid you assemble

in

Goculdass Lilladhur's

at

Matoonga

?'

He

said,

No

in Goculdass Lilladhur's oart at BycuUa.'
at

Dyal

said

there were fifteen

or

twenty persons

that meeting.
said that
it
;

He

mentioned the names of some

of the defendants as being present.

He

Purbhoodass brought the plea put in by

Karsandass in the
be
destroyed,

libel

action

and explained

and said that our

religion

was about

to

and that no one must go and give evidence on behalf of Karsandass. Dyal It was on the 7th that I heard of it. did not say on what day that meeting took place. He came there while Dyal and I I saw Luckmidass Khimjee at my office on the 7th
were speaking together.
Cross-examined

At

the meeting at

Walkeshwur Khuttao Ludha was
was
fined

present.

by

Mr.

Barton

—"

I

seven

or eight

years

ago by the

Magistrate for making a false return of carriages.

The

prosecutor of this case was a schoolconversing, Khuttao

master employed by me.
to look at a holy
!

When

at

Walkeshwur,

and we were

went

That " holy woman" lived in a house opposite. I never went woman Khuttao I don't know the character of that woman. to look at that " holy woman" myself. went to see who that Bhattia was that went into the house where the woman was. I have

known
he

the Maharajas committed

adultery

for seventeen

or eighteen years past

;

and yet I

worship them.
shall be.

No man

can be expelled from

caste unless a majority of the

caste decides
caste.

The nine defendants have

not the

power of expelling

me

from the

There are only two Setts among the defendants.

Re-examined
(9)

— " My

7nehta appeared for

me when
a

I was fined."
I attended a
o'clock.

Hemraj

Khetsey, examined

—"

I

am

broker, and live in the Fort.

meeting of the caste on the 6th of September.
nine defendants were there.
not

I arrived there about

seven

The
I do

Adut

Kirpall read from a book.

I did not hear

well.

remember what
said,

reading, he

after he had finished it was Canjee Shamjee read from a paper, and " Brethren will question persons who give evidence for the publisher."

After that the crier was called.
Court.
that

I have not been subpoenaed as a witness in the Supreme
in the

I have not been threatened in case I give evidence
stated was, that he

Supreme Court.

All

was

who

assists the printer or publisher will

be questioned by the

brethren.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley
it.

—" I

did not sign the book.
I

I of

was not asked

to sign

I was at the meeting the whole time.

part of what

was read from the book

I don't

remember a know of any

part

what

was
of

read.

other

object

the

meeting

than

to express

an opinion upon the commentary.

I heard no threat.
spot

Re-examined — "
read
"
("10 )

I was about thirty paces distant from the

when

the paper was

Nanjee Morarjee examined by Mr.
I
to

Anstey

—"
I
;

I

am

a

Muccadum
that

residing in

Hunnooman Lane.
that meeting

was present

at the

meeting of the 6th of September.
before.

I was aware
handbills

was

be held one

or

two days
I

was

aware

had

been issued on the 4th of September,
of those handbills (one produced)
is

saw one of them
one

I should recognize them.

One
the

not the

distributed

on

the

6th

of

September.

(Witness here recognized a second handbill shown him as one of those
6th September.
It

disti-ibuted
it

on

was read

to

him by

the Interpreter, and witness said

was the same)

44
Kagoo
distributed ten or twenty,

and said the
read,
to

rest

were
that

to
all

go

to

Cutch."

(The

official

translation of this

handbill

was

the effect

people in Cutch should take

care and communicate

no intelligence

to the reformers'

emissaries

who had been

sent

to

Cutch

to obtain information.)

(11.)

Bayley.

—"

Purshoturn EemraJ called by the prosecuting counsel,
I

and

examined

by Mr.
afraid.

am

a poor

man and
I
don't

I cannot give

any evidence.
I

I

was greatly alarmed, and
very

could not give evidtnce.
don't

want

to

name anybody.

am

much

I

want

to

name anybody.

By
By

the Court

Mr.

— " am a Anstey — " do know
I
I

Bhattia;

The whole world abuse me.

some, but I
called

am

afraid to

tell

what I know."
for

(12.)

Bhanjee

Bhurriinisey,

by

prosecuting

counsel

cross-examination.

This witness was not cross-examined.

[On
bles,

account of the very great confusion in

Court,

which

the

Court

crier

found

it

impossible to repress, his Lordship was compelled to call upon the

Deputy

Sheriff,

consta-

and

others,

to

shew increased

activity.

Quiet

was

very

soon

restored.

The Court

was densely crowded, and made the duty
Mr. Anstey, when quiet had been
action,
caste,

of keeping order consequently not a light one.]

restored, read the defendant's

answer

in

the

libel

which revealed the most abominable doctrines ever heard
or that sect of
it

of as guiding the Bhattia

to

which the conspirators

belonged.

Mr.

Anstey

read
to

for

more

than half an hour, when he was stopped by the Court. jury of the materiality of the
(13.)
pleas.

Sufficient

was read

inform the

John Doming Rozarto, a
answer.

clerk in

the Prothonotory's

Office

was

called,

and

swore

to the

(14.)

Pestonjee Bazonjee, examined

—"

I

am

a clerk in

the office of Messrs. Acland

and

Prentis.

I delivered the pleas put in by defendants in the libel action

on the

15th

of August."

(15.)

Hurrychund Bhanjee, examined

—"
set

I

am

a clerk of Messrs. Acland and Prentis.

I served a summons upon Jivanjee Maharaj before the 6 th of September."
(16.)

Kessow

Bhowo, a

clerk

in

the

Supreme Court, examined
is

— " The

cause of Jud-

oonathjee Maharaj vs. Karsandass ]\Iooljee

down

for trial."

Mr. Anstey

said that
if

was the case
Lordship

for the prosecution.

Mr. Barton asked
jury
?

his

was of opinion

there

was any

caee to go

to

the

His Lordship

said there was.

;

45
Saturday,
I'it/i

December.
than

(The Court-room
natives wrere admitted.

was

more

carefully guarded

on

previous

days,
in

and but few

The

considerable
felt

number

of

European gentlemen
)

Court manifested

the

great interest which has been

in this case

Mr. R. B. Barton, on
able

behalf of two of the defendants,

addressed the jury in a most

They had heard this great Bhattia case to the end, so far, as the prosecution was concerned, and it now became his duty as counsel for some of the prisoners to address them upon this most unheard of and perplexing prosecution— perplexing as to what defence could be made to charges in support of which little if any evidence had
and eloquent speech.
been adduced and that
little

so forced

and

perverted

as

to create

a difficulty even by

its

own
and

obscurity.
still
;

The jury must
for reasons

be aware of the extraordinary interest the case had excited,

continued to excite amongst the native community of this vast and densely populated
that

town

and that
jury

must be

obvious to
case

every
the

one

first,

on

account of the
before a

novelty of the accusation, this

being the

first

of

kind

ever

presented

Bombay

;

secondly, from the

known and

well established respectability of the accused
against
his
clients,

and, thirdly, from the nature of the charges

trumped
all

and

laid out in
of

that cloudy and overgrown indictment they had

seen in

the hands of the Clerk

the

Crown, when the defendants were arraigned.
be any difficulty in upsetting
all

Mr. Barton did not consider that there would

those charges, or that there

was any thing
their

in

them worthy

of remark, conspicuous and remarkable as
peculiarly in their

they

were in nothing but
of

vagueness, and
the dangerous

want of

precision,

unworthy

comment, were

it

not for

precedent sought to be established by the prosecution should a conviction be obtained.

The

opening address of the learned counsel
the weakness of the case
;

for the prosecution in itself

betrayed a knowledge of

for instead of giving

some

insight into the case he intended to

present, he (Mr. Anstey) rolled about like a dismasted ship in a

heavy sea reaching

at one

point ancient

Rome, then modern
called him,
fit

Italy,
to

back
in

to

England

in

the time of our

Harry

the

Eighth as he

man

name

a case

connected

with so

much blasphemy
tottering

and

filth

;

and then with a peculiar and
with grains of Attic

eccentric roll

we were

taken, said Mr. Barton, to

Strange's

Hindu Law, and

the horrors of excommunication, seasoning his
salt

weak and
at the

statements

and

classic
;

pepper, utterly

forgetful of the charge of

conspiracy, most carefully kept in the background

and when they were
were now.
infamous

end of that
for
it

opening address as far as proof was

concerned

there they

The men

whom
were
to

he (Mr. Barton) appeared
legally crime at
all,

were

charged with an

and wicked

crime, if

and he

trusted the

jury
all

would, as
its

men who had a solemn duty
peculiarities,

discharge, look carefully into

the case with

bearings, motives, and
all or

ere

they ventured to return a verdict of guilty against
first

any

of the prisoners,
court.

now
he

for the

time in their
to

lives

arraigned

at

the

bar of a criminal

The
it

case

would

endeavour
one.

make on

behalf of his clients would be a simple one because

would be a true

The learned

counsel said this prosecution was not got up for the purpose of advancing

public morality, but for the

purpose

of

creating an

unfair and dishonest
side of the

prejudice

against

the plaintiffs in the action

now pending on

the

plea

Court,

and

to create a

money
case,

interest on behalf of the defendant in

that action and

the

prosecutor in
this

this

most

miserable and oppressive " prosecution."

Before entering on the demerits of

extraordinary

Mr. Barton said he
first to

could not
last,

help

animadverting

upon the course pursued by the

prosecution from

and he considered that means had been used and intimidation
to the

shadowed

forth

by

application

Court

to

set

aside a few

seats

for

members

of the

46
caste to
order.
effect,

which

prisoner

belonged,

and application
although

for

a force of European

police to

keep
its

The

effect of this

application,

apparently
filled

made

in good faith,
this

had had

and the

Court had

never

been half

upon any

day of
to all

trial.

He

(Mr.

Barton) protested against

this

Court being any but an open one

Her

Majesty's Indian

subjects without distinction of creed or caste.

His Lordship here interrupted the
the

speaking,

observing
to

that

the

request
to

preferred to

Deputy

Con^.missioner of

Police

was simply

have a

body of men

prevent

the

overcrowding of the Court.

The request

did not go beyond that.

Mr. Barton continued
against a hole and corner

—He

said

as long as

he

had
and
into

life

and power he would protest

conviction being

obtained,

undue means of any kind being
an instrument
of torture.

used

to

turn the machinery of this

honorable
of

Court

After

some further comments on the
Mr. Barton entered very
held since June

conduct

the prosecution,
case,

and the nature of the evidence,
meetings
Guzerati
to

fully into his

own

which was a statement of the

1858

to take into

consideration

the disgraceful publications in a
religion

newspaper, the SiUia

Prakash, against the Bhattia
pubHshers and
to

and community,

and

adopt

measures

to prosecute the

have them
to give

punished

by the laws
libel action

of the land.

Mr. Barton

told the

jury they were brought

a verdict on the

pending on
right

the plea side of this Court.
to do.

The defendants had only done what they had a

perfect

Mr. Barton concluded

his address with a very able appeal on behalf of his clients. six of the defendants, followed in

Mr. Bayley, on behalf of
conspiracy,

a very able speech, holding
it

the attention of the jury for nearly three hours.

He

stated

what

was that constituted a
this trial could not

and how the present

trial

was

constituted.

He

argued that

be supported, and cited several

passages

from Smith's speech in the
argument,

trial

of O'Connell

and
laid

seven others, in Dublin, in 1843, in

support of the
as this,

passages

which

were

down

as good law.

Such an indictment
indictment,
indicted on a
to

Mr. Bayley
There
ofFence,

said,

was never before framed
like


it.

it

was an

old

law

{Russel on Crime).

was not a modern case
English
spectacles.

The defendants were

common law
the
case

and the learned counsel (Mr.

Anstey) had asked

the jury

look at

through

He

(Mr.

Bayley) said the case was without a

parallel,

and could not be

so viewed.

The

people were

a peculiar people, and the English would always be profoundly ignorant of their habits and

modes

of thought.

mind, were not the
Bhattia community

The defendants, the learned gentleman would have scum of the streets. The jury were trying the
of

the jury to bear in

highest
his

men

in the

—two

them the highest
calling

Setts of the caste

;

and

learned friend's

(Mr.

Anstey 's)

language,

them " most ignorant and
of them.

degraded,"

ought

not

to

have been used.
as

These

men

were living almost the same as they did centuries ago, so far
This matter was wholly
it

we knew

;

and the English would never know more
gentleman
:

a

caste matter, said the learned
to interfere

the East

India

Company had always made
matters connected with
it

a point not

with the natives in their
to

religion

and

;

and the same freedom was held out
ment.

the natives
into
in

by our present good
of the

and wise govern-

The learned
to

counsel

here
first

entered

the history

Indian Press from the
it

time of the publication of the

newspaper and

Bengal in

1780, when
fetes,

was

so closely
to

guarded as
recent

be but a

mere
first

receptacle of

advertisements,

balls,

etc.,

down

a

date

when

it

enjoyed

continued

to

enjoy

the greatest

freedom.

But

that freedom

was not

to

use the press as a vehicle of private

malice

and unlimited abuse

of the religion of a large

and respectable community.

The

learned gentlemen called no witnesses on behalf of the defendants.

47
His
for

Lordship",

in

summing up
it

the

case,

made a few

general observations

upon

the charge preferred against the

defendants.

The

essence of conspiracy was a combination
or not the

an unlawful purpose, and

was immaterial whether
ensured, or were

measures taken by the
adapted
to ensure,

persons entering into
object

such combination

the

best

the

aimed

at.

The
to

evident object in the present indictment was stated to be to obstruct

the course of public justice, by preventing

witnesses in a case

pending in

this

Court from

coming forward
combining

give their evidence.

The defendants were thus charged with unlawfully
Court

to defeat the

administration of justice in this

in

fact,

to

turn

it

into

an
the
this

instrument of
that secr^sy

injustice.

In had been remarked by one of the brightest of English
ingredient
in

intellects

was a necessary

a

charge

of conspiracy,

and

that

where

proceedings were conducted openly they

would not

come

under

this

office.

Though

might be
law in

correct according to poetic
felt

justice.

His

Lordship, as an administrator of criminal

this Court,

bound

to

say that such a doctrine was not correct in criminal justice.

The
say,

essence of conspiracy was combination, no

matter

if

the object
stress.

was pursued openly
of

or
to

secretly.

Secrecy

is

not an essence of the charge.

Much

His Lordship went on
English

had been

laid

upon the argument of counsel

that the principles

criminal

justice could not rigidly be applied to the present case.

In

this opinion

His Lordship could

not agree

:

this

was not a case

in

which the Maharaj

of

the Bhattias sought redress for

any
and

imputations cast upon his private character or
preceptor.

upon
to

his

high

office

of

spiritual guide

This was an attempt in a combination,

turn into an instrument of in-justice the very

tribunal for the adjudication of justice, to which the Maharaj himself
for imputations cast

had applied

for redress,

upon

his

honor and authority.

And

if

the

evidence satisfied the

jury

that these persons

entered into the

combination, as the
to

agents of the Maharaj,
justice
;

they were
of
this

amenable

to the

charge of conspiring

defeat public
to

therefore
case.

the principles

English criminal law were as applicable

this

as

to

any and

other

There

was

remark
liable to

to be

made, which did not apply
all

to other criminal cases,
its

viz.,

that the law held as

punishment

parties privy to the combination

objects,

though they might
this

be present or absent at any particular meetings of the conspirators.
secondary evidence was admissible as
to

In a case of
:

kind
effect

the object of the

conspirators

the

general

produced upon the mind of a hearer by any speeches made or

by
His

extracts

read

from

a

book at the meeting, would be evidence

as to the objects of

the combination.

With

these

and

other general observations upon the nature of the

charge.

Lordship proceeded to
of the plea
it

read the evidence in extenso, during which he observed that the language
perfectly unobjectionable

was
was
bad
des-

when

taking into consideration the occasion calling

forth.

It

a

false delicacy

introduced only into
is,

modern
to

society

which named such
than hard
in

articles

in a
in
is

b'ght.

The

truth

said his Lordship, nothing less
;

terms will

answer
it

cribing hard practices
to

and

in

answer

a serious charge

a court of justice

better

speak plain.

The jury

retired for deliberation at a quarter to

4

o'clock,

and returned

into Court

at

precisely half-past

4

o'clock

with a verdict of GuiLTT.
pronounced, appealed
to the

Mr. Anstey, as soon as the verdict was
too severe in
efforts of

Court not

to

be

the sentence.

Justice

has been vindicated, Mr.

Anstey

said,

and the puny
Lordship,
if

the defendants had failed.

He

(Mr. Anstey) would appeal

to his

he

could consistently, not to go beyond the infliction of a fine on the defendants.

Mr. Bay ley asked the Court

to

suspend judgment.

He

would move the

full

Court on

some

legal points.

48
The
Sessions

was accordingly adjourned
recognizances.

till

Tuesday next.

Defendants were admitted

to bail in their

own

His Lordship,
there

in dismissing the jury, in this

said that
to

it

might be
his opinion.

satisfactory

to
sa}'^

them,
that

as

was great

interest excited

case,

have

He

could

he

entirely concurred in the verdict at which they

had

arrived.

Tuesdaij,

11 th December 1861.

Before a Full Court.
(Their Lordships having taken
justice,

their seats on the

bench shortly

after eleven o'clock,

the nine Bhattias, convicted on Saturday last of conspiracy to obstruct the course of public

were arraigned.
interest to

great

was the

The Court room was early crowded with know the result of this peculiar case.)

people of

all

classes,

so

Mr. Bayley moved the Court that judgment should be
should be had.

arrested,

or

that

a

new
said
it

trial

Addressing himself

first

to the

cause

of

arrest

of

judgment he
at
all,

no

criminal offence was set forth in any count of the indictment.
in the first four counts.

If

set forth

was
legal

The charges contained
to the

in those several counts

were charges which
fact

were

perfectly

unknown
:

law of England and of India, and in point of

no

offence

was
and

stated

it

could not be said that such an offence was ever before stated in any

indictment in this Court, or in any Court in Great Britain.
spiracy,
in the first four counts several overt acts

The indictment was
set out,

for

con-

were
legal

and

in

the

description
first

of the offence the

word used, " intimidated," had no
states that

signification.

The

count,

after certain introductory remarks,

" the defendants

on the

6th September

did

among themselves

conspire to intimidate persons from giving evidence."

Then
all

the indictment

set out six overt acts,

one of which was that the defendants would punish
;

persons
the

who
of

should come foward to give evidence

another, that they called a
;

meeting on
another,
;

4th

September
Dalled

for conspiring to

prevent persons from giving evidence
for

that they that
all

next
they

a meeting on the 5th of September
a meeting on the

intimidating

persons

another,

called

6th of September for

providing for

the expulsion of

persons

from caste who should appear and give evidence against the
on some supposed

Maharaj
It

;

and another overt word " intimidate" which

act was, that the defendants compelled all persons to sign a book.

was a count framed

common law
there

offence.

In the
for

first

four

counts

the

was used.

Now,

was no authority

such

an

indictment.
p.

The learned counsel
others,
all

referred their Lordships to a case 2 Strange's

Reports,

904,

and

of

sustained the argument.

The

learned counsel cited a case decided in the

4th year of the
not to
give

reign of George the 2nd, where the

indictment was
it

for

persuading

a witness
to

evidence in a case of forgery, and said

was no doubt highly criminal
;

persuade persons

from giving evidence where the Queen was prosecuting
for intimidation in

but the case before this Court was

a

ci\il

suit,

and no case whatever could be found where an indictment

had been

drav,'n

under such circumstances.

The

cases
in

were entirely
the
other
it

different

;

one was
of

a

case where the

King

or

Queen was

prosecutor,

and

was

a

case

civil


49
right.

In

this case

there was no ground
vs.

of

criminal
others
;

proceeding.

Mr.

Bayley
vs.

cited

(13
the

East) the case of The Khvj
others,

Tamer and
in

and

The
in

Queen
it

Rowlands and
held
that

which was a recent ca;e

the

Queen's

Bench,

which

was

defendants conspired unlawfully to intimidate, and the Court held
bad.

that the indictment

was

The workmen

conspired unlawfully to intimidate their master, and that

was a more
on Crime,
to

active case than the present one.

He

(.Mr.

Bayley) submitted that
indictment

it

lay upon his learned

friends for the prosecution to

show that the

would

lie.

In

Kussel

page 557,

it

is

stated in the third paragraph on conspiracy, to be a
to give evidence,
cited.

misdemeanour
2

per-

suade a witness not

and the note appended

to that referred to

Strange,

which he had already
on the
civil

side,

and

cited

The learned gentleman said it was Commyn's Pigest Action on the case

only a

case for

damages

for conspiracy,

A.

Justice Arnould threw out as a suggestion, that although the conspiracy

was

to intimidate

witnesses in a

civil

suit,

and there might be a remedy

at the suit, the

law as relating

to

conspiracy should be administered equally strong.

Mr. Bayley submitted that
that
it

this

Court would be guided by the law as laid down, and
its

would not now be making a case by

decision.

He

submitted with due deference

that were their Lordships to hold the indictment good, they would be

making law

instead

of administering the law as

it

exists,

for the only ley's)

one legal authority referring to

anything

like the present case favoured his

(Mr. Ba,
first

argument.

Assuming

that the Court
'

was

against

him he submitted

that
in

tiie
all,

four counts were incorrect, the words

intimidate"

and " prevent" being used
indictment would not
lie.

and unless those two words described a
word " intimidate" two counts

legal offence, the

Now

as to the
;

in the

indictment

in O'Connell's case were held bad

Chief Justice Tindal's judgment on that point delivering
not

the unanimous judgment of nine English judges was, that the word " intimidate" was

a

technical word.

O'Connell's Case,

11 Ch. Fin.

125.

The

context in the present indict-

ment

did not state

what was an

offence against the law.
to intimidate

Justice Arnould.

— " Maliciously
that states

and prevent" are the words.
If your

Mr. Bayley.
to

—Well,
has

no offence

whatever.
to

Lordships declare
in

that
or

be an offence in the statute, you declare that
declared
law.
If

be law which no judge
will

England
of

here ever before

your

Lordships

admit

the

validity

the

move for a new trial on the following grounds. moment the parties had not pursued the course they ought to have done to move the court for a new trial. In such a Court as ihis, an adjourned Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, no motion for a new trial could be made, Mr. Anstey said that a new trial could only be granted on a certiorari. The case cited by
argument against the indictment, I
will

Mr. Ans ey

said,

that

up

to this

his learned friend,

Mr. Bayley

The Queen

vs.

Rowlands

— was
of

such a case

;

the 11

and

12
vs.

Vict. ch.

78, stated
cited,

how a
last
:

question of law might be stated, and the case of The Queen
edition

Miller,

in

the

of

Archibald,
before

illustrated

it.

Now

what he (Mr.
Sessions

Anstey) submitted, was

this

we

are

now

the

Court

General

of the

Peace

for the

Town and

Island of

Bombay, and not

before a Ci'urt of Queen' Bench,
trial.

and

therefore this Court could not hear a motion for a

new

The Chief

Justice sat not as

one of the Court, but as an Assessor or Adviser.

Mr.

Bayley

said

that

his

learned

friend's

argument
have

did

not the

apply here.
defendants
In.
all

If their
convicted
cases of

Lordships were

to refuse

the motion, they would take

away from
a

of rnisdemeanour, a right which belonged to 7

them

to

new

trial,

50
misdemeanour,
after conviction

the Courts

may
(iMr,

grant a

new

trial.

And

as

to the

present
Justice

not being a Full Court, he (Mr. Bayley) referred to a case which came on before

Arnould some months
that case
his

ago, in

which he
Chief

Bayley) appeared
gave judgment,

for the

prosecution,

and

in

Lordship,

the

Justice,

and

the

prisoner

was

now

suffering the imprisonment.

Chief Justice Sausse said he generally

expressed his

opinion.
it

He

was

sitting as

an

Assessor merely, and where he coincided with Justice Arnould,

did not

much

matter

who

expressed the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Bayley.

—This

is

really a

branch of the Supreme Court.

Justice Arnould thought the difficulty

seemed

to rest in this

way, the

means
Mr.

of

get-

ting the case from the Court of Sessions to the Court of

Queen's
in

Bench
favour

in

order for

the

motion

for

a

new

trial.

The

only

consequence of deciding

of

Anstey's
constitute

argument would be that the Court would suspend the Court
a Court of Queen's Bench
for the

of Sessions,

and would

time being for the purpose of the motion.

Mr. Bayley
the sitting of the

called for their Lordships to adjourn the

Court

of Sessions,

and

to

proclaim

Supreme Court through the Court
the Court
of the to

crier.

Justice Arnould said supposing

be

sitting
for

as

a Full
trial

Court of Queen's
?

Bench, could

it

at this

time take notice

motion

a

new

without a certiorari

Mr. Bayley argued that the
this

difficulty lay in the

variety of jurisdictions pertaining
Sessions, but
it

to

Court.

By
at

the charter the

Supreme Court held Criminal

was

still

the

Supreme
Judicature
the
right

Court.

Bombay.

The very indictment before them was held in the Supreme Court of But if the objection taken by the learned counsel on behalf of
it

prosecution

be allowed,

might have the
to

effect

of depriving

the

defendants of that
in

which unquestionably they have
Court,

a new

trial.

This

case

was not a case
a
certiorari
?

an
the

inferior
effect

but in a branch of the
into

Supreme Court.
already in
of the

AVould
the

have

of bringing

Court that which was
to

Supreme Court
Court.

Justice
special

Arnould referred

the

constitution
for

Supreme

There was no

commission given the Judges
his

the

Court of Oyer and Terminer.

Mr. Bayley thanked
Courts here

Lordship.

He

was

aware

that

the

constitution
five

of the
special
vol.

was
for

different

from those in England.
Courts.

In England
to

there were
vs.

commissions

the

Circuit
p.

Mr. Bayley referred
trial

K.

Gompertz,

9

Queen's Bench Reports,

824, where in a
for

for

conspiracy
vs.

before

Lord Denman
1

a rule was made
1
wliere

absolute
trial

a

new
of

trial

;

and

to

K.

Whitehouse
on the

Dean

C.

C.

a

new
who

in
see

a case
that
case.

conspiracy was

granted
for

ground

of surprise,

and the Court would
the judge
tried

none of these motions

a

new

trial

were made before

the

Justice

Arnould

—In
to

the

case of

King

vs.

Mawhey

the

question of

new

trials

was

very fully argued.

Mr. Bayley

— Yes,
to

and sustains
a

my

argument that every

man

convicted

of misde-

meanour

is

entitled

new

trial.

Chief Justice

Sausse

—You
move

lay

it

demeanant

is

entitled

for

a

down as an new trial.

abstract

proposition

that

every mis-

51
Mr. Bayley
in
laid
It

down

as

a general
or

rule,

when

the

case
of

was

either

originally

the

Court of Queen's Bench,
Sausse
said

removed there by writ
sat
it

certiorari.

Chief Justice

he only he
if

here

at

present

nothing of the
before

case

except

as

heard
the

from counsel.
sat

He knew as an Assessor. The matter must be brought
In England the
Court

the

Court in

some way
it

Judges
be

as

a Court of Queen's Bench.
errtiorari.
inferior

Mr. Bayley
proceedings
could

thought
only

neeil
to

not the

by a writ of
from

be

brought

superior

the

by a writ

of certiorari. Justice

Arnould

said

the

question
?

was,

is

the

Court

sitting

as

a

Court of Oyer

and Terminer an

inferior

Court

the

Mr. Bayley Certainly not. There was no more difference between this Court and Supreme Court, than there w^as between the Supreme Court on the plea side and This Court was a Supreme Court on the criminal side, and is expressly equity side.
so

stated

in

the charter," and
in

their

Lordships had

the

full

power

which the Court

of

Queen's

Bench

England

had.
to

Mr. Anstey, with regard
trial

the

remarks of the

learned counsel
solely
five

moving
the

for

a

new

said,

that

their

Lordships'
to

attention
it.

had been directed
Lordships

to

charter.

Now
and
they
for
it

the charter had

nothing

do with

Their

had

special jurisdictions,

when they were
certiorari

exercising

the jurisdiction

of the

Court of Oyer

and

Terminer
motion
as

were not exercising the jurisdiction of a
ought
late to
for

Court of Queen's Bench.

The
not
of

a

have been made before,
a
writ
place
to

and as
for

it

was not
trial

made,
could

and

was
If

now
the

too
trial

issue,

motion

a

new
as
in

be made.

had taken
for

before

their

Lordships

sitting

a

Court

Queen's Bench,

then motion
friend

a

new

trial

might have been made
in

Queen's Bench.
as

His

learned

(Mr.
do,

Bayley)
but

had moved the Court
to

arrest

of judgment,
that.

he had a perfect
of

right to
vs.

he was not competent
6,

go

beyond
be
seen

In the case of The King

Maicbey

in vol.

Law

Reports,
vs.

it

will

there

must have been a writ
at

certiorari.

The

case of

The King

Oxford was
foretell

similar.

If the writ were
litigation

now granted
criminal

in

this

case,

he (Mr.

Anstey) could
either

no end of
or

future

sessions

when
trial.

every prisoner,

personally

through

counsel

would

apply

for

a

new

Justice Arnould.

—A

certiorari

was issued according
It

to practice

only

the

other
superior

day
to

by a
an

single

judge sitting as
Court.

a Pull Court.

was simply

a writ from

a

inferior

Chief Justice

Sausse
the

was

of

opinion

that
at

every

person

who

was

convicted
entitled
to

of

misdemeanour

at

Assizes at home,

here

Oyer and Terminer, was

a

new

trial

on good grounds.
stated
several

Mr. Bayley had
never
applied
for

grounds.

He

had been

told

that

a certiorari was

here.

Chief Justice Sausse.

—The

other

day a writ was applied

for

in case of

a corporation.

The law compels
present,
it

defendants to

appear in person, and as a corporation
to bring

cannot be personally

was therefore thought necessary

the case

where the defendant might

appear by attorney or counsel.

52
Mr.
privilege

Bayley said there was a clause
of appealing
to

in
;

the

cliarter

which gave
objections
so fully

the defendants the

the

Privy

Council

and certan

taken

by him had
would have

not

been decided by
if

the

Judge,

and had not been
greatly

argued

as they

been

the of a

points

had not been reserved by the learned Judge

for further consideration

in case

conviction,

The defendants were
to

prejudiced,

and

it

was

little

else

than a fraud upon them

reserve
his

certain

points of law

and afteawards refuse
that

to

have

them argued

;

and he and

learned
trial

friends

were

convinced

evidence

had been

most improperly received at the
Chief Justice
different

and

that the conviction could not be

sustained.

Sausse.

—The
as
it

Judge who hears
appears before

the

trial

has

the

right

of

ruling

parts

of evidence

him.
at

Justice Arnould

said
to

he took a note of the objection, and
apply for
not
to

the

end

of

the Court

gave leave to
concession

counsel

a

new

trial

in

general
that

terms.
all.

There

was
for

a
ft

given which ought

have been given

was

The motion

new

trial

must be

disallowed.

Motion in arrest of judgmeyit resumed.

Mr. Green,

who appeared with Mr. Bayley,
of obstruction
of justice

offered a

few

arguments
the

in

addition.

The

only

case

was such
ought to be
appear

that

from

nature

of
s -id

the
that

case

justice

might be obstructed by the conspiracy.
to prevent,
if

The
to

learned

gentleman

the

conspiracy

sound at

all,

prevent persons from giving evidence
evidence
;

who had been
Turner,

lawfully
;

summoned
vs.

to

and give
cases.

he cited
this

Queen
there
It

vs.

13 East

Queen

Epworth,

and other

!Now

in

case

was
and
in

no lawful summons
stated
it

only a personal request to persons to appear and give evidence.

was not
;

that

those

persons
to

were

liable

to

appear and give

evidence

in

this

Court

must be made
cases.)

appear that such

was

ihe
cited

case.

There
vs.

was
present

high

authority
vs.

support of this point.

(The learned gentleman
there

King
to

Pywell, Kivg
to

Bellinger,

and other
the

Keally

was no case
to

parallel

the

be

found in

law regarding persons conspiring
as

prevent

a person

from giving
for

evidence.

There
1028,
it

might be an action
he refuse
there
to

every one

Knows against the witness himself
In
vol.

damages, should
series, p.

appear and give evidence.
of conspiracy
to

7,

Law
of

Journal,
the

New
by

was a case
;

abuse a

process

Court

putting

in

motion

and

in that

case

there

was no summons, and therefore no damages.
Lordships'
consideration.

On

those

two points the use of the word
the learned

" unlawful," and the second, the absence of a summons,
case to
their

gentleman

left

the

Mr. Connon followed and said that an
arrest
;

he

had a

substantial

ground

for

moving

for

of

judgment.

He
of

was of opinion that the evidence did not
O'Connel,
the occassion,
do,

disclose

a criminal

offence

he cited the case

from what Lord Campbell

said on
to

when judgment was arrested, and he gathered that when the parties indicted had done
could
in

what they had been conspiring
of public justice.
editor
It

they

be
Hfe,

charged

with obstructing the course

was

the

first

time

his

continued Mr.

Connon,
libel,

that

the

of a native
is

paper sought

to

be

dignified
this

by the publication of a

a suit for

which

pending on the plea side of
direct
interest in

Court.

These

parties,

the

present defendants,

could have no

the

settlement of a dispute between those two individuals.

53
The
a
only
case

which he remembered and

which he
a public
It

thought

bore
:

a

somewhat
that

resem-

blance to this,
civil

was a conspiracy
it

to
civil

hiss

in

assembly
also bt-en

but as

partook of

character
if

was only a

injury.
to

had

suggested,

observed

Mr.

Connon, that
injury,

the parties subpoenaed

attend

did not attend, then there

would be an
that
it

and an action

may

be

maintained.
the

He

submitted

to

their

Lordships
the

did not
of this

appear by the indictment that
Court,

parties

charged, were
judicial

within
notice

jurisdiction

and he hoped that the Court would take
a
class

of this obiection.

The Bhattias were
jurisdiction

of people as

numbering
within
this

large,

and the Court

could only
of

have

over

such

of

them
suit,

were
in

the

town

and

island

Bombay,
the

and

therefore

the

indictment was
in the

faulty

respect.

He
a

submitted
in

that

Maharaj,
as
for

the

prosecutor

plea
his

had

just

as

much

chance
the

being

bribed

any
the

witness,

and

concluded
bring

remarks
to

by

stating,

that

evidence

adduced

prosecution

did not

home

the

defendants
is

a criminal offence.
to

Chief Justice
travel
trial,

Sausse.

—The
ask

present

a motion

arrest judgment,

and you cannot
Court at
the

out

of

it.

You
is

are

treating

with the

evidence brought

before

the

but

which

not
I

before

the

Court now.

Mr. Connon.
these

may
It

your Lordships, what would be the consequence of finding
tolerate

men

guilty ?

would only
is

abundant prosecutions of
this

this character, arising

out

of civil suits.

There
give

not

a case pending in

or

any
were

Court
better

in
if

which parties
each

are not
his

asked
linen

to

evidence

one

side

or
to

the other.

It

washed

dirty

at

home than come here
I
shall

do

so.

Mr. Anst(y.
ment.
fallacy

confine
it,

myself,
I

my
ask

Lord,

to

the

motion

for
to

arrest

of judg-

Before
of Mr.

I

enter upon

must

your

Lordship's

leave

point

out

the

Bayley's and the

other
it

learned

gentlemen's
the
overt
to

arguments.
acts

The indictment
It

would have been perfectly good had
out
cases

omitted
press

altogether.

was only

of grace of

and favour that I
vs.

did
others,

not

them
vs.

be

made

out

stronger.

The

Queen

Brown and
1861,
not
are

and

Queen

Sap'eton and others, reported in
the
in

6

Weekly Reporter
although
it

in

point.
to

The
not

Court on
overt
acts

occasion

makes

remark,
it

that

is

necessary

mention

the

indictment,

may,
in

however,
giving
goes

be done.

The defendants
just
!

are

charged

with

tampering with
to give

witnesses

evidence,

but they are charged with intimidating witnesses
raised

evidence.

Away
is

the

objection
in
to

upon

this

subject.

An

offence

to
is

obstruct justice

not

an offence
volunteer
prosecutor

law
be

a witness
witness
in
!

cannot

be

a
the
?

witness

unless

he

subpoenaed
?

!

he cannot
not the
affect

a

why
his

cannot

witness
I'he
I

be

voluntary
of

why

is

prohibited
of

giving

evidence

absence
think
I

a

subpoena
said

cannot

the
this

quality

the

crime charged
I

!

My

Lord,
to

have

sufficient

against
I
find

frivolous

objection.

now proceed
is

the

other

objection

—a
to

specious

one.

in

that

book,
ill

that

conspiracy
Objection

a

harmless word, but
taken
?

may
the

be taken by the commentary
the

in

an
the

sense.

has
are

been

by

Mr.

Bayley

word

" intimidate"
specily

in

indictment.

What
specify

words
is

They
down.

specify

meaning
Mr.

—they
in

the

purport,

and they
affect

what
of

laid

The

introduction of the

word " intimidate"
Anstey
read
the
the indictment,

does

not

the

meaning

the

word

" prevent."

(Here

The defendants attempted by certain overt acts mentioned to punish those members of their caste by excommunication on their the plea action. Your Lordship is bound to take judicial notice of
indictment.)

giving evidence in
this
fact.

Now

comes an answer

to

another

objection

which

is

entirely frivolous.

It is not for conspiring

54
amongst themselves,
but
give
for

deterring

others

from giving evidence, especially
threatened

of

persons
caste,

who
also

are

invited

to

evidence.

They
says,

are

with

expulsion

from

the

with the

loss of certain

privileges.

The indictment
that
act

says,

" then and there witnesses."
a caste
take

Another count of the indictment
evidence
the

the parties were to be prevented from giving

by a

caste

meeting.
that

The
at

overt

was,

they

did

call

meeting,
to

and
expel

next overt act was,

the

meeting they proposed

to

measures

from the caste any person who should give evidence on
the

behalf

of Karsandass

Mooljee,
divers

defendant in
persons
to

the
sign

libel

action.

The next
giving

overt

act

was,

that

they

induced
to

Hindu
motion

a

certain

book by which they bound
evidence
against

themselves
the

suffer

exis

communication
for

in

the
of

event

of their

Maharaj.

This

a

arrest

judgment which cannot be entertained by the Court.
and which I must ask your Lordships
satisfied
to

As

the verdict
fact

was a general
that
states

one,

infer

from the very

the jury
the

appeared

on their returning their verdict.

Strange's
;

Hindu Law
they
the are

consequences

of

excommunication,
but

and

which

is

very severe

not

only

expelled
sons

from

their

caste,

they
case

are

prohibited

from

contracting

marriage
to

of their
alter

and daughters.
framed upon

In

the

of

O'Connel the charge of conspiracy was
:

the

law by intimidation and physical

force

in this case the

law was different and
;

the

charge

was

it.

Now
it

look

at

the

word
that

" prevent"
applies
to

it

has

been

used by pleaders since the earliest time
not apply
to

The
argued,

objection

intimidate, does

prevent.

Intimidate,

is

has

no

content,

the

counts
vol.

all

say

" prevent from giving evidence."
on

(Here Mr. Anstey read from the 2nd
person
is

of Russel
to

Crime and
tailor

cited

a

case.)

Where a

charged with

conspiring

prevent
held

a

by

indirect

means from carrying on
was good.

his trade, the presiding

Judge

that

the

indictment

Chief Justice

Sausse.
in

I

do not think,

Mr.
not

Anstey,
good.

that

it

was suggested

that the

word " prevent"

the

5th indictment was

Mr. Anstey here read the 5th indictment and
the

said.

—Every
trial
;

overt

act

charged

m

indictment
the

was proved

in

the
is

evidence

at

the
for

time of
criticism

the jury

found guilty

on
the

word " prevent."
or in
in

There

no ground

in

the

way

the jury

found
are

verdict,

the

not
all,

living

an age
to

way the Clerk of the Crown framed the when a trifling error of law can destroy an
there
is

indictment.

We
of the

indictment.
corners

Assuming
in-

however,

be

true,

no defence

whatever

to

the

four
his

dictment.

(The Judges were consulting and Mr. Anstey stopped
Arnould.

address.)

Justice

—I

was drawing
to couple

his

Lordship's

attention

to
if

Lord Campbell's

Act

which empowers the Judge
perverting

hard labour with the sentence
justice.

convicted of preventing,

and defeating the ends of

Mr. Anstey. Open conspiracy by means of force and threats of a barbarous, aye, and uncultivated race are crimes of an uncivilized epoch. In former days the star chamber was resorted to to effect intimidation of witnesses, but in the present day, a
'

constable

is

sufficient

to

put to

flight

a

number
charges

of intimidators.

Since the star chamber

has been

done away with,
case

we have had
had,
as
to
let

of perjury, subornation of perjury.
rich

In
:

the present the

we have
has

your Lordships know,
the
prosecutor

men
to

as

the

defendants

prosecution
to

been

costly
to

and laborious

ourselves,

and
vs.

it

will

be dangerous
there

Government

such go unpunished.
character,

In the case of King

Mawbey

was no

distinction

of a

penal

and

it

was the only way

in

which the

55
jury understood
it
;"

the
vs.

case

was a

trial

for

a conspiracy
did
conspire
the

to

obtain

a
to

false

certificate.

In the case of King
certificate
certificate,
:

Mawhey

these

parties
to

together

obtain

a

false
false

the

and the third count was somewhat
be an indictable one
vs.

offence
cases,'

may

Queen

others]

Assuming
racy

that a

......
second

count was

with intent

deceive

Court

by producing a
says
to the

similar.

Lord Kennyon
vs.

that

the

[Mr. Anstey referred

following

Roebuck, Qveen vs

Roberts,

p.

129,

Queen

Eagkion,

p.

80,

and

man

can commit a fraud which could be tried only on the
is

civil

side, still there
libel,

are cases (the present

one) which are indictable and punishable.

Defamation,

conspi-

may

be

made

the subject of an action at law, and they

may
is

consistently be put on the

criminal side of the law.
conspirators ?

What
1

do

we know but

that the prosecutor
is

gaining by this act of the

In a criminal

action, the injury

done
trial.

done

to the

Queen.

She has no right
it

of action in a case of tort.

page of the state

In the case of Haines

was contended

Queen could be actionable at criminal law, but of a private person or Assuming the indictment to be true, there has been an company he cannot be an attempt to dissuade others from giving evidence, and an attempt to impoverish him
that a defaulter to the

attempt
friend
in in

to

get

witnesses

to

swear

to

what

is

false.

The very
upon
to

case cited

by

my

learned

Strange's

dealing

with

Hindu law is men at the bar

against
prisoners
is

him
are
called
to

absence answer.
of

of

all

precedent

;

Mr.
O'Connel's
special

Dunbar
case

— My
new
trial

argument

in

reference

the

argument

Mr.

Bayley.
it

In
a

the jury

tound a verdict

upon some of the counts,
but
in
this

and as

was

verdict

a

trial

was allowed
be
had.
said,

;

case

the

verdict

was general, and

therefore

no new

can

Mr. Bayley then replied and
counts.

there

was no authority
case
all

to

support

these

various

The

counts in the indictment in O'Connel's
in
all

relied
;

on the same

matter

:

the

same words were used
the judges,

by means of " intimidation"
called to the

and

all

were upheld

by

though they found fault with the jury.
attention

cases).

The
the

Court's

had been
only

(The learned gentleman cited word " intimidate" and " conspire."
" conspire"
opinion
that

Now
there
said

word

" intimidate"
illegal

no doubt meant an

action.

meant an improper action. The word The nine judges were unanimously of
to

was
that

no
the

techincally

bad
the
the

meaning
word
judges

the

word

" intimidate."
of the

]Mr.

Anstey

had

purport
opinion

of
of

was

the

essence

word.

That

was
illegal

mere
word.

quibbling.

The

was that " intimidation" was not an
are

Justice

Arnould.
set

— The

defendants
;

here
great

charged
difference.

with

intimidating

by

means

which are

out

following

there

is

a

Mr. Bayley said one count
the
it

in the present indictment

was a conspiracy
cast

to

intimidate
evidence
;

whole

world

to

prevent

all

members
did

of the

Bhattia
state

from
these

giving

was

too

general.

The

indictment
:

not

even

that

persons

were in

existence

—no

there

are

averment of that it persons. says, " certain" Now it assumes that " certain" persons. The arguments taken by his learned friend, Mr. Green,

were good, and had not been answered.
the indictment did
of the
raised

These persons had not been summoned

:

then

not state that those witnesses

were alive or were within the jurisdiction

Court,

or

were

willing

to

come
as

forward
existing

and
in

give
to

evidence.

The indictment
them with being
or in

up a

certain

class

of

people

order

charge

intimidated

by

the

defendants.

Now

the

persons

may

be

at

Poona

England,

56
There was no averment that any other supposed witnesses were within the jurisdiction, that they were summoned or able to attend, and it was consistent with the averments
not

or

thait

a

single

Hast.

362,

could or ought to attend. He cited K. vs. Stevenson, 2 witness where the witness intimidated had been duly summoned according to law.
Sausse.
it

Chief Justice
jurisdiction
;

— The
matter
did

conspiracy,

as

the

counts
are.

allege,

occurred

within

the

and

don't
it

where the persons
his

Mr. Bayley said
in

with

argument.

Supposing
to

there
try
to

were

10,000 people

Cutch,

and there was merely a meeting in Bombay
surely
that

persuade those people
illegal

from coming here,
count did not state
text-book
said or

the
that

calling

of that

meeting would not be an

act.

The
single

evidence
to

was material.
the
act

And
illegal

there
act.

had not been a

of the

decision shewn word " prevent,"

make
said

an

Then much had been

which he
Mr.

(Mr.

"

assist !"

We

have

a

collect,

contended in some cases meant Bayley, beginning with " Prevent us, Lord"

Bayley)

&c.

&c.,

which plainly had

this

meaning,
as
to

and surely those

good

men who composed

it

had as good a knowledge
Justice
collocation

of

English

we
say

ourselves
that

have.

Arnould

—Do
not

you

mean

" intimidate"

and prevent" in that

the

word" prevent" means
argue
that.

assist ?

Mr.
been

Bayley did

He

thought

some

other

word

ought

to

have

The word had not that comprehertsive meaning that " murder," and such As " conspiracy," as his learned friend had said always had a bad other words, had. meaning. Now, in this charge, there were four words used combine, conspire, confeused.

derate,

and agree together, that
should

the

case

should
stated
in

not,

if

possible,

slip

through.

Now
For
lie
if

the

indictment

have gone on and

the

overt

acts

and damages done.
conspiracy

argument,

he

would assume that an action
:

the

nature

of a

would

damages had accrued
the

it

followed

that

a person

would have a remedy
which
say
It

for years

before

time

when he
defended.

might
It
is

have

a

right

of action,
to
else.

right

of action

might

be

successfully
to the

perfectly

consistent

that

no injury
not

has
that

been done

prosecutor,
did
in

public justice,

or

any thing
the

was
a

shown

what the
had
been
in

defendants
intimidated.

any
not

degree

affected

case,
it

or

that

single

witness

No harm had
and
not
alter

been

done

was

an

abstract

proposition
verdict,

laid

the
their

indictment,

supported

by any

authority.

There was a

and

Lordships could

that verdict.
said

He

thought judgment had not been received here.
the

Chief

Justice

Sausse

he

understood

present

motion

was

in

arrest

of

judgment.

Mr.
the

Bayley said the verdict was general, and therefore the Court could not

alter

finding.

The

jury

had been discharged
bad,

without

being

asked on which

count

they

convicted.

Judgment was
Arnould
an
to

and should be

arrested.
sufficient

Justice

said

the

Court did not consider that
After

grounds had

been
acts

shown
offence

for

arrest

of

judgment.
out,

enumerating the
said
this

counts,

and the overt
to

which were
at

carry

them

the

learned judge

appeared

him
in
;

to

be

an

common
other

law.

There was an action
it

brought

before

Her
to

Majesty's

Supreme
a certain

Court

for redress

of a

wrong,

was necessary that the Court should proceed
the

way, among

things

have

evidence

of

witnesses,

do

justice

and any

attempt to change

that

course was an

attempt to prevent that Court from

doing

what

it

57
was appointed
to do, justice.

ICow an action was brought hy the Afaharaj
is

for the

rei^ress of

what he
injustice,

felt

a wrong, and then intimidation from appearing
that a
in

offered to those witnesses

by

his devotees to

prevent them
to

Court and giving evidfnce.
to

Kow,

it

would be a very great
charge
in

hold

m

n who has
to

defend himself
It

against a serious
clearly did not

the

Supreme Court has
had a remedy at
to

not

the right

defend himself.
their
filnn

make any

difference

wt ether the defendants carried
civil

out

or

not.

or

whether the present prosecutor
to call

law.

'I'he

parties

suffering

had a right
the

upon the

aggressors

account

for

their

misconduct.

With
said

regard
there

to

mere

technical
in

oljectioiis

which
gist

had been taken, the learned judge
of the case

was nothing
In
case
set

them.
it

The

whole

was

in

the

word

•'

combination.'

a case cited
here
out,

was not

clearly

shown
was
to

what the meaning of the word was,
intimidate
of vagueness.

but

the

was
so

totally

different


a

it

and prevent by means which were
It

that
it

there did

was

no possibility

also

appeared

to

the

learned
essence

judge that

not

matter
for

though

the

witnesses

were
quality,

not

summoned.
and
he
verdict

The
was

was the

combination

common

object.

The

kind,
'I

nature

of the

offence

was the same,
his

though the degree
opinion

might be mitigated.

general.

In
up.

Lordship's

each count

was

good.

Judgment had

not

yet

been entered

Mr. Anstey asked that judgment might be entered up on each
Mr. Bayley
requested
as

count,

a

matter

of

right

a

new

trial

for

the

six

defendants

whom

he

represented,

and he

also

moved on the

ground that

the

points

had been

expressly

reserved

for

argument by Justice Arnould.

Justice

Arnould said that question had been decided.
Court

Mr. Bayley asked the
proceedings.

merely as

a

matter

of

form
trial

preliminary to

further

He

had understood that the question of a new
for

was not

fully decided,

Mr, Anstey pleaded

judgment on the defendants,
to
call

Mr. Bayley said he wished

a few

witnesses

as

to character.

Mr. Anstey took some
Justice

objection,
if

when
Anstey)
convicted

Arnould

asked

he

(Mr,

had not
?

asked

for

mercy

for

the

defendants

on Saturday

when they were
!iad,

Mr,

Anstey said he
concerned
in

and

although

he would not

retract,

yet

the

prosecutor

and
in

all

the prosecution

had received nothing but sneers from the defendants

consequence of the appeal.
Messrs.
J. Cassels,

M,

II.

Seott,

T.

F.

Gray,

J.

Bevis,

K,
of

Hannay,

merchants
to

of high

standing,

were called on

behalf of the
for

defendants.
fifteen

Most
or

them spoke

an

acquaintance

with the defendants
bore
in

terms of ten,

twenty years, and

to the

high character they

the

mercantile

community.
of Police,

W.
the

Crawford,

Esq.

Senior

Magistrate
believed

was
men,

also

called,

and

said

that ho

had known
mildest

Hagoo Shamje<j he

for

twenty-two
gentlest

years.

Defendant was one of
with.

mannered men, and one of the
in

he ever dealt

Mr.

Bayley made a few remarks
the

mitigation

of punishment, on

the

position

of

the defttudants,

novelty

of

Uie

offence, the

absence of any proofs that the defvudaati

8

58
most of
all

whom

only

spoke

their

native

tongue,

knew they were doing wrong
would meet the ends of

;

and with

deference

submitted
said

that

a very

light

sentence

justice.

Mr. Anstey
in

that

after this

he would retract every word he had said on Saturday

favor

of the

prisoners

(Sensation
sentenciny

and strong expressions of
the

dissatisfaction.)

Justice
respectability

Arnould
in this

in

prisoners,

said
to

:

Gentlemen
give

of

very

high

community have
truth
of
this

just

been
I

heard

you a
of

high character,

and of the
beginning
as
to

perfect

their
trial

evidence
there

have no

manner
against

doubt.

From
:

the

the

end of

has

been no imputation upon your character

peaceably

disposed

and orderly
in

persons.

The charge
article

you

is

this

that

a
for

person

whom you
immoral
him,
as

hold

the

highest

regard has

brought an action in this
charging

Court

damages on account of the publication of an
other
practices.

him
the

with
action
to

adultery

and

The

editor

of

that journal,

when
trial.

was brought
put

against

one

of

Her
to

Majesty's

subjects,

he had a clear right
I

do,

on the

records

of this

Court a plea to defend himself at this

have no doubt but that
(das)
is

you
this

have been put
case.

up

do

what you did
represented
well
so

do,

by Paroo
attack

who was managing
an attack,
of

That

plea has

been

as
of.

an

it

not

but

a

defence,

as
are,

you were
could

perfectly

aware

And
ignorant
to

you,
as

being
not
to

men
know

respectability

as

you

not have
;

been

perfectly

that

bribing

a

witness

was an

offence

it

was then

endeavoured

prevent

truth

and
of

justice

from

being

done by another course.
or

But
I

although in

Courts the
to

allegation

belief cannot

exclude
sentence

mitigate
shall
:

punishment,
pass

am

not

going

exclude
I

human

nature

in

the
to

I

now

upon

you.

In passing
not going
to

sentence

have two extremes

guard against
vindictive,
facts

on the one had I
on the
to

am
the

pass
the

a sentence

which

will

seem
that
will

while

other

hand I

must
this

avoid

appearance of overlooking the
It
is fitting

as

it

would seem

exclude

whole truth

of the prosecution.

you should
read
it

know the law of by way of a warning
Act,
the law
of sentence).

England on
against

offence

as

applicable

here,

and I

any future crime.
to

(His Lordship read from Lord
for

Campbell's
the
avail

empowering judges

couple
law.

hard labor with imprisonment on
this

whole term

That

is

the

I don't intend
of the

occasion

to

myself

of the

power

given.

The

sentence

Court
is,

upon
that

the

two leading

men, you Goculdass Lilladhur, and you Lukmidass Damjee, and the seven other defendants each a fine of Ks. 1000
;

each

pay a

fine

of

Rs.

500.

[The

fines

were immediately paid and the defendants

left

the Court with their friends.]
the

There was great confusion
noise

in

Court

when

sentence

was

proclaimed,

but the

was suppressed without
Mr. Anstey apphed
to

trouble,

when
costs

have the
already
to

of this
to

case

from

the

Fine

Fund.

Mr.

Anstey stated that the
told
to

costs

amounted
Full Court.

about Rs. 4000.

Mr. Anstey was

make

the

application

the

The
the Court

application

was

accordingly
to

made
to

on

Thursday, the

19th

December, and

ordered

Rs.

1000

be

given

the prosecutor

out of the Fine Fund.


59

"

THE miAL OF THE SLiHARAJ LIBEL
SUPREME COURT.— Plea
(Beeore a Full Court.)
Judoonathjee
Brizruttoiyee

CASE.

Side.

Maharaj

vs.

Kiirsandass

Mooljee

and

another.

Mr. Bayley, with Mr.
plaintiff.

Scohle,

instructed

by Messrs.

ColUer and Leathes,

for

the

Mr. Anstey,
defendants.

with

Mr.

Danhar,

instructed

by Messrs. Acland and Prentis,

for

the

First

Day,

Saturday,

2Dth

January 1862.

Mr.

Scoble

opened the case by reading a portion of the pleas.

Mr. Bayley

— " In
ask
plaintiff,

this

case

I

have the
for

honor
for

to

appear

with

my

learned friend

Mr.
libel

Scoble

to

your
21st

Lordships
October

damages
in

a most wanton

and unprovoked
the

published

on the

18G0

a native
see

Guzerathi newspaper,
plaint, bears

Satya

Prakash.

The

your Lordships
of people,
as
this
is

will

from the

a high character
of

amongst a certain
peculiar
character,
in

class

and as the case
the
first

presents

some

circumstances
the

a

and

time that any one of
is

Maharajs have

sought redress

a court of
it
:

justice,

the

plaintiff

subject to

all

advantages

and

dis-

advantages attendant upon

also

amongst others of being examined and cross-examined
will

on the
as
it*

part
is,

of the

defendants.

I^ow your Lordships

see
in

that

a

person

situated

he

respected

and revered among numerous followers
set

Bombay and
in

other places,

becomes a matter of importance that the practice

forth

the

pleas

should

be

proved.
is
is

He,

of course,
falsity

would have abstained from bringing such an
allegations

action, so confident

he of the

of the

that

he

is

disposed

to

risk

every
see

thing,

but

it

important for him to vindicate his
well

character.

Your Lordships

will

that

he could
is

not

remain
;

silent.

The

case

before
to

the

Court on the part

of

the

plaintiff

a

simple
that

one

but

before
is

I proceed
of in

the question of libel I
or
tliirty-five

may
to

inform your Lordships
of
age,

the

plaintiff
for

a person
part

thirty-four

years

and

that

he
not

resides

the

most

Suiat,
of

occasionally

coming
is

Bombay.
native

Though

educated
languages

in
;

the

European

sense

the

term,
in

he
the

conversant
of

with several
female

native

he has always taken an
seeks

interest

cause

education,
in
his

which alone gives him respect and honor
favor.

in

this

country,
to

and speaks
which
he

volumes
is

He

redress

through
remarks,
enter
the
at

a

proper
let

channel,
call

justly
to

entitled.

With
itself.

these few

introductory
first

me
into

your Lordships' attention
rebutting

the

libel

I shall not at

all

the

proof of the

evidence

which

may
case,

be brought forward,
to

burden
It
is is

will

lie

upon the defendants, as they are going,
to

I believe,
as

justify

the

libel.

unnecessary

trouble

your

Lordships
facts

with

the

one
in the

of your

Lordships
case.

already

cognisant

of the particular

and circumitself
is

stances
in

demurrer
:

The

authorized

translations

shewn

in

the plaint

these

terms

60
[Mr
••

Bayley here read before the Court the alleged
your
to in

libel.]

Now
is

Lordships

will

see

that

tlie
;

article

divides

itself

into

tvro

parts.

The
the

first

part

a certain
conpiiny
;

extent

liistorical

in

the

fecond,

the

writer

singles

out

plaintiff,

and

with

other
is

.Maharajs

charfr.'s

them with the most
Lordships
chapter
fro

filthy

and
no

obscene
doubt.
slander.

conduct
I
will

now

that

that
o>f

a

libel,

I

apprehend your
579,
n the

will

liave
libel

read

AlJisoo.

Wrongs,
every

p.

578,

on

and

It

is
is

there

shewn

that

publication

making a

person's

society

shunned

and

avoided
to

a

libel.

To

pul)lish

and
is

say
libel.

a

man
Tho=!e

has
cases

insulted
cited

two females and

thereby

make
to

his

society

shunned,

a
in

by

me
to

are merely
in

foot-notes,

show what
filed

constit tes

libel

the

opinion

of learned judges

England.
that

The defendants have
Karsandas,
in

justification.
is

I

atn

prepared

with

a

certificate

prove

one of the defendants,

the

publisher

of the

libel.

Hearing

his admission

a recent case that

he was the publisher,
to

and
the

the

other

defendant

the

printer,

I

need not put myself

the

trouble

of

proving
of the

printer

and publisher.
I

" The
as
to
its

sixth

plea

is

as

to

so

much
will

alleged
effect,

libel.

think a

special

traverse
it

being

properly

translated

have
official

no

as

I

am

of opinion
plea
1'hat

that

is

correctly

translated

by

Mr.

Hyim,
details

the

translator.

The seventh
plaintiff.
is

goes

into

minute circumstances,
all

and
I
is

a

horrible

character

of the
friend
'J

disposes of

the

other

pleas.
this

submit that unless
clearly

my
for

learned
damug<'S.

[prepared

with

substan-

tive

justification,
jtlea
'J'he

a

case
rests

he

burden
friends
;

of

[^roving

every

substantive defendants.
substantial

of

the

allegations

with

iny

learned

on

behalf of the

plaintiff is not actuated
;

by any

viridictive

feelings

he dues not require
liim,

damages
the

nominal damages

and

an
to

apology
the
I

would

satisfy

and

save

trouble
details.

to

Court,

and much annoyance
to

feelin;;s

by the
to

recital

if horrible

If the defendants do not choose
to

retract,

am

prefiared

prove

my

client's

case,

and

rebut

at

the
if

proper

time
the

the

allegations

set

up

for

the

defence.
libel,

I

will

ask
that

my
the

learned

friend

he

admits

publication

and printing

of

the

and

also

publisher

and printer are the defendants."
I

Mr.
inuendoes

Anstey. — "
;

admit
it

all

No
libel,

doubt

there

was
it

a
is

publication.

I

deny

all

I

deny that

is

a

and

assert

that

a

privileged,

justifiable

communication."
(1.)

Jamns
of this

Fli/nn,

examined by Mr,
I jiroduce

Scoble.

—" I
is

am

the

chief

translator

and

interpreter

Court.

a copy

of the

1860,

and

an

official

translation

of

an

article

Sii/a Pra\mh of the 21st October headed " the primitive religion of the
a

Hindoos

and the

present

heterolox opinions."

It

paper
Tiie

in

the

Gujarathi
is

lan-

guage and diameter,
according
to

printed
of

and published
ability.

in

Bombay.

translation

correct,

and

the

best

my
Mr.

Cross-examined by
in

Anstey.

—"
to

T
the

see

the

equivalent
desist

of

a

passage

bracketted of

the

original

'

Mahanijs acting
iight« rs

up

commentary
&c.'
in

from

the defilement
as
to

the

wives

and d

of

your

devotees,

(Witness
t!ie

was

examined
language.)
is

the

graramalind

construction

of the

above
case.
it

piss;ige

vorua-ular

The word
not

Maharaj
language,

is

used
in

in

the

voiaiive

The " Brig
not^ a

Bhasha"
wluch

language
trauiiliiiio'is

court
to

and

uiy

opinion

is

language in

have

be

made.

61
To
is

the

Court,^

— " The
by
Mr.

*

IJrig

Bhasha' language
written
one.

is

an ancient

dialect

of

India

;

it

not

a spoken

language now.

but a

Re-examined
•Gujarathi

Scoble.
in

— " The

article

which

I

have

translated

is

in

the

language,

and not

the Brig

Bhasha language.
Bhasha
Brig
is

To

the

Court

—" The

"

character of the Brig
original

somewhat

similar to the Sanscrit.

To Mr
in

Scoble.

The

seat

of

the

Bhaslia

language
is
it
«

is

round

A<Tra

the

North -West.
at
tlie

In

the

native
in

newspapers
the
sixth

punctuation
I

ot

carefully

marked.
;

Looking

passage

translated

plea,
of

think
f
II

forms

two

sentences

and

I

hold

that

view notwithstanding the omission
Mahadevsclasn,
all

the

-stop."

(2.)

Gopallilas
or

examined by
meeting.

Mr.

Bayley.
are


to

I

am

the
in

head of the

Mahajun
hajuns
to

Banian caste of
Banians assembled
of the
or

denominations.

They
It
is

numerous

Bombay.

Ma-

are

in
I

a

necessary

obtain

my

permission

hold
is

meetings

caste.

know the
lie
of

plaintiff

Judoonath
resides

Brizruttoiijee
in

Maharaj,
intervals

who
of

about
or

40
in

42 years

of age.

occasionally

Bombay

at

10

20

years.

He

is

a resident
liglit,

Surat.

The Banians
^Mr.

and

Bhattias
to

consider

the

Maharaj

very good
witness,

and

respect

him.

Anstey objected

the
to

last

statement of the
that the
plaintiff

and read the S55;h Section of Taylor on
give

Evidence
unless
to

show

cannot

evidence of good

character

or

conduct

the

contrary
in

has been offered or alleged against him.
point,
friend.

Tbe
be
got

learned
over
as

counsel

alluded

some cases
of his
call

and remarked they
Mr.

were not
the

to

by
to

any

explanation

learned
atten-

Bayley

said

question
stated

was not

character.

He

would
of
to

tion

to

the 4th

plea,

which

"

the plaintiff
laid

is

not a high
rule
in
I

priest

high

Ac.

Sir

Joseph
I

Arnold.

— Taylor
the
of

Caste"

has

down
aud

the

reference

aggravation of

damages.

understood
the
in

question
the

in

a spiritual

light.

thought
reason
I

there

was a mis-

und rstanding on
spoke of Maharajs

part

witness,

that's

the

asked
as
to

him
his

if

general.
I

Mr.
to

Anstey.
his

he
on

I

have

no

objection

posit

among
tiff
is

the

Maharajs.
:

object
is

personal
or
is

character
guide,

being referred to.)

'J'he

plain-

a

Mahtraj

he

our

gooroo
.Maharaj

S[>iritual

who
is

worships

our

iijols

and
run

performs divine service.
of Brahmins.

The

a

Brahmin,

and

above

the

ordinary

Some Brahuiins who receive a particular religious character from him regard him as a gooroo. The Bhattias are worshipiiers of the Maharaj The Bhattia They both respect the Maharajs equally as their caste is difK-rent from tiie B.mian.
gooroos.

A

gooroo

performs
I

divine service
in

and

worshijis the images.
to

preach sermons,
the year.

but

am

the

haliit

of going

The .Maharaj miaht him only three or four times in

The Brahmins read the Purans and other religious books to the people. The Mahrajs occasionally read the Purans, but are generally engaged in worshipping the The Maharajs have temples in Bombay there are sometimes two, sometimes images.
:

five,

and some times
here,
as,

ten,

and

perhaps

more

Maharajs
In

in

B

nibay.
I

reside

for

instance.

Jeevunjee

Maharaj.
at
in

India,
is

believe,

Some permanently there are now
chief
;

about

60
the

or

70 Maharajs.
of

The Maharaj

Sreejee

considered
'J'he

the

he

has

a temple at >'athdoovvar, near Oodeypore,
over
cities

Northern India.
native
princes
all

Maharajs are spread
the

Ilindoostan.
as

The

rajahs
I

and
have

respect
life

.Maharajs
I

in

the

same manner
to

the
Sa't/a

devotees

do.

resided
I
is

my
have

in

Bombay.
the
article

am
upon

a

subscriber
tliis

the
is

Prakash newspaper.

may

read

which

action

brought.

The

^ati/a

Prakash

now amalgamated with

the

East Go/tar.

62
Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey.
nor
the

—I

have never been
I have

to the principal seats in India,

have I seen

the

Maharajs vi^orshipped by the rajahs,

and v?hat I have said about
recollection

Maharajs

is

what I have heard about them.
going

of an

unpleasant
the

controversy

which was

on

in
to

1911-12 (1855)
our religion
;

between the
I

Maharajs and
in
it

Brahmins.
Maharajs.

The
I don't
of

controversy

related

was engaged
to

against

the

remember Lalmaneejee Maharaj
his

issuing an order eight years ago, calling

upon members
did

caste

to

repair

to

his

house
ten

and

give

him

presents

;

neither

Lallmunjee
displeasure

Maharaj
of

give

such an
for

order

years
to

ago.

I do not recollect incurring
for

the

Lallmunjee

denying his right

ask

presents.

I

have
of

not
the

heard of the complaints among the

VuUabhacharyas

of the

adulterous

practices

Maharajs with

their

wives

and daughters, but I have read some complaints
I
first

in the

Satya

Prakash and Parsee Punch, which
I have not signed
especially

began

to

read

about

five

or

six years ago.

a paper prepared by the Maharajs binding me,
;

to implicit obedience,

with reference to these accusations

but

many

persons have signed such a paper,
I

which I have heard was prepared by the Maharaj.

have heard from the Banians,
into

members
and
all

of the sect,

that

an engagement has been
their

entered

by Banians, Bhattias,
being called
'

the

sects

to

do

utmost
This

to

prevent

the

Maharajs from

as

witnesses in

a court of justice.

engagement has been designated the
I
can't

slavery bond'
so.

by
not

those

printers
this

and newspaper
It
is

writers.

say whether others

call

it

I have

signed

bond.

true

that

to

get

the

bond signed, the
I do not

Maharajs kept the

temple closed eight days.
being

This was about four years ago.
to

know

of

any attempt
the
caste

made
for
-to
:

by the
writing
said

Maharajs
articles

get

Karsandass

excommunicated from
attempt

of

Banians

against
as

them.
Bhattias
after

Such
the

an

was made.

Two
to

persons

came
it

me and
this
to

that

the

had made an arrangement we should
signatures
the

make

also

was but a day or two
give

were obtained,

intimidate

witnesses

evidence

in

this

case

against

Maharaj.

One was Purboodass, and

the

other

Jaykissondass.
is

Purboodass
action,
plaintiff.

and

is

He
as

They are both Banians, so am I, and so is the defendant. the person who is managing the case for the plaintiff in this present sitting down in Court behind the professional advisers on the part of the came to me once only about the business of excommunication. I said
is

that
to

if

what Karsandass had published
the

false,

the

Court

will

punish
:

him,

I refused I

interfere,

Maharaj had brought

an action against him
to

they
for

went away.

can't
this

say that they
action.

knew whether
are

I the

was going
preceptors

give

evidence

the

defendant in

The Maharajs

not

or

spiritual

guides

of all the Hindus,

but only of the Bhattias and Banians and Brahmins.
the Maharajs.

The majority
Maharaj
the
as

of the Banians believe ia

Some
I

of the

Banians are Jains. Banians regarding
Bhattias
the

Jain Banians don't believe in the Maharajs.
the
as

I
in

have not heard of any
the
flesh.

Almighty God
as

incarnate
of

cannot say whether

regard

Maharaj

the

incarnation

the

Deity,

but some

may
say

believe

in

Maharaj

the

incarnation

of

God,

while

others
as

do not.
f]
I

[Mr.
cannot
that

Anstey.

— Do
are.

the

whole sect of Vullubhacharya regard the Maharajs
think.

Gods

what they
(Mr.
witness

Some

people

do

say

that

they are gods,
so

whi'e
first

some deny
the

they
to

Anstey here read a portion of
in

much
laid

of the

averment of a plea
opinion of the
of

the

which the doctrine
that

of the sect

was

down.)

It

is

Vullubhacharyas,

the

Maharajs and their descendants are
to

incarnations

Bramah and Vishnu, and
their
followers.

deserve
believe
it it

be

worshipped
ot

with

the

mind,

property
to

and body of
this

I
if

to

be a sin

the gravest character

neglect

worship.

I cannot say

is

the

duty of female

devotees

(as

stated

63
in

the

plea)

to

lore

the

Maharajs and

to

be connected in adultery and lust with them.
in
to

If such

doctrine
it

or

passage

was
true.

shown

me

any
the
vs.

would take
to

as

good and

Referring

of the books I call Shastras, I " bundobust" (arrangement) I meant

refer

to

the

Conspiracy

Case of the

Queen

Goculdass

Leladhur and

others.

I

heard the arrangement was to prevent any person from giving evidence here on behalf and the " bundobust" I was asked to sign was to the same effect. of Karsandass
:

The Maharajs decide caste disputes, and also themselves fall into not know if some castes have had to complain of the Maharajs
widows

caste

disputes.

I

do

seizing the property of

and orphans

;

I have

never heard
there

such

a

thing.

The
the

Maharajs

have

temples in

Bombay
go
are
to

:

sometimes when
;

are marriages

and such
where

occasions, dancing
idols

and

singing

on in the temples
invited

but not in the
to

part

are

kept.

Prostitutes
also

on

such occasions

dance
the

in the jNIaharajs

temple.

Prostitutes

are

invited

the

party.

In

those

temples
the

worship

the

idols,

and
the
stuff,

men and women
Maharaj's
feet.

worship,

sometimes,

Maharajs.

They

prostrate
to

themselves

at

By

worshipping the

Maharaj, I understand applying

him

scent

and

and

offering
fall

When we
idol
is

him fruits and flowers, in the same down before the Maharaj, he blesses
it,

way
us.

as

the idols

are

worshipped.

by swinging

and our women worship
the
of

the

One mode of worshipping the Maharaj by swinging him in a
(red
is
is

swing.

On
fall

certain

occasions

Maharaj

throws golal
It

powder

used

during

the

Holee holidays) on the person
it

men and women.

thrown from
not

a distance, and

may

upon the necks and breasts of women.
to

It

considered
If

among

our

people

equivalent

adultery

to

throw golal on the breast of a woman.
it

any person

throw golal on the breast of a woman, our people don't consider
I do
not

indecent or shameful.

know
of
is

if

other

people

consider

so.

I

have not heard of any Maharaj touching

the

The pan soparree thrown off by The water rinsed and wrung from the Mahara s dkotia (trovvser) is drunk by his devotees and is known as charnamrut, ^. e., ambroisa or the nectar of the feet. Some portion of the remnants of The water with which the the food eaten by the Maharaj is eaten by the followers.
the breast

any of

my

relatives or of

any other female.

Maharaj

taken in hand and eaten

by

his devotees.

Maharaj bathes
the

is

not drunk.

I
sees

have been only three or four times in the year

to visit

Maharaj.'
if

The Maharaj
are rooms

men and women
jNIaharaj
to

in the

same

open

space.

I

don't

know

which females only have access. Maharaj has a family, he keeps a separate " zenana" in the temple. I do not
there
of the

If the
recollect

whether two or three years ago a meeting
prevent females

of in

the Bhattias
his

was held with the view

to

from going

to

the Maharaj

private

rooms.
in

Ee-examined by Mr.
follow
or

Bayley.

—"
to

Plaintiff

was

not

Bombay
;

four

years

ago.

People of our caste follow the
the
Shastres

customs

and usages of our ancestors

while

some others

and

religious

instructors.

They
at

take

their

opinions

from the gooroos

Brahmins.
reside

I
in

have never been
the

a dance
side,

the

Maharaj's

temple.

The Maharajs
sometimes
the
temple.
to

usually
in

Temple on one

or

in

a separate
in

dwelling-house,
opposite

a place within the compound,

and sometimes
and sometimes

a

house

There are doors and entrances between the house and the
place
in

temples.
of

The
the

dances
temple.

take

the

house on one

side,

in

the

compound
and
to

All

nautch 'dancers in
pectable
plaintiff in

Bombay

are

prostitutes.

Nautch- dances are frequently given by resof

persons
is

on occasions of the celebration

marriages
object
if

other

events.

The
but
as

married

and has
not

children.

The Maharajs

come and give evidence came here
;

courts.

They would

incur

anybody's

displeasure

they

:

64
they might be detained two or three days,

they
I

ceremonies and practices
that

in

the temple.

When
to

say

would be prevented from the usual " worship the Maharaj," I mean
present
;

we
the
light

offer

when we wish to invite the Maharaj him flowers, wave a light round
feet.

our house,

him,

ourselves at his

We
ways

do not
:

worship

the
it

God
to

the

we fetch him to our house, him money, and prostrate Maharnjs do that. They bathe
&c.,
it.

image
round

in
it,

several

they

wash

in

saffron,

flowers,

dress

it,

wave a
the
the
to

and then
tlie

men and

women

go

worship
of his,

before

Kone
a kind
to

touch

image except
office.

Maharaj and
is

particular

servants

who
:

are
is

appointed
of

The

gnlal

thrown about during the
called

Hoolee
is

festival

it

powder
it

prepared
it

from

wood

" Patanghoe."

It

usual
it.

among

the

Hindus
old

throw

is

an ancient custom,

and I

cannot explain
I

Now
so.

1

am an

man, and

I

don't

throw

it

:

when

I

was young

used

to

do

To
said
'•

Sir

Joseph

Arnould.

the

Bhattias have

I indended

"

we"

to

"AVhen I said two people of the caste come to me and mnde bimdobust, and that we ought to make bundobust also," mean the Bania caste.

To
it is

Sir

the

M. R. Sausse " When I say " worship the Maharaj," I don't mean to say there is same thing to worship the Maharaj just as he worships the image
:

a slight difference
presented
food
to
it
;

between
but
the the

the

two
is

The
done

image
to

is

bathed
Maharaj.

and

dressed,

and food
eats

is

same

not
also

the
it

The Maharaj
Vyshnavs.

of the

presented

to

in.age,

and

distributes

among

the

To
to

Sir

Joseph

Arnould.
I

— " When
I

the
light

Maharaj worships the image, I consider him
round the

worship
don't

God.

When
him
as

wave the

Maharaj and prostrate belore him,

I

consider
Sir

an incarnation of the Deity.

To

M. R.
the

Sausse.

—"

have said there are some of the Bhattias and Baniat
I

who

consider

Maharaj as an incarnation of God.

cannot

say
the

if

the

majority

or

minority

of the

Bania caste hold that
increased
or

cr ed.

I

cannot
within

say
the

if

number

of persons

holding such

belief has

diminished

last

few years."

(The Couri
crowded by

rose

at

5

p.

M.

—Throughout

the day the hall of justice

was excessively
select

followers

of the

Maharajs,

and peace was maintained

by a

band

of

Europeans of the Mounted Police Force.)

Second Day
(3.)

;

Monday,

'11th

January,

1862.

Jumnarlas SevaklaH, examined by Mr. Scoble.— I
caste.

am
I

a skmjf and a

of the
is

Laud Bania
Maharaj.

I

am

not

a shet of
our

my

caste.

know
read

the the
I

plaintiff,

member who
in

our

He

instructs

us in
libel
is

religion.

I

have
is

article

the

Sa/ya Prakash containing the
to

for

which
of

this

action

brought.

was a subscriber
October
I observe

the

Salya Prakash.

This

a

copy

the

8atya Prakash of the 21st

1860, in which I see an
in
it

article

about the primitive religion of the Hindus.

the

name
of

of Jadoonathjee

Maharaj introduced, the

plaintiff in

this

case.

I have

not heard

any other Jadoonathjee Maharaj.

65
Cross-examined- by
other
;

Mr. Anstey.
the
I

—" I
from

give

as

much
since

respect to this Maharaj as to

any
ago.

but the love

of

people

towards
his

him,

the

pubUcation about
his
to

of this

article,

has somewhat

diminished.
of

remember
other

arrival

from Surat
since

two

years
that

I have not heard
did
not respect
to

any complaint
and
the
witness,

Jadoonathjee,
as

arrival
do.

people

him
the

Maharajs

they

ought
I

(Mr.

Anstey
to

hands a paper
ever read
this

and repeats the
I

question.)

don't

remember
complaining
to

have

paper before.
followers

have
himself

not

heard of

Jadoonathjee

of the

neglect

of his

towards
arrival

and other
I

Maharajs, hear
the

previously

the

year

1860,

and before the
did
before

of plaintiff,

did

not

Vyshnavs complain that
religion.

the Maharajs

not
the

give

them proper
to

instruction

and advice in matters of
before

We
with
say

used

to to

go

Maharajs,
did

prostrate

ourselves

them,

to

go to the idol
connected
to

and
that

return.

They

not

give

any other

instructions
life

except
time.

those

Brahma.
if

Ihose instructions are given only once in a
the
did

Plaintiff used

Vyshnavs came
not,
to

to

him and asked him any
hear
I the
plaintiff

thing,

he

would answer them.
to

Plaintiff

my
so.

knowledge,
I

complain that they did not come
say that

him.

I

have

not
to to

heard him say
those only

did not
to

he

would give instruction
that, according

who came
the
giving

ask him.
should

have not heard the Maharaj say
give
instruction

the

Shastras,

gooroo

not

without
to

being
food
to

asked
one

by the

pupil,

nor

that,

instruction

without
of

being

asked

is

give

who

is

not

hungry.

gious

The company or The Society magazine.

society
is

Vyshnavs, not the Maharaj, published a reliknown as " the propagator of the Vyshnav religion."

Thev
of the

inserted

my name

and sent
is

me
the

message

to

the

effect

that I

was made a member
not

Society.

Plaintiff

at
all

head of

the
to

Society.

I

have

heard that

Jadoonathjee has called

upon

the
to

Vyshnavs
effect.

come forward and support the magazine,
do
not

nor have

I

read

a

handbill
the

that

I
is

remember the
I

name
say

of the

magazine.

I believe

name

of the

magazine

" Svadhurma Varkhak" (propagator of
cannot
are
if

our religion.)
are
ten

The

thousand.

Vyshnav families in Bombay are numerous. The Marjadees (strict observers of ceremonies)

they
I

the

Bhattias.

have not heard of Jadoonathjee complaining that, out of so many Marjadees, only one hundred have subscribed to the magazine, and that, out of so many Banias, only 120
have subscribed thereto.
practise
of

I have

not

heard

him complain
connection with

so.

any tyranny, what tyranny
the

is it ?

By
of

Brahma
read
in

The Maharaj does not I mean the chanting
Sanscrit.

mystic verse relating to

worship
not

Brahma.

I

don't

By God
the
opinion,

I

mean

Krishna.
of the
is

The
verse

verse

was

explained to
to

me

Gujeratee.

I

believe

meaning
the

was once explained
of

me by some
(This

Brahmin.

In

my
I

Maharaj

a representative
fine

Krishna

answer
It

was
is

extracted from not
that

witness
to

on the threat of a

of Ks.

100 from

the

Bench.)

hesitate

answer these questions against the Maharaj, for the fear that I may be born again in [Mr, Bayley objected to the Court being taken into the condition of a bird or dog.
such excursive
details.

Sir

nature, that the Court

must go
line

M. Sausse remarked that the libel was of such an extemsive The objection was overruled. Mr. Bayley into the details.
was not pertinent
Anstey.
to

again objected that this

of examination

the matter at issue.
is

Sir

M.

Sausse.

—What
?

is

the
to

question

?

Mr.

—That

Krishna

your protector, that

therefore

you surrender

him your mind, body,
is

wealth, wife, sons, children, and every

thing
that
pain,

else

The
is

objection

overruled.]

Yes,
I,

the

sense

of this

Sanscrit
internal

passage

is,

Krishna
do

my
to

protector,

and that

who am
body,

destroyed
breath,

by

misery and
feelings,

surrender

Krishna

my

mind,

my

my

heart,

my

as

9

66
also

my

wife,

together

with

my my

house,
soul.

my
be

children,
five

my

relations,

my

wealth,

and other worldly

things,
feast.

Some
don't

or seven

thousand

Banias assemble at a caste
It
is

Besides these

there

may

five

or

ten thousand
in

Jains.

true that about half the
sects

Bania

caste

(the

Jains)

believe

the

Maharaj.

There are two

of

Banias

believers

and unbelievers.
Banias believe
the

Sir

—Do some — " We Witness. M. —
Mr. Anstey.
Sausse.
Tell
to jail.

Maharaj

to

be

a

God

?

consider

him
witness

to

be
if

our

gooroo.

he

does

not

answer

the

question,

he

will

be

sent

Witness.

— ""WTiat

Is

is

the

precise question ?

(Interpreter

explains)

Some

consider

the

Maharaj a god in the shape of gooroo.

Mr. Anstey,
Witness.
Sir
will

Gooroo a God
is

?

— " Gooroo
Sausse.

gooroo.

M.

Tell

him

if

he

does

not

answer the question,

most indubitably

he go
Sir

to

jail.

Joseph

Arnould.

Tell

him

he

is

asked what others

believe,

not

as

to

his

own

belief.

Witness.:

—" I
caste,

a gooroo.
bust"
in

I don't

I consider him as simply don't know if others believe him as God know under what name others worship him. There is no " bundo;

my

to

prevent witnesses
to

Karsandass.
plaintiff's

I

was not asked
to

join

in

attorney

give

instructions,

from giving evidence in this case in behalf of such " bundobust." I have not been to the
I

went

to

him

for

my
is

own

case
to

which
the "

is

pending.

I

am
I

not

a

Marjadee.

I
sort

don't

know
it

of
is.

my

caste

people going

Kas
the

mandalee."

don't
in in
sort
sect.

know
the
in

what

of thing

There

no

festival

among
a room.

Vallabhacharyas

which married
libel

men
a
I

and women
reference
to

mix promiscuously
the

in
;

I
is

may have
nothing
of

read
the

article

Kas

festival

but
history

there

my

caste.

do
for

not

know
I

anything of the
the

of the

Vallabhacharya
caste,
is

My

only

reason
believe

believing
don't

Maharajs
if

to

be

of

high

that

even

Brahmins
Maharajs

them.

know
by the
at

those
I
don't

Brahmins are

few

or

many.
on

The
years.

are

originally

Telinga

Brahmins.

know

if

the
for

Maharajs,

account of their
I
don't

practices,

were outcasted
are
so

Telinga
present
in

Brahmins

Bome hundred
Brahmins.
I

know
family

if

they

outcasted

by the Telinga
family.

have never
of
:

heard of

a

Maharaj
the

intermarr^^ing

a

Brahmin

Males comes

and females
to

my

visit

Maharaj.
to

We

worship
I

our house

we

don't

go

to

his

house

worship

him.

him when he have not at any
Maharaj
;

time swallowed the

spittle

and leavings
of the

of

pan

soparee
of his

thrown out by the
food.

but I have
eaten

sometimes
of

partaken
food
is

remnants

My

family

may
the
sits

have

the

leavings
the

his

but not the pan soparee
in

thrown

out.

In
also

month
therein,

of Sliraican,

image

swung
of

a

swing

;

if

the

Maharaj
have swung

we swing
haraj

him.

The females
golcd

my
I

and other
think

families

him.

The Maalone,

has

thrown
I

on

thousands of females,
don't

not
that

the females of

my

family

By

Thackorjee

mean Krishna.

throwing the golal makes

women

67
pregnant.
It
is

not the

fact to

that

young men throw golal and not the
intercourse.

old.

Throwing
great
insult

the goJal has
for

no relation
person,
I

sexual
the

I

would

consider

it

a
wife.

any

other

but

Muharaj,
as

to

throw golal upon
chastity.

my
why

Throwing
is

golal IVom a
fifty

distance
for

don't consider

an outrage upon
1

(Witness
it

fined
insult

rupees

not

gi^'ing

a direct
at

answer.)

cannot but
the
the

explain
llolee
or
in

is

an
I

to

throw golal on a female
complaint
of the

any other time
handling

holiday.

have not
in

heard any
playfulness.

Maharajs
to

breasts

necks
:he

of

females

Complaints
the

similar

this

have
the

been

published
or

Safya

Prakask.

I have not read
I subscribe
kind,
to

Parsee

Punch,
of

Summachar,
recollect

the

Summachar Durpun.
any thing of the
read any
of

the

Jami- Jamah ed, but
list

don't

reading
papers.)

therein

(Mr.

Anstey reads a
I subscribed

all

the

vernacular

I have not

these papers.

only
article

to

the

Satya
in

Prakash and the Jami-Jamshed.
last-mentioned

(Mr.
seven
of

Anstey hands witness an
years
ago,

published

the

paper
the

six

or

containing
I

an

expose

" which

must

put

to

shame

followers

the

Maharaj.")

don't recollect

having read

this

article.

Re-examined by Mr.
the
is

Scoble.


is

" T

have been asked as
on
certain

to

swinging the

image and
days.
It

Mahara'.

It

is

a

ceremony
in

performed
of

religious

and

festival

performed

publicly,

the

presence
also

men and women
part
after

belonging

to

the

Vyshnav

persuasion.

Throwing

the

golal

of our

religious

ceremonies
idol,
is

during the

Holee holidays.
the worshippers.
insult for

The

golal which remains

throwing over the

thrown over

[Mr. Scoble.
to

— You
^^rofo'

are fined fifty rupees for not understanding

why

it is

an

a

stranger
the

throw

upon your wife
fifty

Sir

M.

Sausse.

— Mr.

Sci ble

has misun-

derstood

why

witness was fined

rupees.
fine

It

was

for evasion, prevarication,

and delay.

Sir Joseph Arnould.

— The

Court would not
it

a witness for not understanding a question,
is

and your assuming that
assume.

did

so

fine

him,

assuming what you

have

no

Mr.
or

Scoble

offered

an

explanation,
breast
or

and the examination continued.]
it

— " If

right

to

the

Maharaj
adultery

Gosaei
so

handled the
throwing

neck of a female,
females

would

be
I
to

considered

—not
at

his

golal on

from

a

short
for

distance.

have been

present
of his

the

marriages

of Maharajs.

It

is

not

lawful

a

Brahmin

marry out

caste.

To
the

Sir

M.

Sausse.

— "As we
do
of the

cannot touch
so,

and swing the image

of

the

Deity,

we
is

swing the Maharaj.
only gooroo
are

Wlien we
Vyshnavs."

of those

sect

we regard him as our gooroo. who wear " Kantees" (necklaces

The Maharaj
of

beads,)

and

who

known as

(4)

Vurjeevundass Mahdoicdass,
of

examined by Mr. Bayley.
the

—"

I

am
I

a justice
I

of

the

peace
the

Bombay.
these

I belong
last

to

Bania

caste.

I

known

plaintiff

two years since

his

arrival

know the in Bombay.
is

plaintiff.

have

am

a shet of

my
by

caste,

and one of the members of the

Mahajan.
is

The Maharaj
or

a priest of the

Bhattias,
caste.

Lohanas and

lianias.

The
position

plaintiff

a gooroo
ordinary

spiritual guide
'J

and Brahmin
Maharajs
are
in

He

is

in

a

higher

than

the

Brahmins.
plaintiff

he

looked

upon as descendants of the Vallabacharyas.
Maharajs
are

The
by

has

no

temple

Bombay.
our
sect.

looked

up

to

with

respect

the

Hindus,

particularly

by

Cross examined

by

Mr.

Anstey.

—"

I

deny that I was ever

called

upon

to

give

68
evidence
in

a court

of

justice

against

a
in

man

charged
to

with double murder.
matter.
I have
five

My

name
I

was

not

mentioned in a native paper
charge signed
witness
to

regard

that

seen

a paper

containing that

by Mr.
Maharajs,
I

Forjett.

That was
I do not
to

about

years ago.

am
wa»
a
the

brother
in

of the

Gopalldass
of

Madowdass.
except
not the

know whether
Maharaj,
of
history

my
in

brother

opposition

any
nor

the

Jeevunjee
the

respect
sect

to

dispute

between some

Brahmins.

do

know
of

the

of

Vallabhacharyas,
originally

whether he was
with them
are

son

one

Luxmon
are
caste

Bhut.

Maharajs were
I have
;

Telinga Brahmins,
eat
;

but have not heard

that they

outcastes.

not

heard that Brahmins
worship
the

One-half of

my

are

Jains

they do not

Maharaj

they

Bhuddists.

Some worship

the

Maharaj as well aa Shiva,
for

and
the

those

who

worship

Vishnu,
of

have a
Shiva,

reserved worship

Shiva.

when they abandon
immoralities.
rities

the worship

worship the Maharaj.

I do not

Some persons know whether

Kaja of Porebunder was disgusted with the worship of a Maharaj on account of hia I do not know why a Maharaj was flogged by the Portuguese authoat

Damaun.
priests
of

An

application

been

imprisoned at Jaluapatan.

was made The Maharajs

for

the

release

of

adopt sons from their
eyes of the
it

become
the

by adoption.
their
their

It

may
I
or

be criminal in the

Maharaj who had own sects, and they Hindu religion to expose
a

vices

parents,

but

do not consider
rehgious
too,
is

so.

The
-

Maharajs wash

their

own
Bcent

bodies

on

birthdays

days,

and

we

throw saffron

and

other

on their persons.

The image,
sprinkle
as
sacred.

washed with

saffron

water on these

sacred

days.

The females
of his
sacred.

also
feet

saffron

on the

Maharaj's
if

person
dust
is

and
but
I

they

consider
is

the

touching

I do not know

the

on which he walks
that

regarded as
joined
state

If a

Maharaj dies we do not say he

dead,

he
able

has
to

play

or

amorous love in heaven between men and women.
it

am

not

whether

is

a part of our sect that
thereby.

Krishna had intercourse with 16,000 women,
do
not

and that they had salvation
the Avtar the
of the

I

know

that

the

Maharajs are
the

called

Maha
grain

Prabhoo.

The Maharajs
fall

have imposed a tax on
the

gains

of

Bhattia
at

and

merchants that
for

on
the

community.
have
that

There was a meeting
and drunk
which
opposing
the
his
it.

held

the

plaintiff's

house

considering

re-marriage
started.

question

I do not know when the

Vishnu Punch was
lungotees
after

I

not

water
right

wrung out
toes

of the

Maharaj's

bathing,

nor

with

are

washed.

Some
this

people
action,

drink

such water.

I
if

have not sighed the bundobust to
brother
to

help
only

Karsandass in

nor

do I
brother

know

my

has signed
it.

it.

I

know
to give

from the newspapers that
that

my
;

was asked
caste
so they

sign
call

I signed a document

by which we agreed
evidence
also

no members
if

of the

should

upon a Maharaj
expelled.
this

in

a court of justice

they did
the
to

would be
if

We
The
to

intended

to

memoriahze the Judges

of

Supreme Court, and
Privy
Council to
followers should

Court did not grant
temples

us

exemption

we

would

appeal

the

be relieved.
the
to

were closed
visit

for

8 days

in order that the

sign
like

document.

Maharajs
this

the

steamers,

shops,

and nautch
from

parties,

but

do not

come

Court

as

they have not

done so

time
has

immemorial.
been
years.
visits

(Mr.
existence

Anstey.
only

— How
400

do you say

time
sect

immemorial,
has been in
;

when your
existence
visits

sect

in

years.)

Our
large

only

400

Goverdhunathjee
to

Maharaj was a

trader

he received
of

from and paid

Parsee

and

Mahomedan
I

traders.

I

know nothing
if

the

Mahomedan
zenana where

mistress

of Vachallaljee

Maharaj.
I

do

not

know
it.

there
is

is

such a book containing verses written by the
sepai-ate
all

plaintiff.

have not read
wives.

There

a

the ladies

go

to

visit

the

Maharaj's

The

69
devotes
are

allowed
are

to

see

the

image eight times a day.
the crowd,
so

I have

sometimes heard that
disgraced.

women's
the the
not

dresses

handled indecently in
attend
;

and their persons
an hour as 4
it

In

winter the

men and women
carriage
late

at

early

o'clock.

I

did drive
so.

Maharaj's
slight
to

as

coachman
Before
the

I do

not consider

disgraceful

to

do

I
to

did

the

Governor Lord Elphinstone while driving in public
publication
in

in

order
in

pay
of

respect

our
that

Maharaj.
the
ago.
if

of the
of

libel

I

have

read
adultery.

some

the

papers

Maharajs were

the

habit

committing

This was
caste.

about 4 years
I

do not know
Bhattias

any

There was a talk amongst members of the There was a replies were made to this.
females
to

Vallabhacharya
talk,

I believe,
temples

among
of

the

that

their

should

go
in

at

proper

hours

to

the

the

Maharajas
ten

The women were
ago. his

go only

the

morning and evening.
the

This was about

months
in

I

am

not on

bad terms with
attack

defendant,

I
of

have

been
caste
;

attacked
disputes.

by him
I
took

newspaper.

The

was

made on

account

some
sect

no notice of the

article.

I

do not read the doctrines of

my

I learn

them

by hearsay from the Gujerati Brahmins.

Ee-examined by Mr. Bayley.

— " I am
;

still
is

a justice of the peace, and do not think
the

my
or

character

injured

in

any way by what
I

called

double
I

murder by Government
have
it.

any other
the
if
if

body.

The charges were
allowed

without

foundation.
further

merely

heard
plaintiff
it,

that
said

Maharaj

was found dead

know nothing
allow
it.

about

The

the Shastras

him

to

support the re-marriage of widows he would allow
not

but

they did not allow,
it

he would
settled.

There

was some

discussion,

but

I

have not heard how a caricature.
of the

was

These
I

articles

that I

Punch means Vishnoo assembly and not saw had no effect on my mind as to the character
Visknoo
Maharaj's
the
of

Maharaj.
to

frequent

the

temple.

Several
of

people

are
into

kept
the

at

the

temple

keep
into

order.

They

regulate

admission
the
other.

people

temple.

They

enter

one passage

and go

out

The defendant

attacked

me

three or four times in his

paper, but I thought the attack too contemptible to notice

it."

Third Day, Tuesday,

28th

January 1862.

(5.)
visited

Runchor Munjee examined by
parts

Mr.

Bayley.
I

—" I
been been

am
to

a merchant, and
the
great
cities

have
the

many

of India on

pilgrimages.

have
not

on

banks of the Ganges
towards the
there

and

the

Jumna.
are
in

I

have

further
places
I

than

Porebunder
in

West.
not.

There
believe

were
there

Maharajs in
India

many

of the
or

visited,

others

were

I

some 40

50 Maharajs.
the

There
well as

were
the

two Maharajs
native
princes,

at

Benares.
the

In

a

religious

point

of view,

Hindus,
are

as

regard

Maharajs as gooroos.

The Maharajs

Brahmins, and are

looked

up

to

and respected by other Brahmins.

Cross-examined by Mr- Anstey.
I don't

— " The whole world say
I
to the

that the Maharajs are Brahmins.
so,

know
:

if
is

they are outcasted Brahmins.
said the

have not heard

I have not been to Telinga I have

country

it

Maharajs belong

Telinga country.

had no conversation

70
with any Brahmins
Maharaj's
about the
to visit

Maharajs.

I

used
five,

to

see

many Brahmins
ten,

sitting

at

th«

when
if

I used

him, sometimes
for

sometimes
often

sometime twenty-five.
to

I can't say
never saw a

they

were there
eating

asking

alms,

they
I
I

come
Bania

me
a

for

alms.

I

Krahmin
"
the

with

a
able

Maharaj.
to

am

a

have dim eyes and
Vyshnovs,"
read
rary
the the
also

am

not
story

now
"

read.

have

read

Vyshnav. I the story of " the 84

and

of the

252,"

(witness

does not
I

say

252 what
in

!)

I have

another

book

called

the

Instruction

Paper."
I

have

not read
either

any of
the

the

lite-

publications

of Judunathjee,

the
of

plaintiff.

have read,

84 book or
shoulders
for

252

story

book,

the

story

Krishnadass carrying his wife on

his

purpose

of her

fulfilling

Bania.

[Mr.

Anstey.

an adulterous engagement which she had made with another
conduct of the
the

Is

the
to

husband
put
Bible.

approved
;

or

censured
friend

in

the

book
well

?

Mr.

Bayley

objects

question
of

being
the

his

learned

might aa

examine the witness on the contents
from the
plaint.

Mr.

Anstey read a few sento disprove

tences
in

plaint,

showing that

the question

was necessary

an allegation
the
to

the

The

objection
in

was overruled.]
story
I
is

and the third party
mise
for
is

the

praised.

The conduct of The good faith
story
of the

the

husband,
wife

wife,

of the

her pro-

particularly

praised.

don't

adultery I

with

a

Thackorjee,
of a
privy,

know the who re-animated
in

Bheel who killed his wife

the wife and stamped her as a virtuous
declined
to

woman.
with one

am
with
or

ignorant
in

story

which a Maharaj

commit

adultery

Gunga

a

but afterwards
I

made
to

her pregnant in a dream.
stories

Not being
enjoined
learns
in

acquainted
to religion

the

Shastrns,
in

cannot

say

whether or not these
act

are repugnant
is

morality

one

sense.

I

ought

according
of his

to

what
before

our

Shastras,
I
if

but

I

think

one ought to be
the ten
principles
it

mindful
of

belly

he
[Sir

the

Shastras.

do not

know

the
to

Vallabhacharyas.
swell

M. Sausse
with
the the
plaintiff

suggested
negative
to

Mr.

Anstey would think
of the witness.
tlie life

necessary,

the
is

depositions

answers

Mr.

Anstey.

—This

witness
lead,

called

by
high

show the morality of
held,

which the
to

Maharajs

and

the

respect

in
to

which they are

and I
he
being
is

am bound
called
to
is

show the contrary.
opinions
for

The
the

witness
life

seenw

know

nothing,

and

yet

give

on the virtuous

of his spiritual

preceptors.

My
over

client

poor, as

it

unfortunate
plaintiff's

him

that

trial

should
so.

be

lengthened
objection

as

many

days
I

the

advisers

could

possibly

do

The
goes

was overruled.]
if

do

not consider
so.

my
am

gooroo to be an incarnation of the Deity. not

I

cannot say

other

men
of

believe

I

a

"

Varkat," or a beggar
are
of

who

on pilgrimages.

He
I

begs

only

and other
Maharajs.

castes.

Some
been

when necessary. Varkats them marry, others do not.
if

the

Lohana,

Bhattia,

A
as

man

can marry after having
of

turned a Varkat.
I

have not heard
present

the the

Varkats

act

procurers

women
bed

for the of

have
I

when
so.

Maharaj
puts

has
his

attended
foot

the

sick

a

dying person.
person.
gets

have
not

heard that the

Maharaj

on the breast of the dying

I have
five

seen

him do
I

For
or

putting his foot in this manner, the Maharaj
to

from
gets
at

to

twenty-five
as

rupees

any other amount, according
the
festival

circumstances.

He
held
to

the

money
I

gooroo.

know

called

the

Has
is

festival,

which

is

uncertain
festival.

periods.

Married and unmarried people
of the

of both sexes go as spectators
called

the

am

talking

drama.

I

don't

know what

the "

Ras

mandali."

To
food,

considered

M. Sausse. " The story to which I alluded is a among my sect. The man had come to the wife's made an engagement with him to go to his place and
Sir

sacred

story

and
gave
It

is

so

house,
fulfilled

she
it.

him
I

was,

71
presume,

an adulterous engagement.

The

wife's

conduct

is

praised

in

the

story

for

keeping her

engagement with the man,
Joseph Arnould.
visited

who was a hermit

holy

man.

To
if

Sir

—"

It
for

would not be considered in
a similar
purpose.

my

sect in

a good
the
story

thing
did

a

woman

a

Maharaj

The woman

what she thought proper.

To
her

Sir

M.
to

Sausse.

—"

The husband on hearing

of

the

wife's

engagement, said

to

"

I

consider
said

occurred,

you now as my daughter ;" and the hermit, on hearing what had her, " You having fulfilled your engagement, I regard you as my

daughter."

To

Sir
to

Joseph
their

Arnould.
faith

—"
I

The moral
the

of

the

story

is

that

all

the

three

parties

were true

as

regarded
believe,

engagement.
called

To

Sir

M.

Sausse.

—"
it

from the hermit having
place.

the

woman

his

daughter,

that

no sexual intercourse took

Mr.

Anstey.

—Was
?

the Bania

or the

hermit who said

to

the

woman, " I

consider

you as

my

daughter"
It

Witness.

Mr.
has
told

Scoble.
it

— " was person —Your Lordship
the

from
find

whom
when

she
the

brought food
story
is

for

the

holy
that

man.

will

produced,

this

man

all

wrong

!

Sir

Joseph Arnould.
all
!

I don't

think

it is

worth following

it

up.

It is

a story without

a

moral after

To
in

Sir

M.
;

Sausse.
it

— " The
be

holy

man

asked the
;

woman
went
hermit

for to

food

;

she

had no food
for
;

the
to

house
the
to

must

provided

somehow
said

she

a
ate

Bania
the
to

it,

and

it

was
she

Bania she made the
the

engagement.

The

food
his

and when
daughter."

went
(6.)

Bania,

he

(the

Bania)

he considered her

be

Sewdass
caste,

Mohu/njee,

examined

by

Mr.

Scoble.

I

am

a

member
of

of

the
sons.

Bhansalee
I

and carry on a general trade at the bunder in the name
in
this

my
in

know

the

plaintiff

case.
caste.

He

and

the

other

Maharajs

are

regarded

the

light

of gooroos

amongst our

Cross-examined by Mr.

Anstey.

—"

My

caste

is

divided into four different sections.

My
my
of

caste

numbers ten
don't
follow

or

twenty-five
;

thousand

persons
led

towards

Cutch.
Shaivi-s,

The people
&c.,

of

caste

one sect
as

some are ca
they

Bamanundee,
respect him.

but they
if

do not regard the

Maharaj
in

gooroo,
as

simply
I

I don't

know
books

others
of

my
;

sect

believe

the

Maharaj

a

God.

have never

read

any
bead

my
have

I nor heard them read. heard the " Bhagwat" read by
sect

don't

know what
do what

the doctrines of
tied

my

sect are.

I

BraSmins.

The Maharaj
was
right.

the

necklace round

my
tions

neck when he
I ever
got

told

me

I

should

That was the only instruc-

from the Maharaj in
I

I don't worship him.
his
spittle."

my lifetime. I pay my respects to the Maharaj ; have never drunk the water from his " lungotee," nor swallowed

72
(7.)

Gungadhur Nanackrayn, examined by Mr.
caste.

Scoble.

I

am

a

member
sect.

of the

Mesree Marwaree
of

I

belong to

the Maharaj

sect.

There are not many Marwarees
the

my

sect

in

Bombay.

Other

Marvvarrees

belong
are

to

Maharaj's
as

There

are

Mahara"s in Shreejeedwar and Joudpore.
Cross-examined by Mr.
in

They
I

regarded

gooroos.

Anstey.

—"

cannot say
I don't
the

Bombay, perhaps
in

ten,

twenty,
I

or

fifty.

how many of my know the number of
as

sect there are

the Maharaj's
I

sectaries

my

native

country.

regard

Maharaj

my

gooroo.

cannot

say

what the consciences of others are."
Mr. Bayley.

—That

is

the

case

for

the

plaintiff.

DEFENCE.
Mr. Anstey submitted
to

their

Lordships as

a jury,

not

as

the Court,

that

there

was no
to
td

case

made

out

by the
and even

plaintiff,

and

that,

therefore,

the defendants were entitled

a nonsuit.

He
a

trusted their
;

Lordships
if
tJietj

would not hold that there was some evidence
that

go before

jury

did,

they would

dismiss

from their minds

the seventh
verdict
cite

and eighth pleas and the
facts

issuess
first

raised

upon

them, and

would return

a

upon the
case

as

regarded the
vs.

issue.

To
so

support this proposition he would
the doctrine laid down in down by Mr. Wingrove Cooke
to

the

of Robertson

McDougall
since.
it

(4th
it

Bingham,)
laid

which has been followed ever
in

And
is

is

his

work on
stage

Libel,

viz.,

that

not

for

the

Court

give

any

opinion,

at
for

an
a

early

of the

proceedings,
issue,
article)

upon

the

justification.

Mr.

Anstey

would

ask

nonsuit
this

on the

first

that

of not

guilty,
libel,

on three
se,

grounds.

First,

he would say

document (the
proved
tliat

was not a
not

and per

secondly, that the plaintiff has

not

his

inuendoes,

a

single

inuendo,

whereby

the

libel

is

pointed

;

and

thirdly,

the

document,

as appeared

from the evidence of the

plaintiffs

own
to

witnesses,

was published upon
should
the

justifiable

grounds and upon a justifiable occasion.
infinitesimally
benefit

If their Lordships
small,

think that

there

was some evidence, however
he would
to

go

before

Court,

then he
that

must say
he was
plaintiff

take

the

of

these

observations.
issue.

He
the

urged,

however,
issue,

entitled

the

Court's

verdict

on

the
the

first

On

second

though the
plaint,

produced no proof, or rather
it

proof
the the

produced
evidence
preceptors
is

by
that of

him
these

disproved his
persons

Mr. Anstey would say

resulted
called,

upon
not

called Maharajs,

most improperly

so

are

religion,

and none of them has any right
at the

to sue in that character

There

no evidence

offered
priests.

Bar
sect

to

prove,

there

was some apparently
is

to

disprove,
sect

that they are high

The

of the

Vallabhacharyas
as

a

contemptible

of

400

years old,
first

and
five

not

an ancient ruling were proved by
at
all.

sect,

the

plaintiff

has averred.
for

Mr.
;

Anstey said the

issues
issues

plaintiffs

witnesses

defendants

and he did not prove
that
as

some
libel,

The learned
per
se,

counsel's

two objections were
to

the
it

libel
is,

is

not

a

and

therefore,
to

the

Court ought

regard the
not

libel

without any regard

whatever

the inuendoes.
plaint
;

The

plaintiff has

proved

the

characters

he ascribes
and,

to

himself in the

his

witnesses

have proved

that he has
to

them

not,

therefore,

he has no right in any of those assumed characters
the
material
portions
of

sue.
to

Before proceeding to read

the

libel,

Mr.

Anstey wished

have the

libel

entered

as

read

along with
as

the
read.

documents

to

which

it

refers

;

otherwise

he

should

object to

its

being entered

Mr.
has

Bayley.

—The
as

learned

counsel

may

put what construction

he pleases

;

the libel

been

entered

read.

Mr. Anstey.
Mr.

—Then
objects

the
to

documents
the
proposal.

to

which

it

refers

must be taken

as

also

read.

Bayley

Mr. Anstey.

— Then
applied
as

I insist upon the libel being read, and I will

make my

objections.

The Prothonotary
Mr.
" in
the

reads
to

the

article

containing

the

libel.

Anstey

have read the documents in

which Jadoonathjee says that

some one goes from the gates of the Fort to proceed to Walkeshwur, and some one to Byculla," &c., and also the commentary of Goculnathjee

same way
in

referred
is

to to

the

libel.
all

The

learned
in

counsel
the

applied

on the

ground that the

plaintiff

bound

produce

references

article of

which he complains
of
hi.s

His not having
referring
cited
to

produced

them

had deprived

the defendants'

counsel

right

of

and

commenting upon them.
vs.

In support of his argument the learned gentlemen

Solomon
a
second
the

LaicsoH
to

(15th

vol.

Law

Journal)
only

in

which the Court held that there was variance, and no
first.

owing
letter

one of the
the count,

letters

being

produced,
to

mention

in

which was referred
have been also
both
set

in

the

Lord

made Kenyon

of

held

that

other

letter

ought

to

out.

Sir

M.

Sausse.
to

— They
rely

togetlier

made a
in

libel,

and,

therefore,

it

was

argued

that

one ought

have been incorporated
I

the

other.
case,

Mr.

Anstey.

much
as
in
this

more on

the

second
I

Cart>rrigJtt
for
is

vs.

Bri(jh',

in

which
to

it

was
cases,

laid

down

a maxim.

What

am
to

arguing

this,

that,

according
libel
is

these
to

references

document ought
every
not

have
it,

been

set

out.

'Jhe

said

be

against

the sect,

against

member

of

and

jigahist

the

plaintiff!

Sir

M. Sausse.

—The

libel

does
;

say that Jadoonathjee wrote the reference.
not

The

words are

" Jadoonathjee says"

it

does

show he wrote anything.
I proceed
to
is

Mr. Anstey.
culnathjee's

—Very
plaintiff

well,

my
first

Lord,
thing

then
to

the the

other
libel,

reference

to
it

Commentary.
what

The
it

be

proved

and

then

Gomust

be

shown with what
that
Sir
is

intent
is

was

wrilten.

" Holding improper and heterodox opinions"
the
first

charged with in
are

part

of the

article.

Joseph
the

Arnould.

—Defendants
to

debarred
select

from

asking
in

for
to

the

referen<^e,

from

all

works of

Goculnathjee,

they

a passage

point

explain

their

meaning.

Mr. Anstey proceeded
none of them was proved,
sensHs verborum.
of the
sect

comment upon the different inuendoes, remarking that and therefore the Court had no evidence before them of the
judicial
to

Ihe Court has no
;

knowledge of what

the

religious

opinions

are

there

is

no evidence
the

show what the doctrines
the
case
fails

of their religion are,
is

and,
at
it

therefore,
in

as

regards
cases
is

sensus
the

verborum,
sense,

What

left

to

juries

home
in

such
sense

—Given

the
or

plaintiffs

meaning of
the

tiie

inuendo, was

that

that

the

words were written

spoken by

defendant of and con-

10

74
cerning the
out
the
plaintiff
?

and,

tlien,

whether the construction put by the
vs.

plaintiff is

borne

bv the evidence.
defamatory matter
In
is

In
be

Staple
obscure
rule

Jones,

it

is

laid

down
out,

that

if

the

meaning of
is

and cannot be made
is

the

alleged

libel

non-

actionable.

England,
the

the

to

take

the

words in their ordinary, popular sense.
?

Now, what
terms,
the

sense

of heresy, heterodoxy, &c.

In

this country,

interpreting such

Court must take
Arnould.

the

surrounding circumstances

into

view.

Sir

Josepli
is
;

— We
on

don't

know what heterodoxy
the

is,

and we don't know what
are.

heresy

for

we

don't
it

know what

Shastras

themselves
that

Mr. Anstey said

appeared from
its

Brooke's

Eeports
in

one

of

the

courts

in

England refused
persuasion

to
to

enter
sue,

record

an action
to

which a clergyman

of a

certain

wanted

and referred him
then,
if
is

the court having proper cognizance of the
to

matters
is

concerned.
the

What,
is

the

course
is

be adopted
to

?

The
Their

popular

meaning
to

taken,

witness
then,

asked

there

anything

give

another
?

meaning
able

the

words,

and,

what did he himself understand
the
in

by

them
times,

Lordships
to

could

not read the Purans, or read

doctrines

of

modern

to

be then
to

say

what the heresy
heresy consisted
that
plaintifTs

referred
in.

to

the libel

is.

There was no evidence
It

show what the
established

There was evidence the other way.
is

was the evidence of witnesses
he
has

religion

of a

modern

date,

and

consequently

no

standard.
Sir

M.
not

Sausse.

—There
nor
say,
is

is,
it

Mr. Anstey, great
proved

difficulty

in the question.
set
in.

The

stan-

dard

is

proved,

when
the

the
is

Kali
not

Yug

Mr. Anstey.
Sir

— —
to

T

my
at

Lord,

libel

alleged

and proved.
the
to

M.

Sausse.

— As
and "

present

advised,

we should read
is

clause leaving out the

words

"

Shastras"

Kali Yug,"

There
every

no evidence
lies

show what they
the
that,
2.
plaintiff"

are.

Mr. Anstey.
the

Tb.e onus of proving

inuendo

upon

where
are

inuendo

is

material.

I

have already cited two cases
will

to
vs. to

show

and
B.
to

there

two other cases

which I

now
of your

refer,

Grijfiths

Lewis (8
which
I

R.)

and

Golway
would
in

vs.

Marshall (9 Excheq. 94.)
the
serious

This

brings

me
and
it

a proposition
did
to

which I
do justice
in his

call

attention
case.

Lordships,

to

not

the

recent

Demurrer
to

It

is

that,
if

although
libel

is

competent
to

a person

private

character

recover
unless

damages,
he prove

the

refers

his

professional character,

he

cannot recover
ing his

any,

professional
libel.

character

—what
to

— by

first

laying
in his

the

foundation
character the

of

proof by

show-

damages
that

private

he has
raised

sustained
therein.)
to

by

the

(Cites
is

Mo,y
here

vs.

Brown and comments upon
show
of

points

Kg

evidence

given

the

Maharajs

would be subjected
cited,

any

punishment by the publication

the

alleged

libel.

In the case I have
of the

evidence
religion,

was given
and
yet
it

of practices

inconsistent

with

the

doctrines

Roman
the

Catholic

was urged that the
court

plaintiff"

would incur the
for

displeasure

of his

superiors,

and
the

the

granted
for

a

new
a
the

trial

the

important defect on
record.

record.

Nothing
could

could compensate

such
for

defect

on

the
in

The
Here
the

court held,

—How

words

be

actionable,

manner

which

the

plaintiff could be

injured

was not

shown, either in his private or professional character.
of the

there has been no averment
plaintiff,

manner and form

in
to

which the

libel

would have damnified the
treat
libel

but positively
contempt.

he has given evidence

show that the witnesses

with

great

75
One
in of

them

says -that

although,

since

the

publication
not.

of

the
is

libel,

love

towards

the

Maharaj has diminished, yet that respect has

But

there

no evidence
is

of the

manner
is

utter

which the love has been lost, nor to show lehose love absence of the averment both of manner and of form.
Mr,

meant.

There

an

Anstey had not done with
P.

his

able

speech

;

and

the

Court

rose

at

hall-

past

5

M.

Fourth Day,
Mr.
again
to

Thursday,

^Oth

January,

1882.

Anstey,
the
vs.

resuming the thread of his observations of the previous
of

day,
vs.

alluded

case

May

vs.

Brown and
at

cited

two other

cases,

Lewis
points

Walton

and Heine
each.

Stovell,

enlarging

some
than
in

length
vs.

upon

the

principal

mooted in
it,

A

much more
of

stronger
vs.

case

Jifai/

Brown, a
on

case

long subsequent to
all

was that
facts

the

Queen
of the

Burdett,

which Lord Teignmouth remarked that
set

the

descriptive
if

offence

should

be

out

the record,

as

also

ali

the

refer-

ences

they contained

new

matter.
occasion,

The learned counsel
pointing

repeated, with fresh illustrations,
difference

what he said on a former
of
libel

out

the

only

between an

action

and an action of
Joseph Arnould.
a person
both

slander.
Is

Sir

your
private
is

view

somewhat
official

this

?

—When
it

a

libel
libel

is

alleged
it

against
Ktated

in

his

and

character,
capacities.

is

no

unless

is

on the

record

how he
this

injured

in

both

Mr.
libel

Anstey stated
say
of a
to

was shortly the substance
a "
It
is

of

his

argument.
it

It

was

no

to

clergyman that he was

stupid

fool,"

though
to

would be
of a

libel-

lous

to

impute
capacity

him
he

practical
is

adultery.

not

actionable

say

man
of

in his
to

clerical

that

a robber

and a cheat,

though the same
to to

words

applied
the

a

tradesman

would be indubitably
Cooke
of a
in

libellous.
libel,
it

According
is

the

principles

cases

cited

by Mr.
out

his

book on

libellous

publish

of a gunsmith that that
it

he

slioots

leathern

gun
of

;

to

say
;

of

a

Eoman
say
of a

Catholic

priest

he
is

tries

to

convert

Protestants

by promises
it

money
to
call

to

newspaper
scurrilous
;

that
or
it

low in a

circulation,

although

is

no

libel

it

vulgar

and

to

publish

story

which

may make
said,

a

man

ridiculous

although he
is

may
:

have

told

himself.

Ancase

other

objection closely

connected with the last one
to

this

Supposing
to

all

that the learned

counsel
in
spite

had

went
of

nothing and that

it

was necessary
objection
it

proceed

with

the

of the
libel

want
further

proper

averment,
to

the

was that the

plaintiff could not
it

carry

the

than the class

which
on a

belongs.
;

No

doubt

is

true

that

a

libel

on
to

an individual

may

be a

libel
is

class

but the

averments

being

made,

they are
the
that

be proved as such.

That

the very point decided in
class
is

Palmer
to,
it

vs.

Malcolmson,
be proved

principle
it

maintained being that,
libel

where the
In
all

referred

must
the

is

a

on an individual.
;

these

ca^es,

the

surrounding
to

circumstances

must be looked
the
plaint.

to

and
this

this

argument the learned counsel applied
in

whole

of

He

said

was not a case
its

which,
that
is

without looking
it

to the

surrounding
This

circumstances,
properly
a

the

Court could give
for

opinion

was
to

not

a

libel.
is

was

question

a jury.

The

plaintiff

bound

show how he

damnified


76
in his private

and
the

his

official

capacities

;

and no introductory
where the
libel

matter

or

inuendo can
are

change the
parts

burden oF

proof.

The

parts of the libel

plaintiff is referred to,

where,
first

learned gentleman
in

submitted,
to

no

certainly

could

be

found.

His

name

occurs

an

abstruse

alhision

the

doctrines

of
:

days of the Kali Yug,
has arisen in
the

which

may

be

summed up
according
the
to

thus
the

the Shastras and the latter " the sect of the Maharajas

Kali

Yug,

therefore,

doctrines

of

the

Shastras,

it

must be
this

false.

Jadoonatlijee

says

that

original

courses

of

the

Veds

and

Purans

having gone forward,
is."
'J'hfrc
is

have diverged into different ways.
in
all

What

a

deceitful

proposition

nothing libellous
abuses

this.

Sir

Kobert Philmore was a maintainer

of

all

the
in

filthiest

which disgraced English
writings.
in

literature,

and Mr. Locke did a public

service

exposing
to

and censuring such
prosecuted

Would
of

any
libel
?

Englishman

think
does
of
it

Mr.
great

Locke ought
service
to

have been
public

an

au-tion

The
the

critic

the
it

when he exposes
of

a

stupid
to

book,

and

if

writer

suffers

any

loss,

is

a

loss

fame and
the

of profits

which he was not

entitled.

Sir

M. Sausse
article
is

—In

Demurrer

case

I expressed
;

an opinion that the

first

part

of the

a

common and

historical

comment

and brother Arnould coincides in

that

opinion.

Mr. Anstey therefore proceeded
is

to

the

latter
!

part

of the libel in which the plaintiff

directly

referred

to

:

"
then

Jadoonatlijee

Maharaj

should

you wish

to

propagate
of conduct,

or to

spread abroad religion,

do you
&c.

personally

adopt

a

virtuous

course

and

admonish your other

INIaharajas,"

This
at

passage
or

and others are upon any
one

hypothetical
individually.

state-

ments and not a
plaintiff

libel

upon the
fit

class

large

If the

makes the cap

him
is

Sir Joseph Arnould.

—There

no inuendo that the exhortation
in plaintiff. object in writing

to

adopt

virtues

per-

sonally, implies the absence of

them

Mr. Anstey remarked the defendant's

down

the doctrines of

the sect

was two -fold
must

:

first,

because they are heretical, and secondly, because

they
of the

were

such

as

lead to greater

and more serious

immorality

hereafter.
It is
it

Some
a
is,

allusions

were
the

introduced merely for the illustration of his argument.
original stanza, says the libel, to say that the

great

amplification
to

of

meaning of

Give your wives
is

adulfavour
in

tery and your daughters to
of the libel,
criticism

whoredom.

What

evidence the plaintiff has given
if

in

and the learned counsel would submit that
in
•'

the doctrines

mentioned

the

were contained
itself.

the sacred books of the sect, there was nothing adduced against

the

libel

In the Kali

Yug many

other

heresies

and
ever

many

sects

have
such

arisen

besides that of Val'abhachar^a, but no other sectaries have
le 8 less,
class.

perpetrated

shamenot the

subliiity," itc.

The words
is

in the passage are the sect of

the Maharajas,
or

The

entire sect

hinted

at,

the

sect

of

Vallabhacharyas

the
in

Maharajas.
plaint

The

plaintiff sought to

narrow and extend ihe meaning of " Maharajas"
This inuendo, Mr. Anstey hoped, the Court
passage
is
:

the

and in

the

libel

respectively.

would

not

allow.

He
have

would say the true meaning of the above
polluted

— Of

the
as

many

sects

which
their

India,

none

have

exceeded

the

Vallabhacharyas

appears

from

sacred

books, and particularly the passage in the

has been made.
simple

He

goes on to say

:

Commentary of Goculnathjee, to which reference " When we use such severe terms as these, our

Hindu

entire sect

—"

friends are wroth with

us."

What
Hindu

friends,

the

Maharajas
their

?

no,

but

the

we have

to grieve over

our

friends

and

over

weak powers of

77
reflection."

Connecting the whole

th'n a

hypothesis

—"

of the

passage
to

with

what
&c.,

follows,

it

is

Should

you

wish

propagate,"

"

then

do

nothing more you personally
write

adopt," &c. " But

when throwing dust
fire."

in the eyes of simple people,

the

Maharajas
inside,

about enjoying

tlie

tender maidens," &c., " great flames spring within our
Is this libellous ?

our pen
think
it

becomes heated and on
was.

The

learned counsel

could

not

If the Court decided otherwise, he thought that the whole body of missionaries from

the East to the West,

who preach

against

the

immorality

of

heathenism
for

or

the

debau-

cheries of these monstrous religious preceptors,

would be brought up
sect,

libel

every
a

day

!

The defendant, being a member
rightminded person must
feel

of

the

Yallabhacharya

has

a

distinct,

direct

interest in the debasing practices of his brethren, as well as a general interest
in

which

any

the cause

of

morality

and

virtue.

the learned counsel contended, were based upon hypotheses or
ceeds.

" Your ancestors having scattered dust in the eyes of

The above passages, suppositions. The libel prosimple people, made them
your
?

blind."
religion,

Do you

wish

to

make them
set

see,

or taking a false pride in the upholding of

do you, (Judoonathjee

Maharaj)

wish
to

to

delude

simple
his

people
!

still

more

A

natural question to one
then, do

who

himself up

propagate
of

religion
Is

"

If you

wish,

you personally adopt a virtuous

course

conduct ?"

that

libellous ?

Why
article

the Times newspaper for several days admonished the Prince of Wales to persue the paths of virtue and morality, and has he sued Mr.
is

Walter

for

a

libel

?

This part of the

but an advice, a recommendation, to the Maharaj to adopt a line of conduct which shall

distinguish

him fmm the

rest of his brethren

and from the
language

upholders
as

of the

doctrines
be,

of

these pestilential books.

Why,
cannot

here

is

the plainest

language

can

"

Do

you adopt a virtuous course of conduct, and admonish your
ing of this
great
called

other Maharajas."

The meanto

exhortation

be
the
kiz.,

mistaken.

There
case,

was and

another
to

inuendo,

which

weight
the

was
Tliat

attached
attention,

in

Demurrer
as
to

which
the

Mr.

Anstey
as

now
by
no
the

Court's

the
;

character

of

Maharajas
it

religious

preceptors.
plaintitTs

inuendo

was

not

proved be a

on

the
of

contrary,

was

disproved
;

own

witnesses.
called,

There
no

must

proof

the

averment

tendered

but be

experts had

been

witnesses had been called to prove the Maharajas
called,

to

preceptors of religion.

Those who had been

said they did not
for

know what

the

doc-

trines of the Shastras are.

One

said he

had no time

enquiry

;

he did not know what

the Shastras said, and followed the customs and usages of his ancestors.

Another said the

Maharajas gave no instruction
Shastras.

;

it

is

the Gujeratee

Brahmins who read and explain the
ever
preach.

Another said the Maharajas never taught any thing, nor did they

The

vast majority of the
all.

Hindus

follow the original religion of India, and, do not recognise

the Maharajas at

To prove

that they are the

preceptors
all.

of such

Hindu

religion,

it

ought

to be

proved that they preach any religion at
;

Ko averment was

tendered
for

by

the plaintiff on any one of these material points
of

and a nonsuit must be allowed

want
acting
dt-sist

a proof

to

sustain

it.

Returning from

this

digression
as
follows
:

counsel said the

next passage

must be read

— " You

to

the

libel

itself,
!

the

learned

Maharas

who,

up

to that

commentary
and destroy

of Goculnathjee, defile the wives

and daughters of your devotees,
festival.

from

that,

at once inmiorality
so, for so long

such as that of the company at the Has
religious
of

As

long as you shall not do

you cannot give
to

admonition and propagate your
that."

own

religious

faith.

Do you
shov^r

be

pleased
it ?

be

assured

Now, what
laid

is

in this
plaintiff

passage to connect the plaintiff with
before

There must be something
as a general aspersion

by the

the

)ury

to

that

it

is

meant

upon
Mr.

his

own

character
is

and that of the other Maharajas.

Considering

the

context,

asked

Anstey,

that

even a

libel

upon the

class ?

The meaning
in

of the passage

is

this,

"

You (Maharajas)
praised,

have put forward certain books
allow

which adulterers
believe
of in

and adultery are
books.

and you

your

followers

to

read
the

and
cause

those
will

Unless,

therefore,

you
exearly

repudiate

these

doctrines,

religion

not
is
;

advance.

Do you
from

be assured
to

of that
press.

!"

That's

the

meaning of the passage, that
of the
sect are

what the writer meant
if

If the

sacred books
life,

of that kind of

the defendant,

an

period

of

his

knew
counsel,

that

the

books

the

sect

contained

an injunction
said

more than permission

to

the

crime of adultery,
it

the

learned

fell

where the adulterers are the Maharajas, then, within the bounds of legitimate criticism for the desay
that

fendant (a
followers

member
his
;

of the

sect)

to

these

were the doctrines inculcated
libel,

to

the

of

sect.

The
the

official

translations

of the

Mr.

Anstey proceeded to
in

observe
fix

differed

and the meaning of the passage was
upon
plaintiff

so

given

the

plaint

as

to

the

inuendo

and the other Maharajas.
put

The

construction

which
itself

Mr. Flynn, when in the witness-box,

upon the passage was inconsistent with

and with the context
Sir

Joseph

Arnould,

— Mr.

Flynn was

positive

that

there

was

a

full-stop

before

the

word " Desist."
Mr. Anstey said the passage must be read as he had given
it

above

;

the

other
the

constructions
plaintiff
cited,

of

it

was

inconsistent.

In no part of the plaint
According
first,
it
;

was
of

it

averred
cases

that

was charged with adultery.
sensus
verb'irum must be,

to

the

principles
;

the

already
in

the

clearly ascertained

the libel
distinct

must be proved
averment.

the sense in which plaintiff understood

and there must be a

Unless
All that

these objections could be answered, the case was already

made
of

out for a nonsuit.
criticism.

the defendant had said,

came within

the legitimate range

Following

up

hia
or in

argument,

jMr.

Anstey asked, who ever heard of an action of a
?

priest against a parson

a parson against a priest

and he submitted there was nothing more
is

in

this.
;

It

is

evidence that the defendant

a

member
some

a protesting

member

of the sect

he wishes to

remain amicably with
of

its

members, but has no
which
of the

desire to

remain unreformed and
notoriously engage.

unpurged

those

abominations,

in

members

If there have

been publications on one
tions of adultery, of
filled

side,

there have been publications by the other also.
for

These ques-

blasphemous adultery, and sacrilegious pleasure have

some

months

the columns of native newspapers, tracts, and magazines, and the plaintifi himself was

the originator of some of them, and took part in the discussion.
of the times,

Such

is

the

complexion
the

which have come groaning
In

for reform,

and the defendant
by
of

finds himself in

capacity of an instructor and a teacher to his less fortunate castemen.
gross

He

has

denounced
he
felt

abuses.

the

deplorable

state

of

things

which
his

he was surrounded,
nature,

himself called upon to write, under the inspiration
cultivated

better

which

has

been

more

or less

by the precepts

of our

own moral philosophy and probably our own

better faith.

The

counsel said, the occasion was justifiable, and such as would justify
for the

much

more stronger language than had been used
port
his

reformation of public abuses.

To sup-

argument that

publications

for

the exposure of public abuses and for the public
in

good, are justifiable, Mr.
vs.
is

Anstey
vs.

cited

from Mr. Starkie's book several cases

point,

Hugo
In

Spanier, Somerville
laid

Haipkins, Harris vs

Thomson, and

others.

The same

doctrine

down by Mr. Cooke, and
must be
protected.

also in the general

work on Torts by Mr. Anderson.
for

one of these cases, Baron Parke held that honest communications
of society

the

common

welfare

If 2^rima facie,

it

is

so,

it

is

incumbent on the

plaintiff to

79
give evidence of malice, in which case the defendant would have to prove the innocence
of

the words used by him.

But a mere
vs.

excess of words
vs.

is

no evidence of malice, as appears

from the cases of Cooke
through
all

Wyldes,

Taylor

Hawkins, &c. Mr. Anstey

had

now gone
to

the

leading authorities, and had only to remind the Court that the allegations

of the plaint entirely disproved were the following

:-the
a

all

-important allegation pointed

by the inuendo

as

the

Kali

Yug
is

;

the characters of the Maharajas as preceptors of the

Hindu

religion

:

that the plaintiff
to

a high priest of

high

caste.

The

learned

counsel

had every reason

rely

upon a nonsuit being entered.

Mr. Dunbar, arguing on the same side as Mr. Anstey, addressed to the Court a few arguments on the question whether there was any libel. The passage alluding to the plainand tiff was not directed to himself personally, but to the sect of which he is a m.ember,
referred
plaintiff,

to

him

as

one
if

who had come forward
he wishes
to

to

propagate his religion.
then
passage

It calls

upon
adopt

and says that

propagate and spread religion

he

must

such conduct.
not
to

It appeared,

upon

plaintiffs

own showing,
sect.

that

this

was addressed
it

him, but through him

to the

whole

If

it

reflected
latter

upon him,
point

did so only

upon

his character as a preceptor of religion,

but on

this
to

the

Court
libel

had no

evidence

at

all.

Unless

there

was

sufficient

evidence

show that the

pointed to

plaintiff as

a preceptor of religion, the Court would be justified in entering a nonsuit.
vs.

The
to
falls,

learned counsel referred to the case of Solomon
this case.

Lawson, remarking that
to

it

applied

If the plaintiff said the inuendo
there
vs.
is

was pointed
upon

him

alone, the

whole case

because

no personal imputation

plaintiff in the libel,

(Cites

and comments
for

upon Smith
nonsuit

Kelly, 3rd Campbell, 460.)
vs.

The only

case

against

the

arguments

a

was

May

this case in reality.

Brown, which, however, was not generally cited, and The plaintiff could not recover any damages unless he
personally,

did not affect

showed

how
the

the libel affected

him

and how as a preceptor of
while
the

religion.

There was no evidence
of

whatsoever
plaintiff

to

support any of the averments,

statement

and

concerning

must be taken

as affecting his professional character.
so ably

On

these grounds, and others
plaintiff

which Mr. Anstey had

and

fully argued,

the Court

must nonsuit the

REPLY.
Mr. Bayley, in reply, stated he would notice one
or

two

points,

and
to

if

the

Court
It

decided in favour of either of them, there would be no necessity for

him

go further.

had been

by both the learned counsel on the other side that I\[ay vs. Broicn was not recognised as an authority, but he would say his researches had been more fortunate, and Several of the cases it appeared that the case was often cited by Baron Parke and others.
said

which were
pleading,

cited

and
is

That
no

rule

by the learned counsel were decided previous to the modern system of system was adopted here by the 166th Common Law rule of 1844. applicable to this country and the members of the Bombay Bar were under
this
to

necessity

resort to the pleadings of ancient times.

(Calls attention to a para, in the
case.)

pleadings of the time of William IV. as to actions on

the

The

plaintift'

was

only

here

to

prove

the

issue

between the
vs.

parties

and what was not expressly traversed.

The

learned counsel cited
for

Drummond
malicious
in

Pigot (2 Bingham,) in which the action was
of
debt.

brought

an unfounded and
to

claim

Now,
all

the

learned

counsel's

proposition

according

the

decision

this

case was, that

introductory averments, not traversed,
in
this

are admitted on the record.
ease,

It

had been held by the learned Chief Justice

very

that

the

introductory avermonts are not material and are admitted generally.

They


80
are necessarily admitted in the plea of not guilty put in

by the defendants

in

this

case

;

and

in

this

view

Mr.

Bayley

said

he was

fortified
last.

Justice in the
vs.

Demurrer

case on the

ISth July

by the judgment given by the Chief (The learned counsel cited Wafkins
Let us ask the question,
is

Lea and

another case from Meason and Wellesley's reports.)

said Mr. Bavley,

who

are the Judges or

what

is

a

libel

and what

not

?

The

Court,

as jurors, were constitutional Judges of facts.

The sum and substance
it

of all the
?

arguments

addressed to the Court for a nonsuit was, Is there a case to go to the jury
ships

Their Lordnot.

had

to define the libel,

and say whether
say

was a case
at

to

go to a jury or
close,

The

Court must not be asked

to

what

must come out

the

and
only
;

these

lengthy

arguments
judgment.

of the learned counsel

might well have been reserved
Mr. Bayley said an inuendo

for
is

a motion

in arrest of

Coming
;

to the inuendoes,
to,

explanatory
it

of

some

matter

Tt
is

cannot add

or enlarge upon,
of

what has been stated
before.

cannot extend
in

the sense, and

an explanation

what
;

is

said

There

was

no

inconsistency

any one

of the inuendoes in this case

in the first part of the libel, the plaintiff
to

and his

sect are distinctly

pointed

at,

and the inuendo applies
points

him

as

well as

to

his

sectaries.
:

The closing part of the article distinctly " Then do you personally adopt a virtuous
Maharajas."
Jt

to the plaintiff

and other Maharajas admonish

course
this

of

conduct,

and

your other
correct
;

was
it is

said the other

day that

was the only inuendo that was
!

and now, to-day, no other person
the point
;

argued that

it

does not apply to plaintiff

The

witness

Jumnadass

stated he took the latter part of the libel to refer to Judunathjee only,
of that

and that there was
granted

name.

This witness was not contradicted nor cross-examined upon
right to suppose
it

and Mr. Bayley had every

was taken

for

by

the

The Court, Mr. Bayley believed, had no doubt whatever that in this The only witness who knew English, Vurjeevundass inuendo the plaintiff was referred to. Madhowdas, said the plaintiff was a high priest and was respected by the Brahmins. The
defendant's counsel.

learned counsel might, therefore, take
events.
first

it

as admitted that the plaintiff

is

a Maharaj

at

all

There
Mr.

were
libel

line of the

—"

very

few
the

inuei does in this plaint

and the
of

first

occurred in the very

In

Purans and other

Shastras

the

Hindus."

Was

it

necessary,

Bayley

asked,

to set out everything,

even the
;

facts settled

and admitted

?

An

inuendo cannot be used without previous averment

and the subsequent

allusion to the

Purans and Shastras, being preceded by the very same words in the introductory averment (where they are taken as admitted,) it was not at all necessary to explain it a second
time.

The

learned

counsel

would repeat that the introductory averments were immaterial
single inuendo
to

and could not be traversed, and that there was not a
than
explained
in

which was

not

more M. E.
the

the

averment.
case,

After

referring
said,

again
the

the judgment of Sir

Sausse in the

Demurrer

Mr.

Bayley

plaintiff

had

given

proof by

evidence of his followers and others
that
the

who have been on pilgrimages

to different cities of India,

Maharajs are respected in
their
it

Bombay and
The second
that

elsewhere by
is

the

Bhattias,
is

Lohanas,

and Banias as
of religion,
religion.

high priests.

plea

that the plaintiff

not a preceptor
of

while

h d been sworn
satisfactory

he and other

Maharajs are the preceptors
;

There was

evidence

on both these issues
to

and the simple question
first

now was
all

Is

there
to

evidence
say,

to
to

send the case

a

jury

?

The
to

four

pleas,

Mr.
were
the

Bayley went on
proved.

as

which the burden of proof lay upon the

plaintiff,

The learned
cited

counsel

was quite ready
to

to

proceed

a

consideration

ot

authorities

and the arguments addressed

the
it

Court

ujion

the

other

[ileas,

but

the
to

question
say,
if

was now extremely narrowed, and
was a
sufficient

only

remained
to

for the learned

Judges

there

evidence

to

submit the case

a jury as a

libel.

81
M. Bayley.
Sir

It'

it

is

no

libel

in

youi*

Lordship's

opinion,

I

shan't proceed.

Joseph

Arnould.

— As

lar

I

am

concerned,

I

should

like

to

hear your

further

observations.

Mr. Bayley now proceeded
counsel

to

a

consideration of the authorities cited

by the learned
)

on the other
counsel
said

side.

(Heads Addison on
been
dissected

Slander,

under the head Wrongs
;

The
is

learned
right
to

the libel had
of
it
:

word by word
in
its

but

this

was not the

way

of judging
is

it

must be taken

entirety,

and then the reader

say

what

the

impression

produced upon his mind by a perusal of the whole

article.

In ninety-nine out of every hundred cases of
circumstantial
evidence,

murder,

the

decision

is

arrived
in

at

by
the the

when the minutest
offence
is

parts are

gathered up
as
to

and meet
in

a whole,
suit,

and
first

it

is

then that the

established.

Now
is

the

article

this

portion
It
is
'^'

was a
shortly

historical

summary,
be
offensive
is

which

introduced by

way

of prelude

to

charges.

ceases

to

historical,
!

where

it

gradually

becoming

and comes to the doctrines, of the sect, " Bo you personally adopt a virtuous course

of conduct,

implying that

plaintiff

following

any thing but a virtuous
is

course.

Sir

Joseph Arnould.
Bayley.

— There
the
to

is

no

inuendo that he
explanations
libel ?

not.

Mr.

— After
in

argument and
say
it

submitted
the

to

the
is

Court,
singled

arc
out,

your Lordships

prepared

is

not a
ot
life

When

plaintiff

and
said

told
to

to

adopt a

virtuous

course

and
;

to

exhort the

other

Maharajs who are

be immersed
with
;

a sea

of licentiousness

—when

these circumstances are taken in
sect of

connection

the

general

aspersions

and imputations upon the whole

the

Val-

and then winding up with the personal attack upon the plaintiff, I very much doubt if your Lordships will say it is not a libel. " You Maharajs defile the
labhacharyas
wives

and daughters of your devotees
Joseph
in

;"

Is

not

this

libellous ?

Sir

Arnould

thought
the

that

the
of

words

ot

Goculnathjee's

Commentary

were

necessary

considering

doctrines

a sacred

book.

Mr.

Bayley said
!

their

was no proof that such a person

existed,

or ever wrote the

Commentary The question was what impression the article would minds of Hindu readers, and not the mind of a European.
Sir

produce

upon

the.

Joseph

Arnould.

— We

are

not

to

of a

question

of this

kind.

But how
presses

are

we

import European notions into the consideration to arrive at " libel or no libel," that's

the difficulty

which

at

present

upon

my

mind.
out
of Court,

Mr. Bayley.
impression
in

—The

way

is

to

consider

ourselves

and then judge what

must have been produced upon the minds

of the readers of the original article

1860.

Mr. Bayley said he had not
Sir

finished,

and the Court therefore
Brother Arnould

rose at a quarter-past 5 P.

sr..

M. R.

Sausse.

— Since
is

yesterday

has looked

into
libel.
it

the
I

pleadings,

and

is

of opiiiion tliat there

expressed

my

a case to go to a jury as to libel or no opinion that the first part of the article is historical but

have already

is

a very different

matter indeed when
11

wc come

to

the latter port alluding to Judunathjee personally.

82
Mr. Bayley
llierefore

proceeded

witli

his reply

to

the
t!ie

apphcatlon for

a nonsuit,
linished
r.
iM.

and
his

concluded at half-past 2 r. M.
address at a quarter before
the Court closed.

Mr. Scoble followed
P.

on

same
his

side

and
till

4

M.

Mr. Anstey then made

reply

6

when

F]fih

I)a>i,

Frldaij, Zlst January,

1862.

REPLY CONTINUED.
Mr. Bay ley resumed
his

reply

this

morning

;

he

said

that

much
or

stress

had

been

placed by the learned counsel for the defence on the question of
case of

libel

no

libel,

and the
it

Hern m. Stowel had been
;

constantly referred
libel

to.

The Court

there held that

was

not actionable

inasmuch
is

as

it

was not a
is

upon the upon the

plaintiff in his individual character.

In

this case

it

said that this

not a libel

plaintiff in his individual character,

but in that of Maharaj and Brahmin.

(The learned counsel here

cited several cases.)

The
that

Court was bound
this
if

to

regard the plea of justification,
it

and even
to

if

the

Court

thought

was not a
whole

libel,

could not from the averments come

any

other conclusion,
clearly a libel

even

the

of

the

other

arguments

were disposed

of,

this

was

upon the and
the

plaintiff in his character.

The defendant charges
(Here the learned

the plaintiff with defiling

the

wives

daughters of his followers.
authorities cited

counsel

commented

at great
libel

length on

by Mr. Anstey, and remarked.)

On
it,

looking at the

which we

must

now prove by

evidence, your Lordships will see that the

commentary stands
it.

in bold relief

it

has not been stated that Goculnathjee

made

or that he wrote

It

may

be quite

consistent that the
at the plaint.

commentary was not
attention of the Court

written.

We

must not

look at the libel

itself,

but

Amongst
the

the introductory averments are those relating to
to

the plaintiff,

and

he would
pleadings.

call

the translation of the article and

to the other

case of
to

The libel is upon him in his double capacity as man and as Maharaj. The Hern vs. Stoicell does not apply the case of Roberts vs. MacDougall (4th Bingham)

which he alluded shows that the action of
capacities,

libel

can

be maintained
It
is

;

the

p'aintiff

could
alleged

abandon one of the

and

sue

upon

the

other.

stated

that

the

inuendoes are not proved with reference to what the Shastras are, and what the Kali
is
:

Yug
to this
:

he would say that

it

was not necessary
do with the

:

also that the

Court has not been invited
is

look into the Pooranas.

The Court has been
to

told that this sect
libel.

not
is

400 years
old
is
:

old

he would submit had nothing
doctrine of the

Protestantism

not so

and

the

Immaculate Conception in which the
that

Roman

Catholics believed
special

of a very

recent date.

It is also alleged

the

plaintiff

must show

damage,

this is

not

necessary
is,

(here the learned counsel cited cases to bear out his view.)
;

The next

allegation

the letters were written as a privileged communication
;

that he

is

not damnified in his
character,
of

sacerdotal character
this
it

he had said that the
to
is

plaintiff is injured in his private
libel.
is

and
that
class

was
a

quite

sufficient

constitute

a

If

your
it

Lordships

are

opinion

is

libel,

then malice

implied.

It

stated that

was a

reflection

upon the

and not upon the
that the plaintiff
is

plaintiff.

Great deal of argument has
:

been brought

forward to

show

not singled out personally

but what would the learned counsel for the
practise

defence say to the passage,

"

Do you

personally

a

virtuous

life

and

admonish,

83
&c."
It has also

been attempted

to

be shown that
to

the Maharajs

were not

of religion

the preceptors

the Court has

had no evidence

show

that they were not, whereas one of the
:

witnesses distinctly told the Court that they did

instruct the sect

the Court

has had

no

evidence to show that there were any other preceptoi's.
this opinion,

If the Court, was, however, not of

he would submit that there was an
is

issue,

and a case

to

go to a jury.

It

has

also

been contended that there

a variance between the translation
:

and the
in

oral

evidence

of Mr.
racter

Flynn
the

:

this

was

immaterial

he
has

would
full

submit

that

the

Gujarati
to

cha-

libel

stands.

The

Court

power
a

under the rules

correct

any
Court

translation,

and he trusted that language
the
case
proceed.

so
is,

ambiguous
this
is

would not
privileged
cases.)

prevent the

from

letting

The next

communication,

(Mr.
not

Bay ley here read
case

from

Star tie

on Slander

and

cited

He

said
to

that

a

had been

cited
in

by the learned counsel on the part
a newspaper
character
to
is

of

the defence

show

that-

every

publication

a privileged
of a
privileged

communication.

Justifiable
:

occasion

would give a writing the
of a
plied

communication

as

in

the

instance

master giving
to

a

certificate

his

servant.

He

contended that the
people,

privileges

ap-

certain

cases

only,

and

that

any abuse of a

of a

class,

or

of

any
a

tion.

member of a class would not prevent the party abused from Your Lordships could not, Mr. Bayley said, think for
communication,
that
for

being entitled to

protec-

a

moment
that
it

that
is,

this is

privileged

but

if

your Lordships
malice
in

are

of

opinion
to

then he

would submit

there

was

the

publication

rebut
for

the

evidence.

He
;

would submit

the

reasons

stated,

that that

the

application

nonsuit

must

fail

a

prima facie had been made out and
Mr.
plaintiff.

the

case

should

go to

a jury.

Scoble

said

that

he appeared with his
to

learned friend,
as

Mr. Bayley,
possible,

for

the

He

would endeavour
to

make
has
friend

his

observations

brief as

regretting

that

he would have

do
a

so.

.Thirst

then,

he

would
is

remark that
not one
to

the

ground
can

upon

which the application

for
:

nonsuit

been

made

which
the

be deterto-

mined by
tally

the

Court
the

his

learned

asks the

Court

nonsuit
to

plaintiff,

disregarding

plea

of justification.

He

would venture
been
sitting

say

that

this

was an
learned

unprecedented application.

Had
their

their

Lordships

as jurors,
pleas,

he should have
but
his

asked them
friend
pleas

to

take

into

consideration

two of

the

eight

had unfairly taken advantage of the double
of justification,

position.

and
to

his

learned

friend

cannot

The seventh and eighth pleas are now be allowed after having put
'

the
to

pleas

on record

ask
'it

the Court to

leave

them out

of all consideration.

(Referred
evidence

text
is

books,

and said
the

was

clearly

supported Ly

Chitty)

Nearly

all

the

taken

not

evidence

of the

plaintiff.

The
been

major time has

been
pleas

taken

up up

in

cross-examination.
the
defendants,

The

plaintiff's

case
it

had

framed

on the
he

drawn
be

by

and he would say

was not

proper

that

should

now
for

turned
being
libel,

round upon.
Maharaj.
in

Much had
for

been said on the introductory averments, as

to the plaintiff

(He
Mr.

referred to the case of Jones vs. Stephen,

an
laid

action

in a

case

which rules

pleading in

an action
to

of

slander

are

down.)

If

the

defendant

wanted,

Scoble

went

on

say, to

reply on the

defence

now

raised, proving the

general issue, he ought to have struck on the two pleas of justification.
to

Mr. Scoble referred
establish

one or two cases on privileged communication, and

said that
to

those cases

that

communication published in a newspaper must be proved
put forward unfairly.
the Banian taste.

be true.

The
all

case

had

been
of
is.

The defendant

is

represented as a

Reformer, a

Martin
;

Luther

This he would say was not a religious question at

the question

84
kas the plaintiff been libelled
libel,
?

Here we have a man, who up

to

the publication

of
to

th«

was held

in respect

and esteem, and has borne an

unblemished character

up

the

time of bringing

this action.
it

He

has brought an action on the Plea side of this Court, he
side,

might have done

on the Crown

but his object

is

to

show

to the

world that he has

given the defendant an opportunity of proving the statements made by him, reflecting on His learned friend, Mr. Anstey, had said that no evidence his (the plaintiff's) character.

was brought forward
their Lordships

to

show what the Shastras and the Kali Yug
to

are,

he would say that

were supposed

know

the religious laws and customs of the natives,

and
interto

that by the charter their Lordships were
fere with the customs, religion, laws,

bound

to

make such
facts

rules
:

as

would

not a

and usages of the natives
of the

and he had
of

right
;

assume that

their Lordships
it
is.

knew something
for

and

religion

the natives

he

should say that
of the Shastras

was unnecessary

the plaintiff to call experts to

show what the

religion

Here Mr. Scoble went on to say, we have a clergyman of the sect of The defendant is a person who Vallabacharyas, a sect in existence since 400 years ago. The Maharaj is in the position of a clergyman of the established church of Engdissents.
land or of the
religion,

Romish church
is

;

in fact, more, he
to

is

a r/ooroo

or spiritual guide of the

Hindu
sub-

which the Court

bound

regard according to the
to

charter.

Public
the

life

is

ject to criticism,

but when one
life,

comes

a private

home and draws up

curtain

and

exposes private

so that

it

is

detrimental and injurious to the interests, surely, he would
to

say, there could not be

any thing

make

the act a justifiable one.

Here

their Lordships

are told, the Maharaj

is

a public man, and that he under the guise of religion defiles
:

the

tender wives and daughters of his followers
characters
va.

he could say
be

that

public

comment on any
facetious

cannot justify
(4th

it,

unless

it

can

proved

to

be

true.

In the case of Levt/
a

Bingham)
whereby

the plaintiff
the

was charged with was
it

publishing
scorn and
;

eight

verses,

defendant

held

up

to

ridicule.

(defendant) was called a

bum, no doubt
it

was

amusing

but
the

C.

J.

Best,

poem of The bailiff who decided
hurtful
to
is

the case, was of opinion that the feelings and calculated to

was

a" libel,

inasmuch as

publication

was

make him appear mean
is

in the eyes of the people.

There

no doubt, Mr. Scoble contended, that the
in the

plaintiff is charged

with a high and grave ofience
to

Hindu

religion

:

if that offence

allowed

to
;

be

imputed

him

it

must make
the
face

him

little

in the €yes of the
is

European community

then the damage appears on
as to
vs.
:

of the record and

a

libel.

Now

as to the question of malice

the presumption

of

malice, he would refer their Lordships to

the

case

of

Simpson
the libel

Wallace,

12

Q.

B.
the

He

would contend that there was no occasion

to justify

it

was
point

not

within

range of a privileged communication.
character,

As
the
libel
it

the case stands the plaintiff bears an unblemished

and

is

held

in

respect

by

Hindus
was

:

and

as

to

the

raised

by

his

learned friend, Mr. Anstey, that the
it

incomprehensible,

he

would maintain

that

was not

so.

The Court had
translator
:

before

only one version

—the
Mr.

translation

by Mr.

Flynn,
learned

the chief

official

for

aught he knew another translation
resulted

may
in

be in his

friend's pocket.

Two

points
in

had

strongly

from

Flynn 's

examination.

The

word "

defile"

was not

the

past

tense

the

sentence

was not

two

parts

but one,

in that sentence

and there was no full stop. A great deal had also been said that the word " Maharaj" was in the vocative case and that since his learned friend had been allowed No grammar would justify the word Maharaj to make a suggestion he would make one also.
:

being used in the

vocative case.

It

was nothing more

than

an

apostrophe.

He

would
the

with these remarks submit that the application of his learned friend
defendant called upon
to

be

refused,

and

answer.

Mr. Anstey rose and commented

at great length on the
vs.

cases

cited
to

by

Mr.

Bayley
the

and Scoble

;

he said that the case of Roberts
for the plaintiff
;

McDouf/all referred
cases

by

Mr. IBayley
from
out
libel

was no authority
Weeklt/ Reporter
to

he produced

other

and

read
case

passages

and text-books, and submitted that there was no
to

made
go

to

go

a jury, that their Lordships were not then
but as to whether the
plaintiff

consider whether there was a
case as should

or no

libel,

had made out such a

to

a

jury.

Averments the Court had, but proof it had none. The learned counsel commented on the he laid before their Lordships the law on the different points of Mr. Bayley 's arguments
;

question of
ships

libel,

and

privileged communication, and said that

it

would spare

their

Lordthe

much time and
to

trouble

and

the

parties

expense,
(I),

if

instead

of entering

upon

defence which must occupy at least twelve weeks

they would declare that the defendants

were entitled

a nonsuit.
rose at C o'clock

The Court
dav.

and said that the

decision

would

be

delivered the

next

Sixth Bail, Saturdaij,

\»1

Februari/, 18G2.

The Chief
nonsuit, which

Justice this day pronounced the

Court's decision

on the
be

application
with.

for

&

was

refused,
to

and the defence
had that power.

was ordered

to

proceeded

The

power of the Court

entertain the motion, said his Lordship, has been contested, but the
it

Court was of opinion that
this application

It

would be an unseemly thing
it.

to stop the

proceedings however, except in the presence of a very clear case for

It

appeared
has

that
in

was made upon a two-fold ground,
character, the case

viz.
;

that the

plaintiff"

sued

a

particular character,
tailed to

and the character must be proved

and

it

was argued that
if

as lie has

prove the

must
to

fall

;

and that even
yet
that
in

the proof

of character

were

sustained,

and the

Court came

that

opinion,

the

publication
plaint,

was not
adduced
case
of

libellous.

His Lordship was of opinion that the averments

the
at

which were

not traversed,
for

must be taken
the

to

be

admitted.

Having looked
not
expressly
to

the

evidence

the
vs.

plaintiff,

Court thought there was

some evidence of a
the

libel.

The
the

May
the

Broicn

and

Lewis

vs.

Walter

are

overruled,
principles

and

Court
cases,

would act upon them as good law, while,
plaintiff'

according
in

of these
libelled.

had established the characters
question,

which

he

alleged

he was
the

Then
libel.

came the
side,

legal

there
after

is

a case

to

send to a jury

on

question

of a

His Lordship considered,
that,
:

the

very able

and erudite discussion of counsel on either
disclosed
latter

as

to

the
it

libel,

there

was a prima facie case
that

on

the

face

of the
article

publication
is

and
the

was

his into

opinion
hatred,

the tendency
to

of the

part

of the

to

bring

plaintiff
it

and

injure
to

his

character.

That being the opito

nion of the Court,
themselves,
tions

remained with the defendants
libel

proceed with the case, and
or

discharge

by proving the

to

be justifiable,
pleadings.

by disproving any of the allega-

which were traversed by
plaintiff^s

their

His Lordship thought the
nothing
the
to

mere

cross-

examination of the
•entirely
justifiable.

witnesses

made

out
for

show
was

that

the libel

was

It

was said the evidence

defendant

very

considerable

SG
and possibly
it

was very

lengthy,
all

but
to

every

endeavour,

said

his

Lordship,

will,

he
hia

was

sure,

be

made on
gist

occasions
libel

economize public time.
in

Having expressed

opinion that

the

of the

consisted

the

personal

charge against the

plantiff, hia
its

Lordship would hope that the evidence which might be brought forward would have
bearing upon that particular
to
issue,
itself.

whether as

to

the

fact

of a justifiable

occasion or as

a justification
in

of the libel
earlier

The Court thought
libel,

that the strictures on Gocalnathji'a

commentary
did
not
Sir

the
to

part

of the

although

they

contained

strong expressions,

appear

go

beyond the range of legitimate
in

criticism.

Joseph

Arnould entirely concurred
his

the

views of

the

learned
oft-cited
libel

Chief
case of

Justice.

He
vs.

would confine
Sloicell

remarks only
with

to

two points,
that

— whether
in

the

Home
to

conflicted

May

vs.

Brown,
characters.

is,

whether the

must be shown

have affected the
in those
cases

plaintiff in

both

His Lordship considered that the
any
respect.
for

decisions
to

did

not

conflict

with
it

each other

With regard
the the

the
of

other

important question,
his

whether
said

was a

justifiable

occasion

publication

the

libel,

Lordship

he

threw out

observations
free,
is

during

hearing to

guard
of

against
public

any thing being surmised against the
questions
in

open,

and

unreserved
because
it

discussion
is

by a

public

writer.

An
on

article

not libellous
it

free,

open,

and bold
his

the

exposure

of measures
strictures

and men, nor because
the
the

transcends
it

the

bounds
to

of polite journalism.

The

commentary
defendant

of
in

Gocalnathji,
his

appeared
of

Lordship,
gives

were not
vent to a
to

libellous,

because
honest,

capacity

a

public

writer,

strong,

and virtuous indignation against the upholders of
doctrines
of the

what he
libel,

considers

be

the

atrocious
justifiable
plaintiff

commentary.

All

this

was

no he

but honest,
in

bold,

and

comments.

But then comes
his

the

quesion,
?

is

justified

singling
in

out
the

the
able

and
of
in

attacking

personal character

As very
of

properly

observed

address
in

Mr.

Scoble,

the

obvious
like

tendency
this.

the

expressions used
naturally
occurs

must be kept
to

view,

deciding

a

question

The enquiry
by a
are

the

mind,

what

must have
or

been

the
class,

impression produced

perusal

of the

article

upon the minds, not of a
for

certain
?

by
to

no means
that

remarkable
defile
libel

acumen
wives

judgment

—"

but of

readers
!

who
is

You
or

INIaharajs

acting

up
that

commentary,
constitutes

the
;

and daughters
question

of

your

devotees."

Here
the

which

the
the

and and

the

arises.

Did
be

did

not

defendant
daughters
of a

intend to say that
of their
justifiable

plaintiff,

other there

Maharajs,

defile to

the

wives
proof

and

devotees

?

To
for

his
this

Lordship
direct,

appeared
imputation

some
the

necessary
Sir

occasion

personal

upon
time

plaintiff".

Joseph

concurred with
to
this

the

Chief Justice in thinking, that the

justification
to

ought
justify

to

be addressed

point only,

and

it

would be a waste
to.

of

public

any

remarks

which preceded those just referred

Mr. Anstey here asked that leave
against
the decision

may
for

be reserved to the defendant

to

show cause

on

the application

a nonsuit.
to

After
verdict,
to

some
enter

discussion,

the

Court reserved liberty
on
the
nonsuit,
that

the

defendant

to

move,

after
to

a

judgment

but

no

fresh

arguments were
called,

be
so,

addressed to

the

Court by the defendant in

respect,

unless

upon

to

do

by the Court,

87

SPEECH FOR THE DEFENCE.
Mr.
for

Anstey,

on
It

the

sitting

of the Court
his

after

tiiTin,

commenced a very
counsel)
to

able speech
to

the defence.

became now
upon the

duty
of

(said

the

learned
as

address
their

the

Court such observations
for

facts

the

case

might
of

prepare

Lordships
If
for

the

evidence
of

which would be

adduced

on

behalf

the

defendants.

the

purpose
attack

proof the inuendo, whereby the alleged libel
plaintiff,

has

been interpreted proved
that
it

into

a direct

upon the

had

failed
of

;

or

if

it

could

be
the

was

nothing
;

more than the bare enunciation
or
to
if
it

true

criticisms

on

doctrines

of the of

commentary

couid

be shown

to

have been

used merely for the purpose
then
opinion

giving

support

the

view taken by defendant of the commentary,
circumstances

Mr. Anstey
of the

hoped that any

one

of these

would exonerate,

in

the
to

Court, the defendants

of all

misconduct, more
of this

especially
is

with regard

the

concluding
occasion

words of the paragraph.
on

The
relies.

history
It
is

case

a history

of the justifying
is

which the defendant
caste
;

proved that the

defendant
as

a member
as
possible

of

the

Bania
the

that

the

caste

as

a

body

is

divided

nearly
;

between
latter

worshippers

of the

IMaharaj
to

and the worshippers of Shiva

and that

the

are

naturally
called

antagonistic

the

former.

That

in

addition

to

the

Bania
in

caste,

another

caste

the

Bhattias,
of
of

the

most ignorant and the most inveterate
Maharaj,

superstition,

are to
deity,

a

man
on
virtue

worshippers

the

and believe in him as the incarnation of the

sent

a
of

mission
his
is

impurity from the other world.
authority,
his

Some

of

them
all

believe
subjects

that,

in

divine

power over the doctrines and
to

pertaining

to

religion,

omni-

potent
in
It

;

in

short,

use the language of one of the plaintiff"s witneses, the people's credence
atrocious,

a doctrine,
then

however
the

depends
all

upon

its

being contained

in

a sacred
believe

book.
in
it

overrules
zeal.

authority

of

previous

cases,

and
in

the

Bhattias
the
the

with a blind
boast
of

The Bhattia is commanding an unanimous
comparatively

the

only

community
In

which
caste,

Maharaj

can

following.

any other
yet

number
addressed

of his

devotees
as

is

very

much
the
the

smaller.
or
in
is,

And

he

is

forsooth

by

all

the

"

Maha Prabhu"
is

(great
in

God)
swing

"

Maharaj,"

great

king, as

is

worshipped
sacred

with
is

divine

honours,

swung

the

same
is

manner
honoured
than a
the

the

idol,

bathed with

saflfron
!

water as

image
to

and

with

prostrations
are, the

as

the

image
are

is

honoured
blind
in

Less indifferent
their
zeal.

public
are
to

opinion

Bhattias

Bauias
of

less

To

these

be

added

wretchedly
to

small

sect

i\Iarwarris,

a few

Bhansalees,
IMaharajs'

and a handful of outcaste

Brahmins,

make

up

the

catalogue

of the
is

worshippers.

This
case.

the sort

of evidence,

Mr. Anstey

said,

offered

in

support

of

the

plaintiffs

In a country swarming with a numerous population,
professing

some two hundred
the

millions
is

of

persons

the

ancient

religion

of

the

land,

Maharajs, the Court
religion

seriously asked to believe, are the preceptors

of the ancient
stress

Hindu
this

and the

spiritual
if

guides
question

of the of

people Mr. Anstey laid some damage sustained by plaintiff from
!

on

point,

because, even
libel

the

the^publication

of the

be

taken into
proved.
for
to

consideration,

he

would most strongly urge that the prefatory averments
of malice

are not

Neither

the presence

nor

any inuendo

whatsoever,
counsel here

can
cited

compensate
several

the

want
that
the

of proof of those
this
libel,

averments.

The
of
it,

learned

cases

show
or

has

been ruled over and over again.
is

Even
there

if
is

the

plaintiff

were damaged by
special

there

no

evidence

while

no averment of a

88
ordinary damage.

The

witnesses

for

the
libel,

defence
that

will
is

tell

the

Court that plaintiff

is in

no way damaged by the supposed
outcaste,

he

not

a

Brahmin, that

he

is

an
be

that

his

ancestors
is

were

outcasted

by

the
his

Telinga
character

Brahmins
of a

for

heresy and
It
will

schism,
in

and that he
that these

execrated

generally in

Maharaj.

evidence

]\Iaharajs

cannot

intermarry
;

out

of their

body without procuring

the ex-communication of the wife and her family

and as the outcasted of the Telinga Brahmins,

they cannot get a wife without
of caste
libel

making
incurred

large promises of

money, proportionate
family.
his

to the

loss

and

other

advantages
the
plaintiff

by some
in

indigent

was

written,

had but a bad reputation among
that

Long own
be

before

the

people

;

and
the
to

the circumstances under
notice

which he suffered
also,

reputation,

will

brought

to

of the

Court.

Previously,
to

to

the
in

period of the search
of
it

publication,
to

he

refused

give

instruction

except

those

who went
to

his

house.

As
of

to

the

female

devotees,
;

they

were

enticed

his

rooms

under

the

pretence
for

religious

instruction

and the opportunities thus afforded him were misused

the

purpose

of

seduction

and adultery.
will

The evidence
defendant,
time.

show

that,

at

this

juncture,

the

plaintiff

became acquainted with

himself a
secretary

Vallabacharya,
of the

and that the acquaintance was kept communicated
plaintiff

up
the

for

some
of

The

Maharaj
in

with defendant
to

on

subject

reform,
his

and other subjects

which the

pretended

take

an

interest,

though

professions

were miserably belied by

his

subsequent
the

conduct.
of

The
at

plaintiff

made

an outward show of taking great
the

interest in

promotion

female
horror

education
the

and in

reformation
of

of religion

;

often

exppressed

a sanctimonious
that

adulterous
adulteries,

practices

his

brother

Maharajs,
so

and

said

he
it

was
could
of

aware of
not be

their

but that the crime
seducers
It

was
'*

widely
the

prevalent

that

prevented.
for

Their

were the

Yarkats,"
said

hereditary
counsel,

procurers
that as far
first

women
the

the

Maharajs.
practices
of

would be shown,
that,

the

learned

as

immoral
their

the

Maharajs are concerned,
in

the

plaintiff

was

the
libel,

to

deplore

condition.
s

It

would be shown
;"

connection

with this
of his

a meeting of the Maharaj

followers

was held under the superintendence
bust

agents

and

secretaries
to

to

effect

a " bundo-

and that those who put
not
to

their

signatures thereto, agreed
witnesses,
or
to

do one of two things,
that

either

appear

in

the

Court

as

swear
agent,

falsely

the
also

Maharaj
conducting

never
this

committed adultery.
should
the

And

although

the

Maharaj's

who was
that

case,
for

deny the making of any such " bundobust" as

imputed by

a

witness
in

plaintiff

who swore
vs.

that

it

was

the

same

as

had

been enquired into

the case

of the

Queen

Gocukkiss

Leiadhur,

the learned counsel
it

would

prefer

to

believe the other.

He

would show what that bundobust was, and that

had been punished
Court.

as an attempt to defeat the administration of justice in
veil of hypocrisy

Her

Majesty's

Supreme
more

The
bss

under which

plaintiff affected to feel

a great interest in female education and the

re-marriage of Hindu widows, was rather prematurely torn asunder.
discreet friend of the defendant invited the Maharaj, through the

A

zealous, but
to

columns of a newspaper,

come

forvvaid as

the advocate of these very

desirable innovations.

The defendant thought
colors
;

that the

Maharaj
instantly

would

not

so

soon

declare

himself

in

his

true

but

he

(plaintiff)

renounced

his
to

doctrines

concerning
at once

the

subjects

in

question,

and

repudiated
out

the opnions
in
to

imputed

him.

He

quarrelled

with the defendant and threw

print

reflections

of a
to

provocatory character

against him.

The

learned
at

counsel
the time.

alluded

these

circumstances

show the

position

in

which the parties stood

This


89
was
in

the

month
Fraser,

of July

1860.

Plaintiff

threw

out

those

provocatory

reflections

in

a

paper over which Watts
It in
vs.

he has direct or indirect influence.

(The learned counsel here
of a
in

cited

and other cases in respect
plaintiff

to

reflections
;

provocatory

character.)
serial

would be shown that the
fact,

went further
and

and

a pamphlet,
the
subject

a

book

publicly

challenged
the

the

defendant to

a controversy on
opinions

of

religion,

and

also

ridiculed
secretary,
in

defendant's

views
to

therein.

A

letter

signed

by

plaintiff's

and

purporting

be

written

under

the

plaintiff's

authority,
also,

was
on

inserted

the
to

Chahook newspaper of the 29th September 1860, whereby,
the
controversy.
It

defendant
to

was

invited

would be shown,
with

the

learned

counsel

went
his

observe,

that the

plaintiff

communicated

defendant's

paper

through

secretary,

and with other papers through other
to

secretaries

and

agents.

Mr.

Anstey here adverted
Surat,
in
It

a handbill,

published
of the

and circulated by
the end of August

plaintiff

on his arrival from

which would

he complained
be
to

Vyshnovs not

visiting

him

as

they ought to have done.

shown
discuss

that

about

1860, the plaintiff

convened a public meeting
of the

the subject

of

widow re-marriage with a Guzeratee poet
after

name

of

Narof

madashunker.
re-marriage.

This

was

the

challenge

published

by

the

indiscreet

champion

The defendant
to

agitated the
his

subject, or

and the
the

plaintiff joined
logical

in the discussion,
to

but was
led.

unable

answer

arguments
in

resist

conclusions

which they

Baffled thus in

a controversy

which he voluntarily took a share,
plaintiff
to

and apparently
called

chagrined by his

bad success in the matter, " Propagator of our own Religion," alluded
subscribers,
first

started
libel,

a

pamphlet
with

the
of

in

the

and
the

the

view

securing

issued
after

hand-bills

to

be distributed

among
a

Vyshnovs.

At the
was
:

end of the

month

the

periodical
allusion
this

was
is

started,

lecture

by the
in

plaintiff

pubhshed therein, and " Whoever may wish
defendant)
of belief

a
to

distinct

made

to

the defendant

the

same

write

upon

lecture

should

do

so

(a

direct

challenge

to

by quoting the Shastras, but he who would not do so, should be unworthy by his own people." Here, therefore, Mr. Anstey remarked, the defendant is
first

denounced in the very

number
the

of

plaintiffs

periodical,

as

being

unworthy

of

belief

by

his

own
this

people,

his castemen.

Accepting this direct challenge, and from
his

a conscious-

ness of his

responsibilities,

defendant reviewed in
to

paper the lecture in question.
prohibited
to

Upon

the
to

plaintiff

resorted

aggressive

measures,
expression
his

the
cordial

Vyshnovs
those

from

subscribing

defendant's

newspaper,

and gave

his

wish that the
reviews

defendant should be punished
of the lecture.

by excommunication from
containing
the alleged
to

caste for writing

The

article
to

libel,

Mr. Anstey therefore maintained,
before.

was written

in

answer

the challenge

which the learned counsel had alluded
of himself,

The defendant wrote another article in The levelled against him by plaintiff.
Amongst
editor
of

vindication

and
for

in reply to the charges

controversy
articles

was continued

sometime afterwards.
defendant as tha

others the

plaintiff

published

distinctly

referring to the

the

Satya

Prakash,

and

accusing

him

of
:

doctrines

of the
of

Maharajs.

One
will

of these
fall

articles

says

—"

assigning

false

meaning
'

to

the

The
never

(defendant)

walks
get

on
up.

the support

opium,

and

to

the
are

ground,
the

and

will

be able a

to

He
six
for

is

the

firefly,

while

we

(plaintiff)

Sun."

The
libel.

controversy was
It
is

bona

Me

one on the defendant's part, long before and afler the

not,

however until
action

months
reasons

after

the

publication
to

of

it,

that

the

plaintiff
this

thinks

of
?

commencing the
Subsequently
pamphlet,
for

best

known
alleged

himself

But
in

why

long

delay
of his
of

to

the

publication of the

libel,

and

the

second number
accusing

the

plaintiff

made another

attack

upon

the

defendant,

him

falsehood

having

statad

12


90
that

the

books

of the

Vallabacharya sect

were kept concealed

in

tiie

temples,

lest

the

Brahmins
the

should read and
as

repudiate their doctrines.
of

The

plaintiff in

one
of

place describes

Brahmins

persons

another religion,

and " not
hypocrisy
!"

worshippers

the

Supreme
see

Being."
dant)
the
is

He
the

again attacks

the

defendant shortly afterwards
libel
:

very

words of the

—"
the

and applies

to

him

(the defen-

What
plaintiff

I

Oh, you Vyshnovs, you
the

whose

rascality

and whose the hypocrisy
against
alleged

So unconscious was the defendant of
in

any impropriety
afler

or

offence
of

that,

month

of

November 1860,
survey
of the
doctrines,

the

publication

the

libel,

he

wrote

in

his

paper a

calm

public
his

career

of Juduiiathji
for

Maharaj,
In
this

this

unworthy champion of monstrous
of

on
the

departure

Surat.
his issue

survey

plaintiffs

career,
:

defendant

writes

to

following

effect in

of the

18th November 18G1

We have thus made a note of the career of Jadunathji Maharaj during his short stay in Bombay. In concluding this note we beg permission to give our impartial opinion about Shri Jadunathji Maharaj. The praises of this Maharaj formerly published in the Satm P)-akash paper are not lessened by the subsequent controversy. Of all the Maharajs who are known to us, Shri Jadunathji ISIaharaj has been found to be the most courageous and the most discriminating. Without regard to the unjust means the said Maharaj has latterly adopted to injure us, we must say that by a public approval of female education the Maharaj has rendered himself worthy of no little respect. Had not the poet Narmadashankar erred, and had he not plunged him into the remarriage controversy, we should this day have seen the Maharaj advancing instead of retiring from the field of reform. But often times some slight incidents prove unfavorable. The same is the case now, and we are ^* * * * * * * really sorry for it.
"
'^'

?«•

-;t

You are not our enemies. You have not in any way no malice against you. We wish that you may receive all due respect as religious preceptors. And we have not had any business or dealings with you. religious preceptors, why should w^e entertain any malice against you Then, and annoy you without cause ? If, in telling you the truth, any hard words have ever been used, do you forgive us. Remember that those who become flatterers and do not endeavour to lead you from a crooked path, are your enemies in the shape of friends. And those are your true friends who warn you that if you do not leave the crooked path your persuasion and dignity will be prejudiced. we heartily wish that you O would quit the evil path and come up on the good path that we may never be under the necessity of writing anything acrimonious."
religious
us.

"

O

preceptors

I

injured

We

entertain

!

Jadunathji, then

addressed the

ignorant
are

Vyshnovs

as
to

follows

:

—"

^atya Prakash

defiles

our religion

]

you not going

punish him ?"

The editor of the The defendant

most emphatically denied that charge in his paper.

On
troversy

the

18th November

1860,

so

far

as

the

defendant

was

concerned,
in

the

con-

with the plaintiff
notice

was abandoned.
upon
last

The

action
to

was

commenced
his

May
in
his

1861,
very

and the
next
after

which

called
in

the

defendant
of April.

retract

statements

issue,

was written

the

week
in

That was indeed a very long
short
notice
to

interval

the publication of the

libel,

and

this

was but a very and nothing

consider

and

retract.

The defendant
or
retract

accordingly,

the next issue

of his journal,
to

said he
for,

saw nothing
as required
in the
to

to

alter

in

what he had

written,

apologize
it

by the

plaintiff.

Now, whatever may have

dictated the spirit of the libel

was evident

opinion of the learned counsel, that the plaintiff, in filing the action,
injure the defendant, against
justice,

acted so

from a desire

whom he cherished
it

ill

will,

and by no means from a sense of public
of

for

the extracts

cited above

had shown the absence
appeared
to

malice on

the

part of the
full

defendant,

k

strange circumstance

be that the plaintiff should have taken

91
six

months
to

to deliberate

on the tendency of the
Act,

article.

By
to

the statute
is

of limitations,
for
to

ac-

cording

the

new Indian
libel

a period

of one

year

only

allowed
in

instituting

libel actions,

whereas the

plaintiff allowed

half the

time

elapse

coming

an opinion
fact

whether
even

it

was a
the
! !

or

no

libel.

Coupled with the above was the singular
prosecuted

that

after

libel,

the

plaintiff

and

continued
for

the

controversy
find
fact,

with
out

the the

defendant
grievances

It

was a precious long time,
I

certainly,

the

plaintiff to

he had suffered

The

real solution

of the
to

problem lay in the
to
to

that the

Vaishnavs

showed themselves determined not
matters
of education
beneficial
to
;

be subject
sought

the

plaintiff

or

any other
the

Maharaj

in

and the

plaintiff

revenge

himself upon

defendant for this

change in

public

opinion.
at

The circumstances
counsel
trusted,
it

which
light

he
on
for

had
the

alluded
history

such

length,

would,
as

the

learned

throw some

of the
to

case.

Now,
libel

the

action

commenced,
every
the

became necessary
to

the defendant

protect

himself by

such

was means as

he might be advised
particular.

adopt,

and he was aware
which
he

that

the

could be justified in
satisfied

The
his

new
views
;

enquiries

instituted,

further

him

of
of

correctness

of
tell

and

learned
that the

men, who knew nothing of the history
passage
alleged
to

the case, would
it

their

Lordships

contain

the
it.

libel,

though

was obscure, was capable of the meaning which the defendant gave and
It
is
is

It

bears onlv

a hyphothetical meaning,
the
the
plaintiffs

but the enunciation
this,

of

doctrines
act

given

to
to

the

world by
precept,

ancestors.

" If

you

will

according

your

precept

of your ancestors,

why

then

must you
of their

defile the

wives

and daughters of your

devotees !"

Bayley

?

And what is the Why, they contain
are to
;

character

" sacred books" so reverenced
beastly

by Mr.
If
their
is

nothing

but the
sport,

most obscene and
their
their

adventures.
of

the Maharaj s

pursue amorous
such
are
the

putting
of

arms round the necks
sacred

female

devotees

if

doctrines
set

books

!

the

defendant

justified in calling

upon the

plaintiff,

who had

himself up as

a monitor

and a propagator

of his religion, to begin

by desisting from such

practices

and

so to

admonish the other Maharajs.
the plaintiff) shown that

They claim
they

to

be

considered, as Krishna

was considered
It

in

former days, each the husband of
(for

many women and
received

the

" ocean of Kas Lila."
in

has

been

the

public

one
the
of

room,
designs

at

3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, where the

darkness

of the hour favoured

of

some

evil

minded

men

;

and that a portion
into
it

of the public

which

consists

women
first

of certain

attractions,
is

are received
followed

another

room,

towards
It

which the
be

Maharaj

bends his steps and
such as

into

by the
at

women.
that

would

shown

by

evidence
is

any of the
in

Ecclesiastical
It

Courts

home would deem
the
plaintiff
at

sufficient,

that adultery

committed
in

that room.

would be shown

had been bred and brought up
that

the adulterous doctrines of the sect,
inteixourse

and that he
Maharajs
physical

one time maintained
to

adulterine

with the

devotees of the
is

leads

the strengthening
of

and
this

development of
is

the
of

body,

and
caste

akin

to

the
the

education
of
;

athletes.

And
the

the
in

leader
short,

high

Brahmins,
learned
says

incarnation
called

God
and

on
these

earth,

gentleman,
professions

as one of the
of

counsel

him

are

the
!

and

practices

a

man who
served

he has

sustained

demage
of the
fact

by

the

libel

(The learned counsel then made some remarks upon
with a summons,
for

the

absence

Maharaj

from the Court, though he had been
single

and upon the
case.) It

that not a

Bhattia witness
to

had
say,
it

been called

the

plaintiffs

would be shown, Mr.
is

Anstey went on
excessive,
of sacred

that the language

made use
of

of

by the defendant
indignation against

not

at

all

and
books,

that

is

only
full

expressive

an honest

the

doctrines

which are

of blasphemies

and

tales

92
of adulterous practices, and in which adultery itself
is

held

up

as
to

commendable.

(Alludes to

the story mentioned by one of plaintiffs

witnesses,

according

which the husband anointed
to

and

dressed

his

wife,

and upon

his

shoulders carried

her

the

house of the

intended
of

adulterer.)

The Court would
and
it

learn from the

mouths of the witnesses that the
the only

doctrines

the sacred books enforce the culture of adulterine love and sensual lust towards the leaders
(the Maharajs,) soul and
(suffering
its is

said

that these are

means

of

re-absorption into the Divine essence,"
to propitiate

" the deliverance of the

as if

God meant Jadoonathjee Maharaj

under a loathsome disease)

devotees

!

But, say these preceptors of religion,
;

Him, by engaging in hot love with his " This principle which we teach is not a
(himself

barren principle

it

must bear

fruit.

To each
If

of us,

a Krishna,) you
'

will offer

your body, your

soul,

your wives, your sons, your
property).

daughters, your
to

tun mun, and

dhun'
to you,

— (your
do
it

body, mind and
this three-fold

you wish
sense
to the

serve

God, and we are God

in

manner."

The

of

this application of
infer.
;

body in
true
is

reference to
is

woman,
joined to

the learned
feel

counsel

would leave

Court to

A

Vaishnav

en-

no

shame and no

regard to

public

opinion

and that

service with the

"mun," mind "dhun"
any portion of your
'

property of every kind.
it,

And

say the Maharajs, " Before you enjoy
to

dhun,' you must offer
it

him, or her

your God, personified in us

;

you have no

right to enjoy

before us."

These practices were commonly known and com-

monly spoken
upon you

of in the sect, but until the time of Goculuathjee, no Maharaj

had the audacity
" I

to illustrate the three
call

grand principles.
;

" That doctrine," says defendant

to the plaintiff,

to

denounce

and I

call

upon you
still,

especially,

Jadoonathjee Maharaj,
their

because

the others are sinking deeper and deeper

while you alone of
so

number once came
impostures, do you
(repudiate the

forward

to

propagate your religion

!

and

if

your words are not

many

admonish your other Maharajs, do you scorn the writer of the commentary
doctrines of
it,

according

to

one translation,) and

such of

you
be

as defile

the
desist

wives

and

daughters of your devotees, according
if

to the doctrines of that

commentary,
heard."
;

from that,
is

you wish

to

propagate

your own

religious
set

faith,

and

to

The defendant
and says
Mr.
to

thus addressing himself to those

who have
as to the

themselves up as teachers
to

them,

" unless you do so and

so,

you cannot expect

be

heard."
of

If the

Court,

Anstey
it

remarked, had

once

any doubt

meaning

that passage in

the

libel,

must

now

vanish.

As
ever

to the

nature of the

evidence,

Mr. Anstey

remarked that the
to

plaintifTs secretary,

since the Bhattia Conspiracy Case, in

had been trying

dissuade

defendants'

witnesses
of

from appearing
obtaining

Court,
in

threatening
like

them
are

with excommunication.
great

The

difficulties

evidence

cases

this
to

every where,
the

but here

they

were
Court

magnified
all

by the Maharaj's attempt
sect

withdraw from
in

ken of the Supreme
of the

of his

who

are
said,

likely

to

give evidence

behalf
to

defendants.

For these
There

reasons,

Mr.

Ansty

the

defendants

were

entitled

the

utmost indulgence which
allow.
also

the

Law

of England,

as

administered

by

their

Lordships,

would

was

evidence that the Maharaj's

tyranny was not only
such
it

spiritual,

but

was

temporal, worked

by
to to

spiritual

means.

And

was that a Justice of the Peace
of the

say,

the

man was
his

still

a Justice

Peace

—admitted

— Mr.
to

Anstey regretted

having subscribed his

name
all

the

" slavery bond,"
in
caste

a

document

whereby

he

bound himself
or

excommunicate

persons

who should write against these doctrines Maharaj's presence in the Supreme Court. The signatures to
fully

attempt to procure the

that

document were not
closed,
!

obtained

until

an
for

interdict

was issued and the temples were
beatific

and the de-

Totees

were denied

some days the

vision

of the

image

!

Allusion was next


93
made
(for
to the visits

of the

Maharajs
holy
feet

to

the

sick

beds of

dying persons,

and

their
last

putting
throes

fees

received) their

on the breasts of those apparently in the
death.

of their agony and

struggle

with

When

all

the

evidence

was given,

the

Court
to the

would,

Mr.

Anstey had no doubt, be of opinion

that

the plea

of justification as
to

language was fully sustained.

He
on

hoped their Lordships

had been now enabled
no
evidence
that of

understand
to
entitle

much
the

that

was
to

at

first
;

unintelligible.

There
it
:

was

any

Iqss

plaintiff

damages

the contrary,

was

stated

he was respected as

much
in the

as ever before,

though not so
intelligible

much

loved

and no doubt there were averments

plea

to

make

that

sectarian distinction.

Seveyith day,
(1.)

Tuesday,

4:tk

February 1862.

Karsandass Mooljee, examined by Mr. Anstey.

—" I
a
at

am
in

one of the defendants
the
;

in

this

case,

and a Bania, about 28 years of
of

age.

I

was born
as

Yallabhacharya
never believed
the libel
as the

sect.

I
to

am
be

one a god.
is

those

who

believe

in

the

Maharaj

guru

I

him
:

I

was the Editor of the Satya Prakash

the time

appeared

the paper

since

amalgamated with the Rast Goftar, and

is

now known
the
printer.
also

and Satya
Bodh"
and
It is
other.

Prakash.

The

other

defendant was merely
of females.)
I

Rast Goftar I edited the " Stri
several pamphlets
religion.

(a

magazine

for the instruction

have

written

books.

I am somewhat
familiar

familiar

with
sects,

the

doctrines

of the ancient Hindu
differing widely

broken up into about a hundred
I

in

some

respects

from each

am
:

with

the distinction
are
strongly
in

between the worshippers

of Vishnu

and
are

those

of Shiva
followers

those

distinctions

marked.
the

The
creed

Yallabhacharya sect
of
the

the
does

of

Vishnu.

Both
;

differ

morality,

Yallabhacharya

not inculcate
self-denial,

self-denial

I

think

that

mortification,

and penance.
founder

The ancient religion is one of of Shiva does. The Yallabhacharya religion commenced about 375
creed,

years ago.

Yallabh was the

of the

and

a

Telinga

Brahmin.

Luxmon
mentioned
on
his
:

Bhutt, the father of Yallabh,

and Yallabh himself, were excommunicated by the Telinga
sect.

Brahmins,
in

for

founding

a

new

the

"

Nij

Yarta"

(written

in

According to the doctrines of the " Brig Bhasha" language,) the

sect,

as

Yallabh,

death, ascended to heaven in
those,

out

by holding
the

The Maharajs marry among themselves are outcasted. of their body, who intermarry with them They intermarry out large promises of money and other rewards. Those who intermarry with
a mass of flames.
poor

Maharajs are

Telinga

Brahmins.
the

In

one

instance

of such
I
the

marriage tchich
prepared to state
of

came under my
that
of

notice,

I

think

Telinga

the

Maharajas are not Brahmins of

Brahmin was poor. high caste, and that
of the

am

creed

Yallubh
to

is

a modern date.

They

are

not

the

preceptors

ancient

Hindu
receive

religion

any

body.

As a

general rule,
the

the

Yaishunavs receive religious instruction in their own peculiar
In
respect
to

doctrines from

Maharajas.
learned

other

opinions

they

instruction from

the Brahmins.

The

Brahmins openly teach the
:

doctrines

of the

ancient religion.

The Maharajas

conceal their

doctrines

there
as

is

a
the

prohibition against revealing
unfitness

them.

[A

good deal of discussion took place here
authority on matters of which

to

of the

witness to speak with

he could have no personal knowledge.

Mr. Bayley objected

that the witness's statements, being

founded upon hearsay evidence, could not be admitted.

Mr.

Anstey

replied
to

to

the

objection

by
which

citing
it

one or two leading cases,

in

which he

had the honour
in

appear,

and

in

was solemnly decided by learned Judges,
scholar,
to
is

England that a witness, a
line

litterateur

and a

competent

to

speak on subjects
considerable

which come within the

of his

studies].

Witness

Court

I have given


94
attention
to the

religion

of the

Vallubhacharya
acquainted
the

sect,

and

am

acquainted with the "

Bri^

Bhasha' language.
difficulty
official

I
to

am

not

with

Sanscrit.

[Sir

Joseph Arnould said the
as

was

how
but
to

consider

witness,

although

a

litterateur,

a

professional" or

witness.

Mr. Anstey remarked he did not
as

bring forward the
as

witness

as a

pro-

fessional

man,
Nisi

one who,
with

from his studies

an

author

and
asked

a controversiahst,

was competent
case
if

speak
of

some authority
vs.

upon

the

questions

him.

(Cites the

in

Prius

BanFs
witness
libel

Buckingham.
to

The
ease

learned
for

counsel said

the objection,
It

not
to

overruled,

would be
the
the

fatal

the

entire

the justification.
to

was very
conducting

hard

believe that

should not

be considered competent
respect to

give evidence on

matters

involved
for

in

itself,

and

in

which

he

had
he

been

discussions
familiarity.

several

months
of a

past,

and
that

with
the

which,

therefore,

had an every day

Mr.

Bayley replied

point
for

was
aught
the

very

simple.

The
might

witness

is

asked as to the contents
witness's

book
;

which,

he

knew,
best
to

be

in
to

the

pocket
Sir

at

the

moment
Anould.

and therefore
it

very
in

evidence

ought

be

produced.

Joseph

—But

is

not

so

respect

books of science.
not

Mr.
of

Bayley spoke further in support of
foreign

his argument.

The

question was

as to cases

law,

but as

to
to

the contents

of a

book which

was

in
is

existence.
available.

could not
said,

be asked
question

give

the
to

contents of a

book which
there

The witness Sir M. Sausse
against

the

was put
in

the

witness
?

whether
to

was any

prohibition

revealing the tenets of the Vallabacharyas
or penalty

which he replied that there was a prohibition

mentioned

a book.
the

Mr.
of

Bayley raised
the
of

an

objection

to

the
those

writness
tenets

being
could

questioned be proved

upon

contents

book.

The Court thought
or

by

the

evidence
first

either

the

teacher,
reliable,

the

sectary

who
v/ould

has

received

instruction.

The
of

mode
and
so

would
If

be
a
said

and
be

the second

be
is

an

admissible
in

mode
a
life,

giving
book,

evidence.
if

witness

asked
the

to

state

what
for

contained
years
it,

particular

he

he

had

read
the

book

some
of

of his

the

sectary

interrogated

must
Chief
of

produce
Justice.

book

and read from
the

Sir

Joseph
is

Arnould

concurred

with

the

The

evidence
of

" taught" book
is

admissible

evidence,

but any

evidence

the

contents

any

particular

inadmissible

unless

the

book

itself

be

produced.]

the
tion

Whoever divulges the secrets of his spiritual guide, or of Witness continued. " Shree Thackoorjee," or the image, or the God, shall be born again in the condiof a
dog.

—"

The

number
sect

of

doctrines
in

taught

by
they

the

Maharajas

are

of

such

a

nature
the

that

learned

Brahmins are not
are

a position to teach them.
that
of the

The

doctrines

which
sacred

Brahmins teach our
of

the

same

teach

to

others.

The

books
the
(1.)

my

sect,

containing
books.)

the

doctrines

Maharajas, are

named

(witness gives

names

of fourteen

(Translation of certain passages from a work in Brij Bhasha by Harirayaji, entitled " The Sixty -Seven Sins and Atonements and their consequences)
:

8.

Whoever being a Whoever
and
holds
shall

Veishnava,*
(his)
spiritual

respects

him who
and
Shri

is

not

a

Vaishnava,
(or

shall

for

three births
32.

be a shoemaker.

different

distinct,

be
lose

guide born a Sichdnd.
his religious

Thtikurji

God)

to

be

34.

Whoever

disobeys

the orders of (his) spiritual
all

guide,

shall

go

to

Asipatra and

other

dreadful hells,

and

merits.

"•'

The

follower of Vishnu.

95
37.
for

Whoever
births,

'divulges the

secrets

of (his)

spiritual

guide

or

of"

Shri Thakurji shall
in

three
39.

be

born

a dog.
(his)

Whoever, before
shall be

spirituous guide

or

Shri Thakurji,
(his)

sits

(the posture
for

called)

Fudmasan
Whoever
be dumb.

born a serpent.
(hisj

54.
births

displays

learning

before

spiritual

guide,

shall

three

For three
displays

births

he shall
before

be

a

dog

(or)

an

ass.

55.

Whoever

activity

(his)

spiritual

guide,

shall

be

born

a

Jarakh.
56.

Whoever without paying
shall

his respect to (his)

spiritual guide, performs worship

(his

worship)
59.

become
be

entirely fruitless.

Whoever shows
shall

the

soles

of
for

his

fe«t

to

(his)

spiritual

guide

or

to

Shri

Thakurji

born a

serpent

ten

years.

Translated

by
Translator.

Nanabhai Haridas,
Bo?nbay,
21th

June 1861.

(2.)

— (Translation
I

of

an

extract

from a Manuscript " Ashtakshar Tika.")
!

in

Brij

Bhasha

called

he

He is totally without desires he is without wants he is possessed of all Virtues he desires all Virtues he (personification of) the most exellent Being (God) he is all incarnations is the very he is as beautiful as a million of Kamdevs f he is possessed of the six virtues he sensual or intellectual appreciate pleasure (or poetry) is the head of all those who such is Shri Gosaiji Why he is desirous of fulfilling the wishes of his devotees He is himself the creator of the (endless) erases of worlds, should he want any thing ? He is the inspirer (or propeller) of the souls wherein his glory has diffused ail over. He is praised by Bramha (the God creator), Shiva (the God of all animated beings. Such is Shri Gcsaiji destroyer) Indra, and other (Gods).
is

how Behold with desires

is

Shri Oosaiji*
;

;

;

fulfilled

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

!

!

Translated

by
Translator.

Balaji Panddrang,
Bombay, 2nd July 1861.

(3.)

(Translation of a passage from a Commentary in Brij called the " Chaturshloki Bhagvat.")
is

Bhasha on a work

Therefore in Kali Yug, there

no means

of

salvation similar to worship.
all

Therefore,

when a man

seeks the protection of Sri Acharyaji alone,

his

wishes

are

fulfilled.

We

For if God gets angry the God, nay, even greater than God. Gurudev is able to save [one from the effects of God's anger] whereas if Guru is displeased, nobody is able to save (him from the effects of the Guru's displeasure.)
should regard our

Guru

as

*

Translated by
Translator.

Nanabhai Haridas,
Bombay,

Uh

July 1861.
is

* Gosaiji

said to be the son of

Vullabhacharya the founder of the
is

sect,

t

Kamdev

God

of love.

96
(4.)

(Translation of certain passages from a work in Brij Bhasha, entitled the " Guru Worship.")

any one] the Guru* eaves him [from the is displeased [with any one], no one Therefore a Vaishnav should serve can save the Guru with his body and money and please the Guru. Acharyaji and Shri Gusainji and their whole (i^) But the principal Gurus are Shri They are all Gurus as is mentioned in the Sarvottamji. family (called) the Valabha family. If a man worships (c) Therefore God and the Guru are necessarily to be worshipped. God, he goes to Vyapi Vaikunth.f But by the worship of God he goes to Vyapi Vaikunth The worship of the Guru is to be performed in the only, when he worships the Guru. same way as the worship of God. There is not particular quantity of offer(d) Offerings are to be made to the Guru. You are to make such an offering as you feel inclined to make. But you ings (ordained). " In this world there are many kinds of creatures. Of them all, we are to reflect thus are most fortunate that we have sought the protection of the illustrious Vallabhacharyaji, who are manifestly [incarnations of] God, the excellent Shri Gosainji and their descendants Being himself."
(rt)

When

Hari (God)

is

displeased [with

effects of

Hari's displeasure].

But when

the

Guru

him [from

the effects of Guriis displeasure].

'

:

;

Translated by

Botnha^,

m

Nanabhai Haridas,
July 1861.

Translator.

(5.)

— (Translation a Samshaya Chedak"
of

a Gujrati printed book called " Svadharmavardhak and (meaning promoter of our religion and destroyer of doubt,) published by the " Vaishnavdharmprasarak Mandali" (i. e. Society for the diffusion of Volume I No. 2. dated in the the Vaishnav Religion) commencing from page 27 month of Aso, Samvat 1916 (October and November 1860).
portion of
;

CHAPTER
In the above chapter
:

II.

himself has become by parts all the forms, consequently this whole Universe is his spirit, consequently he is at play with his own with God therefore, (the relation of) my-own-and-other's does not exist. All spirit consequently the sin of adultery does not affect Him. is his own The sin of enjoying other people's things, affects this world. With God nothing whatever God has therefore ordained the sin of adultery for this world. Now the is alien. " Should a daughter or son propose to (her or his) father to become ignorant say this How sinful therefore are what sin and immorality are contained therein his wife, Thus have they argued. Now those who entertain towards God the adulterine love."
it

is

stated

that

God

;

:

!

consider this matter as follows The GopisJ made the with Shri Krishna (is it to be maintained that) therefore they committed sin ? Further, Mahadevji and Ramchandarji married women of this and Shri Krishna married sixteen thousand prinworld, namely, Parvatiji (and) Sitaji cesses (now) it would follow from the argument of these fools, that they too, acted improperly. If as between God and this world there had existed only the relation of father and children (as maintained by them) then Shri Krishna would not have married these But in God all relations abide. Both man and woman have sprung from God. maidens.

the

intelligent

should

:

adulterine

love

;

:

Wherefore with God the two species of man and woman do not Consequently he is at play with his own spirit. spirit of God.
* Spiritual guide.
t X

exist.

Both these are the
is

In that no sin

incurred

Name

of a heaven. of Gokul.

The Shepherdesses


??7

If any sin be* cpmmittcd (by such conduct) Shri either by Ged: or by (this) world. (Thus you) see how much iKiislinawoull not have married the daughters of the kings. contrary to the SU'istras have they represented the snliject and confounded the igroiant. If there bef any sin connniited in entertaining the ad^ilterine love towards God, Ihen llie most excellent Being would never have gran ed to the Veds (liieir) requ 'St, to entertain I'hat Story is related liy Biahmaji to Bhrigu Ri&hi in Brahad \ aaian the adulterine love.

Pu)an; »

wliich

we now

recount for the information of the people.

,

(Sanscrit text quoted.)

Meaning
as

heavenly voice

—Having —
:

"

Oh

heard the long offered prayers of the Veds, the Lord spoke in a you Traditions I am pleased with you wherefore ask such favors
!

you may

desire."

When

Shri Krishna so spoke, the Traditions said

:

(Sanscrit text quoted.)

Meaning— "

Oh Lord we

regard

all

thy forms such as Narayan and others

as,

Brahma

And as to that which invested with attribu es in regard to which our belief is not full. we call (usi;ally) by the term Brahma, the form of which is without attributes, and which
is

different

from the indestiuclible Brahma

— that

and our speech, therefore beyond o^r knowledge
see that f..rm"

— we

form

is

beyond

the

reach

of

our

mind
us to

request thee therefore,

to cause

Thus spoke the Traditions of the Veds. 'i'hereupon Shri Kri lina, the most excellent Being showed (them) his all occupying heaven, and allowed himself to be Tiie kind of sight which the Traditions had on that occasion is thus described. seen.

(Sanscrit text quoted.)

Meaning On that occasion the Traditions having seen the form of Shri Krishna, com" Oh Shri Krishna, thy form is more beautiful than even a menced to praise him thus
:

crore of Kiimdevs,| at

the sight whereof, desire

our heart's desire, so that to grant our request, this
thus, the most excellent

we may
is

Please therefore satisfy is produced in us. If thou wishest enjoy with thee in the form of women. what we require." When the Traditions of the Veds sjjqjie
:

Being said

(Sanscrit ten quoted.)

Meaning
very
fied
;

—"
wiJ.

Oh

Traditions this your heart's desire
;

is

vrry

difficult to

difficult to

carry out

but

it

however as I consent thereto, your heart's desire not be satislied just now." He (further) said
:

be satisfied and shall be satis-

(Sanscrit

text

quoted)

Sarasvat age shall arrive, you will be born as. Gopis in Vrij. 'J'here, in the forest of Vrinda, and will gratify your desire in a chorus I your adulterine love for me will exceed all (otlier love.) By means of such a love, you will giiin n)e and your object will be thus ficcompli.«hed." In this manner Shri Krishna toM the Traditions to gain (him) by adulterine love. These Traditions of the
the
;

Meaning.

—"

When

Vtds who became the Gopikas are
* In

called

the

Traditional

persons.
(he p''st ten'^e of the

this rentence tlie pre.sent ten-ie of tlie first pnrt do"f; n'-t correspond with second part, but tiie form as 2;iven in the ori^riu: i-< preserveil (ttiis at the expense of
1

graaimaij as iuiplyiug

that wbat.

is

iu.c

Jtu to be conveytd thereby
t

ia

true iu

all

times.

Vide note above.

| Qo^oflo^a

13


98
In the enme way, it pmcee 'ed to the
called
is

related

in

the

Eamaya'n as
(lie

follows
tliere

:

chanrlraji

forest

of

Dandaka

found)

sixteen

("When) Phri T?amthousand IJisliis
tlie

(sages)

Agnikumar peifornung prnanee.

'I'liese

]{isliis

on

seeing

person of

Stiii

became enamoured. 'I'liereupnn, folding lluir hands, they made a request " Oh Lord, a desire is produced in us to enjoy vvilh Uiee to Slni Ramchandniji thus firm of women. Wherefore be pleased to gratily ibis our liearl's desire." in the Kamchandraji thereupon having been pleased, granted their request (by saying") " tliis your hearts's desire will be gratified during the incarnation of Krishna." llence tliese Agni Kumar liishis became Gopis in Vrij, wliose name is Agiiikumar Gopikas. 'J he Kurnia (Tortoise) Puran and also in Alharva tale recounted the thereof is in
lliiMicliaixiraji,

Ved

thus

:

(Sanscrit verse quoted.)
TJishis having been born as women in Yrij, also most excellent Being with the Traditions. Thus it is related in the Veds and Puraiis, at various places, that by whatsoever this soul faith, may serve , God, Hari gratifies her desires accordingly, if there be any sin committed in the adulterine love, why did bhri Krishna and ISl.ri Kamchimdraji grant them their wish to be wotnen. They would have been displeased tliere and then and punished (them). But God is all form. He is in the form of father and he is in the form of husband, he is in the iorm of brother (and) he is in the form of son. In whatsoever shape one may (wish to) love God, his wishes are complied with accordingly. Kandrayji and VaFudevji asked the boon of tiie son-form and their wishes of having ((iod ior) their son, were granted. The Gopis loved (God) as their paramour, and he became a {laramour and niadw them happy. And this the ignorant say is sin. How contrary is what they say to the Veds and Burans. On

Meaning
the

—These

jAgnikuniar

attained

tliis

subject

a

devotee

has said

'n

the

8aki

(verse)

thus
?

''
;

what

can

the

ass

wlio

feeds

Sugar is his death, the world's who feed on dur.ghills, what do they know of refuse, his life." the Asses to be the pleasures of gardens ? that such and such pleasures are had in gardens By eating sugar the ass dies aiid by eating the rubbish that lies on dunghills he Siir.ilarly,* those devotees who long for the Para-brahma, (Bivine Sfiirit), their lives. by this very adulterine love. What could the non-devotcts know of life is sustained they wish for the love of hell. (To them) to get (go"d) bodies, this love women and property, is to meet with God. Even, by exjierience, it is clearly known that We are therefore enjoined in the there is no love in any thing like adulterine love. in the adulterine love. For, see although the Shastras to feel Hari a love like adulteress may he engaged in the household work, yet d.iv and night, her mind is t.^ r) paramour goes to a directed to the object of meeting her paramour, and if
on
the dunghill

know Meaning

the pleasures of

the

Garden

!

;

:

!

'

she does not relish (her) consequence of (her) separation I'rom hiu wear good ornaments, and by the excessive grief consequent on the separation, she even gi es up her liie. To feel such love towards God is described Of suih lov<-', these fools say tliat this in the Shastras as the most exfcHent thing. love is loathsome. But it is no-where irsentioned that by the adulterine love (we should) because our souls are not qua ified like the carry on a c iminal intercourse with Gi d nor could our souls have immediate connection with God. Gopis We will illustrate this by an anecdote. A certain woman was one evening going to her paramour. At the same time a Fukeer was sitting in (her) way praying to God. But as it was dark she did not observe the Fukeer and (accideiitly) struck him with her foot in passing, of which liut when that Just then the Fukeer did not say any thing. she was unconscious. woman returned, that Fukeer addressed her thus., Oh hussy, you struck me w th your loot and passed on but then my attention being fixed on God, 1 did not speak." Thereufion the woman replied thus " Had your attention been so fixed tn God, you w- uld not have
foreign
food,

country,

in

,

does

not like

to

;

;

'

*
after

If

iMs sentence should mal<e out an nnalopy
spirit,

the divjue

the fault should

brtvreen the filth loving ass and the aspirer not be atlribuud to the translator but to his text,

been conscious of
love in
3'ou

my

having
1

struck
n'>t
!

my

paraniour,
loot.

did

with

my

(;h

man

you with my foot. See, owing to my contemptible you and was not even conscious of h.iving struck had your l(tve re.illy b<'on in (Jud and your attention fixed
ol)3erve

upon him, how could you have known of my foot having struck you." No soouf^r liad the Fukeer heard this tlum he seized iiis own ear* and prostrated himself at Iter feet (and '' Oh mother what you have now observed is true. From this day I have adopted you said) In this anecdote also a lesson is drawn from loye. As Dattatraya as my spiritual guide. JKushi derived instruction from twenty-four things, so should we draw the moral frum the Thus (we see that our religion) does not tell us to commit adultery. adulterine love. 1'he devotees of Hari know the intrinsic vidue of tiiis principle as pointed out in a verse. She who is in labour can alone know the pain (of birth.) She who is not in labour pulls her by the cheeks (to silence her.)

The woman

separa ed from her lover (can alone)

know her

grief.

Such is also the cas'^ with devotion alone. Moreover in the same chapter in which the compliance
related)
it

with

Tradition's

rec^uest (ia

is

(further) stated.

(Sariscrit text quoted.)

Meaning

If either

man

or

woman

serves

Hari

with

real

devotion,
It

he
is

or

she

will in

gain their wishes in the
object the

same way

as the

Traditions gained
staled.

(theirs.)

also stated

the Shastras that whatever

may
This

be the object with which one
is

serves

the

Lord

will

fuifil.

what

is

Wlierefore those

who

such his have good sight,
L'>rd,
is

shculd not walk by [mtting their hands on the
Verse
hole,
:

shoulders of the

blind,

— as

said in the

" Whoever shall walk by placing his hand '^n the shoulder of the blind, will though a good man, and remain behind."

full

into

a

Those, who do not know the Sliastras, are in the Shastras called blind. The people with eyes should not believe their stories, and shutiing their eyes, walk by p'acing their hands on their shoulders for, the intention of those who keep bad company, i; to pollute the Hindus. They thereiure by every way find fault witii and misrepresent the Sliastras, wishnig to pollute the people. inijiroven'ent (or civihzaiion) going on in To this end is Bombay and it spreads to other countries also. This 2nd chapter on the adulterine love
;

;

is

now

concluded.

Translated by

Balaji Pandl'rang,
Bombaj/, list June 1861.
'

Translator.

Bhasha, of Pusti-pravaha Maryatla Tika by Haiaraiyji from page 55). It is stated that (Gol) in the Pusti-marsra (i. e. the creed observed by the followers of the Maharaj) abides in the houses of tlie Vaislmavas by the adulterine love which (!) now describe :— .\s when we bring another's son to our house, and (or ?) when we keep anoiher's hu.sband in our house by any mode whatsoever, he is won over by excessive If we serve liy our body, mind, wealth or by any other mode, than another's affection. In the same way does God ever abide in our house son or husband will remain with us.
(S.)
;

— (Translation

of an Fxtract from a ^Manuscript copy in Brij

in union.

Translated by

Balaji Pandukang,
Bombay, %id July 18G1.

Translator.

(7.)

Translations of Fxtricts taken from a manuscript
called

by Goculnath^i, one book.)

Copy of a work in Brij language l^asbhavna (Love faith) bound up with several other works into

*

Id token of ackiowledging his own shortcomings.

M
Extract No.
'

1

from

the second half

of pa.ge 98.

be caHed a great Chnrioteer (a warriorV, Similarly in this Pushti System (i. e. doctrines taught by Vahibhadiarya) the most exciellent Lord himself having conquered millions of Svaminijis in the Vrij devotee's forest of sexualf en oyment, came to be called a great Charioteer. Thereafter he began to dance with Shri Svaminiji (the chief mistress) when he could not cope in dancing with Shri Svaminiji and was defeated in (other) sexual commerce.
to

Thus* came Krishna

Extract No. 2

from

the second half

of page III.

having collected all her hairs and twisted them with a string and tied them into a knot, wherefore the same should be regarded thus The string in the form of Shri Svaminiji and the hair in the form of Krishna, liaving coupled together, are enjoying in a contrary manner.
Shri

Thereafter the female companions (of

Svaminiji)

:

Extract No. o

from

the first

ha

f

of page 119.

There are maidens in the house of Jasodaji (mother of Krishna) they regard Krishna (who is now a child) as their husband. The maidens therefore prepare a swinging bed instead of a cradle, whereon they lay Krishna and enjoy with him.
Extract No.

4:

from

the first half

of page 120.
(i.

The Lord
(Such) play
is

plays with the followers of Pushti System
fearful to the opponents,

e.

followers of Valabhachdrya),
poetic liappiness

whereas such play

is

(extacy)

to

the devotees (or initiated).

Extract No.

b.

from

the second half of

page 125.
(the

The
chief

elephant's ivory toys are (symbolic) of the internal desires of Shri Svaminiji

mistress).

enkindles (in

So when she goes into the forest, Shri Svaminiji by means of those toys him) the desire to amuse or enjoy like elephants.
Extract No. 6

from page
Shri

130.
all

Shri Chandravaliji arid Shri
of Vrij join togetlier in

Yamunaji and the Virgins and
speech
to

the
:

a humble
are

Svaminiji|
this

(thus)
Jlov;

— "(married) Let us
Shri

women
become
in

your Sfrvants.
yoiir I'resenie.

We
Still

are not like you.

We

are your servants.

can

we reach God

we
:

yf^i^'i's."

Having heard

hiimtile

speech,

Svaminiji

addresses

them thus
!

among the accomplished, 3'et is she guileless humility of all the femnles. was pleased and spoke thus) Your name is Vrij ratna (i. e. the jewel of \ rij) lor you are the jewel for there is no other love as the love of husband, which you cherish towards God. in Vrij Tlierefore you are (the most; excellent among excellent. Therefore your love for him is greater than mine. Firstly you keep yourselves always holy, you ha'-e no connection with any Gopes.|[ Even sons, husbands, &c. in this world are for show in the world's intercourse, but they have no connection with you. And secondly you are harmless. You are useful
yet
is

she guileless
Shri
:

— though

('i"hougli§

sagacious and possessed of the sixty four (gord) qualities,
iorensost
!

the

Wherefore

Svaminiji

seeing

the

'

;

* The

preceedingr passages

allude to

the

wr

whic'/

is

Eharat, whereiu

Kri-hiut

by his superior [ower prccuied the dcU at of oue of the

the 1hem6 of the great rpic of MahA bel igerent parties.

t Tlie terms se^iu.l enji yment nnd sexual commerce are used here ai'd h'TfaftPi to signify a'l th" jieasurer'bk- and f mi iar acts that take place between two lovers of opposite sexes. Tb© origiual terms bcitg Viha-r, Sural, &c.

i
§

The

chief

nislress of Krishiia othprwise called Gopiki.
is

This parenthetical part
11

the author's and not translator'sViij.

Cowherds of

101
in

your sexual cimmeree.
are very dear in

You have no harm
Your
passion
heart.

or jealousy
is

in-'

ynu.

trated with the passion of love.

for the

different

modes

Thirdly- you are fene-. of sexual coinmtrce.

You

my

In our coupled form you act as (our) servants and with

affection'

wait on us.
Extrc/'t No.

1 from the second half of jpage 131.
being^ pleased
to
tells God thus. They should be

Thereupon Shri
to

Svaininiji

" Because they are
therefore
alloted

dear

you,

they
so

are

exceedingly dear

me.

separate

groves

that you

might carry on sexual conunerce (separately
Extract No. S

with them.)"

from

the second

haf

of page 133.

They There Shri Svam'niji produces from her person millions of female companions. were named Lalita, ^'isaklla, and so forth. Tho^e that were exceedingly skiiUuI and beautithose that are very ex.pert in the inverted and ful in sexual commerce, are called Lalita
;

other postures or positions (at sexual congress) are called Yisakhas.

Translated by

Balaji Panduranq,
Bombay,
8l/t

Translator,

October

1861.

Page 6th of a work called Vithalesha ratnavivarana, the Acharya or Maha" yiirisha" which is rendered by the cOinmentator to mean the Priyah, or husband of many women.
(8.)
is

— At

raja

called

Again
ocean of the

at

page

Kas

lila."

19 of the book, the Acharya and also as " one'j' whose

(or
sole

Maharaja)

is

described as

" the*

aim

is

the KasUla," which

means

wanton or amorous sport with many

women.

(9.)

— (Translation
by
iShri

of an

Extract

marked No.

Goculnathji and containing an account of
there

32 from a book in "Brij Bhasha, composed 252 devotees of ^hri (iosayin i| Maharaj.)
Shri
Gosayinji,§

Now,

was Ganca

Kshatriani,
is

a

female devotee of

who was

living in that Mahaban.|)

This

an account of her.

The mother
and
siie

of that Gongabai

was very
her
age.

beautiful,

and

was

also

very

good

looking,
to

Mahaban

Vaishnav^ and that Kshatriani was then residing close the house of that A'aishnav. to That Kshatriani jiaid her homage to Slai Gosaiji, whf'ii ^he witnessed a very great beauty, equal to a crore Kandraps.** Feelings of lust were then excited in that Kshatriani and she then became very much enain

was in the and put up

bloom

of

On

one

occasion

Gosayinji

went

the

the house of a

moured.
she
tliui

So that she did not feel easy without seeing Shri Gosaiji once (daily ) So, got up, and came to .Shri Gokul, and having seen Shri Gosaiji, she used to her house and she constantly said in her mind " Were I to meet liiui in a solitary (or private) place, the wishes of my heart would be fulfilled." But she could not find an opportunity. Then, one day, that Kshatriani thouglit in her mind. " w1;p;i Shri Gosaiji goes to the privy, 1 will go there." So, one day, that Kshatriani remained concealed in the privy and afterwards, Shri Gosaiji went to the privy, when that Kshatriani said, " Maharaj Pray fulfill the wishes wbieh I have But Shri Gosaiji refused (saying) " I do not know any thing about in my heart." that matter.' Ihat Kshatriani then became very obstinate, when ^hri Gosaiji getting ang y, said, " Do not be obstinate, and the wishes of your heart will now be fulfilled,
daily
tu

go

;

;

;

* RAs
a

]iI4

mabodaflha.

High

priest,

f Eds lilak tatparyah. HThfvnaTOe of a forest— literally great «* The Hindu Cupid,

J
forest.

A

femnle of the Kshatri caPte.

^ A

woi shipper of Visnts.

102
vour leaving (your) house. Tl>€se are tny (prophetic) words and therefore you home." That Kshatriani having heard tliese words of Shri Gnsaiji. wtnt Afttrwards, one day, when that Kshatriani was asleep, she dreamed a dream away. Gosaiji, Shrl and from that very day, in her sleep, that she had connection with Afterwards when the time of pregnancy was that Kshatriani was in the family way. Slie was extremely bcauliful, v.'ns a completed, she was delivered of a daughter. Slie was then named Gangahai. was beautiful. Then fountain of good qualities and after which she was caused to tell her name to shri Gosaiji. that girl grew up 'J'ranshited hy
without

mny

go

'

;

Karatan Dinanath,
Bombaj/, ISlh September 1861.

Translator.

A
the

narrative,

related

first

of

all,

by the Shri Acharynji,* with

his

own

"^onth

to

Yaishnavas, on a certain occasion and (afterwords) related by Shri Go,, naihji to There was a I^hil| (and a Bhili) being two persons, husband and the Yaishnavs,| wife. Thev used to go to a Jungle and to bring (fire) wood daily, and they used to Tl.ere was another Bhil, who was also in themseb'es by selling the wood. maintain An intiihacy tlien arose between the haltit of going to the same Jungle to fetch W' od. At first, the two persons, husband and wife of the Bhil anl the other Bliil. the She then fell in love with the other man. Afterwife used to go together for wood. wards that woman commenced going for wood to another Jungle, with the other (or So the wornan went with stranger) man, with whom she had contracted an intimacy him to a Jungle, and there was a temple of God in a certain Sjint in that Jungle. The two persons, having gone there, used to sweep and clear the temple and tlien They did so for several days, when being overpowered with themselves there. rest They then both got up from that place, and went to their love, they took to singing. Afterwards, some one came and told the husband of the woman, respective houses. that his wife lived (or was in love) with such and such man. and that those two persons were Afterwards, one diiy, the in the habit of going *o such and such place in such and such dungle. husband of the woman, fol owed his wife to the Jungle. The two persons went first, s[)ot) all round the place of God, and having gone there, they sv^ept and cleared (the The husband of the woman then that was th re, and then sat there in happiness. standing (there), all the acts of the two persons, and when the tvvo witnessed while
persons
killed

had

completed

their

worldly
'l"he

(or

carnal)

pleasures,

the

them both on

the

spot

angels

of

L)liarm;irai§

then

husband of the woman, came for the two

and immediately after them came the angels of A'ishnu. when the riMirels of Vishnu said to the angels of Jam " Why have you come lure V Shri 'ihakurji (God) has conferred on them the best place (in the heaven) and these two f)erson3 and a more desirable place than this (in the heaven)." will moreover obtain better The angels of Vishnu then took the two persons with them, and having gone there, they made them stand before Shri Thakurji Godi, when Shri Thakurji, told the two persons They then having folded their hands together in a to ask for any thing they liked. " Maharaj, we have c^nrnitted suppliant manner) made the following representation what is the cause of your showing so great a regard towards a very mean act " It is true you two When the angels of Vishnu told them as follows us ?" persons have committed a mean art, but you cleaned a temfde of (Godi, and Shri accepted the service performed by you, and therefore you Thakurji iGodi has favorably " Having therefore become heaven.") both have now obtained the best place (in the pleased with you, I tell you two persons, that you may ask (for any thing you likej."
persons,
:

;

:

Valabhacharya, the foun'liT of the

sect.

X
^

A

f Thf \7ors)iip' ers of Vishuu. person belonging to a wild tribe in India.

The deity that judges ^ioA and punishes the wicked.

103
The
we.
t\ro

confir
pliance

a

lavor,

persons tfien Said, then we jt

"
v,

Mnharnj,
that

if

you
be
s.rve
liakuiji

are

we
5-iiii

may
...y
'i

born

liuvin;^

bfcome
this

liusl)aiKl

and

wife,

witli

ireciLU'st j"

When

with us, and wish to mortal world, and that yoii. Pray, favor us with a com" Go, your wislses will Godi said
pleased
in

the

The Then tlie two iiersons became inc riuite in this world. be fulfilled." bora a son of a liaja and a woman was bcrn a daughter of a Kaja.
'I'ranslated

man

xvas

by
Translator

NARAi'AN DiNANATU,
Bombay,
\1ih

Nocember 18G1.

(10).

(Tran.slation

of

an
the

extract

marked No. 62, from a book
of

in Brijbhasha,

containing

account

the

eighty-four

Vaishnavs.)

narrative of Krishnadas Brahmin, a devotee of Shri The 75th Vaishnav. Krishnadas was living in a village. Acharyaji,* the great lord. He was a worshipper There were five or ten Va;slmavs, who, on one occasion, were of Bluigvat (God.) going to Adelf for the pur|)ose of paying their homage to Shri Acharyaji, the great came to the house of Krishnadas. At liiat time, Krishnadas was not at Lord. 'J liey home. He had gone out on some business, and the wife of Krishnadas was (at home.) Shri Krishnadas had gone out to some AViien the Vaishnavs came to the village, village. Alter that, she went inside the house, and began to consider as to (other) now. tlien recollected, that the Banian iJainiaro ? always said She what she should do to her, that she should meet him, (and that) he would give her what she might ask for. So she said to lit^rself/ " I will fetch [irovisions and other articles from his shop

A

today,
articles,

and

will
1

tell

Irm,

that

require."

will meet you today" "Give me the I Having made this determination, she set

provisions

out
all

and other went to bis
provisions,

:

home, prepared the dinner, and presented an offering, of it to Shri 'Ihakurji ((lod) and havii;g removed the offering, at due time, the blessed food, of she caused the Vaishnavs to feast on which the Vaishnavs partook in good style. Afier that, Krishnadas came (home) in the evening, met all the Vaishnavs, and after saluting them he entered his house, and asked his wife, what the news was, and whtiher she had given fond to the Vaishnavs. She replied that she iiad wlien Krishnadas inquired, whence she had got the provisions, and otlier given them fiod wlien the v.oman related (to him) all that had taken place. articles Krishnadas was thereupon much pleased with diis) wife. Afterwards, the husband and wife both jointly paitook of the blessed fuod, and Krishnadas then went to the Vaishnavs, and passed the whole night in talking on the (iraise of God. When it was morning, Krishnadas having despatched all the Vaishnavs, they walked away, and Krishnadas went with them, to a short distance, to see them off. Afterwards, he came home, presented the food offering to S'n-i Thakurji (God>, and then having removed thein as usual, he covered them up, and p'lC'd them aside. When Krishnadas returned !iome in the evening, both the h sband and Krishnadas then said to his wife wife j'lintly partook of the blessed food. " You gave a p omise yesterday to the Banian, and the Ixmiaii must be expecting (youl, and that thereThe wife thereupon hav'ng rubbed her body fore the promise given to him must be fulfilled." with an ointment, and bathed herself, and having ornaments, as are usual a-i ong the women, she set out. It was rainy season, and it had rained (that day), and there was " if you place yourself on my liuid on the road, in consequence whereof Krishnadas said, shoulder, I will convey you ih re, and return otherwise your feet will be soiled with mud, as tliere is a grtat dial of mud on the road; and if your feet should get soiled, the Banian would treat you with disrespect." Krishnadas, tlureu|ion placed his wife on his shoulder, whin tlie woman called out to the and placed her down near the shop of the Jianian Banian, and asked liim to open the door. The Banian then opened the door, and took
articles
;

shop, and and other

having given and

a promise having come

to

hun,

the

woman

brought

the

;

;

;

:

;

;

* (A

title

applied

to

Va
1

labh

the founder
of a

of

the Vaishnav sect

(Name

towu.)

the wetnjin Inside, and then brought some water to wash her feet with, when the woman The Batiian then said, " "JMiere with mud." tlie Banian, my ft-et are not soiled that your feet are free [from iti." is it is a great deal of nuid on tlie rojid, and how When the woman said to the Banian "you had belter pro'eed with your bu iness," when The woman then said to the the Banian said, " you must till (me) the eircumstanfes"
said to

husband placed me on his shoulder, brought ;ne here and went away." On hearing this account the Banian was struck with wonder and he questioned her on the tell him all when the whole subject, and asked the cause of it, and requested her t woman related to him all that had occurred. On hearing it, the Ba ian thought of himself with contempt, and said, " Happy is your life whose mind is so pure" and having put '• I'ardon me my offence" his hands together in a suppliant manner, saluted (her), and said " Kegard me with kindness" you are my sister."

Banian

:

—"

My

;

'

Translated hy

Narayan Dinanath,
Bombay, ZOlh November \^\.

Translator.

^11.)

(Translation

of

extracts,

Bridbhasha,

called

the

marked No. Vachnamral* of

'

58,'

59,"

60,'

and
of

61,'
iSlui

from

a

book in

the

Pushtimarg"-|-

Gocalnatliji.j

(No. 58. 7'aye 9.J
tie

towards

born

Guru, J and utters harsh terras he becomes a serpent. He is then a creature of the region of the vegetable kingdom and after that, he is born a
getting

who

angry,

in

his

heart,

maligns

(hisi

(his)

Guru, | becomes dumb and
region

after

tiiat

creature

of'

the

of the

dead,

{or

Ghtet.)

(,No.

59.

Page

10.)

As he
bers

(Vaishnav)

and repeats in

remembers Shi Bhagvan (Godl, in the his mind the name of his Gurii J

same way, he

remem-

{No. 60.

Page

12.)
see
faults

One having become a Taishnav,§ should
should
niitid.

not
if

of
see

(or

in)

others.

He
eyes,
(his)

not

hear

them with
(hisi

(his)

ears.

Even
as

he

should

and hear them with

ears,

still

he should
himself'
of

not

consider
:

He
there

understands
is

>or

says
the

to

follows

''

them with (his) any thing of them in who have fallen I,
nothing

into
;

this

Avidya (ignorance),
not

in

form

maya

(uelusion),

see

but the faults

(but)

a

particle

of fault

therein."

{No. 61. Page. 20.)

He
ing
the

does

not

consider
of the

himself happy,
of

hy the

acquisition

of

Shastras

duties

Grahasla||

doctrines,

from

any thing. any one, he

By
does

hearnot

••^

(Precept as Pweet as nectar.)
of religious doctrines

t (The name of the System

established

by the Maharaj.)

J (Religious preci
;

pfc'

r.)

I

(A wors-hipperrof Vislinu.)

%

(A person belonging to the

Swond

of tba fours religious

orders

of

the

Hindus,)

105
allow
the

himself to be" absorbed into the Lavkik^' (and) Vedik.f The moral precepts of with the Pushtimarg, should be freely heard and related! All other Shastras cause one to swerve from the Pushtimarg. This should be firmly believed in one's own mind.
Shastras connected

Nauayan
Bombay,
30//t

Translated by Dinanatii, Translator.

Nocember 18G1.

(12.)

(Translation

of

an extract from a book in Sanscrit, called Sidhant Vivruti";}; by Shri Goculnathjee.)
beginning,
oi]

" Virchita

Bhaktee

Therefore,

in
;

the

even before
expression
her,
[to

ourselves
[wife's]

enjoying
(i.

wives,
e.

sons,

&:c.

should

be made over marriage, even
the

[because
betore,

the

" Sarva Yastu"
her

all

things.)

After

ourselves

using
useful

offering

should

be

made with

So likewise even after the birth made over. On all occasions [and] on account of of a son, sons, kc. should also be all occasions, the thing to be used on that occasion should be made over. After making [the things] over, the different acts should be done.
view that she
ourselves].

may become

Translated by

Vishvanath Xarayan Mandlik.

8M November

ISGl.

(13.)

Translation
in the

of Siddhant of

Kahsya.
visibly

At midnight on Ekadashi
[following]

month

Shrawan Shood, God

uttered

the

words which are here repeated word for word. By entering into relation with IBrahma, all persons' sins of body and mind are washed away. These sins are said to be of five kinds, viz. those which are congenitals those those described in the Vedas which owe their origin to time and place those which are and such as are produced by contact. These sins are not results of intimate association and never to be believed in (after the above relation has been established). Otherwise (that is, when such a relation has not been contracted) expiation of sins never takes place. That which has not been, in the first instance, dedicated should not be accepted. offerings, should do with their making them what they like, such Offerers, after is the rule. That oft'ering which has (in the first instance) been engaged by its lord is Therefore in the first instance in all doings all things not acceptable to the God of Gods. given should That which is not be taken should be dedicated. because the whole comes to belong to Ilari, is the doctrine of other sects. ("With us) the relation wliich subsists in the world between [a master and his] servants, holds good. And every should be enjoyed, and thing should be done accordingly, ,that is, after dedicating it hence it is that the Brahmatva or the quality of Brahma is obtained. As when all merits and demerits obtain the quality of Ganga, all of them promiscuously have that such is the case here. Thus is concluded in Siddhant the quality of Ganga, so now Kahsya composed by Vallabhacharya.
; ; ;
;
.

Translated by

Javerilal U.mesiiankak.
* (Popular doctrines.)
i

(Ceremonial doctrines of the
oti

Vedas.

u

X

A

cominentory of Gokuhiatlijee

Sidhant KAbsya.

106
(14-)
(Translation of a piece in verse taken from the
first

half of pageT65 of a manuscript

book of
(His) (His)

collection of various religious

works.f)

only firm support is that of Va]labhadliisha,J only habit (that) of serving (God) mentally. one who has given up the popular and the Vedic (opinions) supplicant for the protection of tho Gopisha^ 1 (He acquires) humility, faith, and knowledge by singing the praises. Oil Both (sexes) know the faith of the women^ of the hamlet of the cowherds. The n.ime of Krishna swells (Lim). Not a moment are the Commandments avoided (by him.) Be brings the faith in the made prpcepts to (his) mird and heart. 2 (He) adopts the society of the good knowing them (as) divine. (He) sees not the faults and speaks the truth. The ten principles of the Pushti sect these are the religion, these the practice, says Dwarkesh (he) constantly keeps in the heart. 3

(He

is)

A

[Translation of a piece in verse from the second half of page 63 book of collection of various religious v^rorks.]

of

a

manuscript

Of thpse feet the support Without the g'ory of the moon
world.
1

is

firm

;

of Shri

Vallabhas' nails, there

[would be] darkness in the whole
the

There

is
is

no other means in this Kali (yng) by which the solution of
obtained.

problem

of

salvatioa

Soor [das] says [this]

saying— the two-'

fold

blind

man

has a worthless head.

2

Great is the assurance of Shri Vallabha, Oh, thou mind why dost thou wander [and waver] if thou wouldst have the fruit given. 1 [his] children beginning with Shri Vitbal [and] Girdhar have saved the world. They administer the spell of the name of " Purshotama Frabhu" by placing their lotus-like on the heads (of the Vaishuavas.]
All
Translated by

feet

Balaji Panduraunq, Translator.
Zlst January 1862.
•'

One

of these

books

is

in

the

Guzeratee language,

the

rest

are

in

Sanscrit

and
by
of

the the

" Brij
female

Bhasha"
devotees
of

language.
the

There are songs in the Gujeratee
:

language
songs.
to

sung

Maharajas

they

are

sacred,

religious

They are
houses

Bung

by

the

female
hold

devotees
of

when
songs

the
in

Maharajas

are

invited

the

Vaishnavs.
translation

I
of

two

these

my

hand.
in

(Mr. Anstey
as
exhibits.

read

an

English,

them by Mr. Flynn, and puts them
(15.)

(Translation of three Gujrati Songs

marked No. 51.)

Songs sung before the 3faharajas, by their female devotees.

An

excitement, extreme and great, in

my

body

is

created,

The azure coloured** beauteous husband, ft with me is sitting. 1. Without seeing (his) beauteous face, even water, I will not drink. The amourous and beauteous husbaud, by seeing oft and oft I'll live.
Restrain

2.

me

not.

Oh

!

my
to

mother.
true one

To pay my homage to him, daily I Avill go. 3. As to the connectiouship, that of the SavalyaJJ is the only
(And)
all

others, appear
tells,

be but imperfect.

Him, who

may

tell,

we

will

4 permit to do
shall
listen.

so,

And

to

them (with

indiiference)

we

5

*
i

i.

e.

Physically and spiritually,

His,

he

X

Vallabhadhisha
either,
is

and him given in brackets here, evidently allude to orthodox Vaishnava. is literally Vallabh. superior lord, which according to rules of construction
Vallabha,
to
the siqjerior

may mean
II

lord,

or

the
th-^

I

Lord of

superior lord of Gopics.

Vallabha.

If both

made

qualify

faith,

thea the line
VriJ.

would

run

— he
An

knows

the

twofold

faith

of the
tf-

women, &c.

^ By women, ^c. are meant the Gopis of This word may also be rendered " the best

** An appellation
it

of Krishna,

of

men."

appellation of Krishna.

107
If to foreign lands,

you the descendant of Vallabh,* should

go.

Soon do you return.

And

to

(us)

gentle

women, messages do yen send.
If to foreign lands.
1

To your commands,

obedient

we

are.
all

Us, the suppliant, you have accepted, with

your heart.
If to foreign lands.

2

pleasant look, you the compassionate, by casting upon Of our bodies and hearts, have deprived us.

A

us,

If to foreign lands.

3

For your sake, the sense of public shame, A great de.sire, 1 entertain for your feet.

I

have not entertained
If to foreign lands.

4

such intreaties, (your) female slaves are making. If soon you will return, pleased will become (your) temale

Many

.slaves.

&

The descendant of Valabh Enamoured, he has made
See,
sisters,

is

(us),

the amorous Kana,t in the roads of Vraj.J

Bowing down
the full

?

1

moon -like

face.

With

his

sharp eyes,

my

heart,

he has enticed and attracted.

Bowing down

?

2

To that dear (soul) having become a female slave. The public shame, I will now no longer fear.
Bowing down
?

3

Now,

By

sisters, the household affairs, I cannot perform. seeing the dear (soul) my heart has become enticed.

Bowing down
descendant of Valabh is the amorous Kana The sound of the jingling of (his) toe-riugs has deprived

?

4

A

me

of

my
love

heart.

Bowing down

?

The very personification of God, you arc. Having married (or accepted) the Valabh husband with extreme

Bowing down

?

By By

his

our submitting to the Valabh husband, happy association, the Vaikunt|" we shall obtain.

we

shall

become

Bowing down

?

Naratan
Bombay, Vlth November 1861.

Translated by Din'anath, Translator.

^16.)

— [Translation
An

of a song at
life

tlie

end of a lithographed Gujrati book of poetry.]
!

I of Vrajll Illustrious beloved one [source of} pleasure,'^ invitation send with speed.
illustrious,

pray the.

Moon

of Gokul,*'^

Without seeing thee, Say dear, how am I

beloved one,

to live

?

heart be restrained ? 1 [My] eyes wi'th tears are suffused [0 Life of] Vraj revered mother Jamna, fr Hearken attentively to [my] prayer, un(ndurable, The pangs of separation are
shall
!

How

my

Now, how am

I

to

live

?

[0 Life
?

of]

Vraj

!

2

How

shall

I abide at a distance

* The founder

of

Vaishnav

sect.

t

An

appellation of Krishna.

Kn'^hna the Eighth incarnation of the of cowherds. here addressed as the chief of the Cowherds ] ^ The expression Vallahhananda in the text, rendered in the second line by " beloved one song is [source of] pleasure," may also be translated child [or Children] of Vallabh ; but the evidently addressed io Krishna.] ** [The name of the village at which Krishna was brought up.] on the banks of which the village f-f [The name of the river hero personified as a goddess,
[Vraj
II

city in Upper India. X signifies a village or station

A

| TJie paradise of

Vishnu.

Hindu

deity.

Vishnu

is

•of

Gohil

is

situted.]

108
Say dear, wliencc this Ijitv, Keitlier of us is of today or yesterday. [Our] love is from tlie first [0 life of] Vraj 3 Hari,* iu thy heart retain [Our] love [whicli] is of former times. Lord of the lowly and destitute Be merciful, Otherwise I will put off this earthly tenement. An invitation send. 4 Life of Vraj 1 want a resting place amidst the jasmine [bowers] of always exist in the town of Gokul, That On the banks of the Kaliudri,t At the landing place of Thakarani,t Life of Vraj 5 An invitation send. When shall I satisfy my eyes with a full view Of the landing p'ace of Thakarani. Jnwardly I have a great desire, 1 am longing to be called to Vraj, An invitation send 6 Of Life of Vraj I am withered like [dried] cinnamon Hari, brother of the plough! bearer 1 can have patience no longer. [My eyes] are constantly filled wilh tears I beseech thee Life ot Vraj. 7 What wrath is this against [me] an innocent p?rson. O Lord, [who art] mercifnl to the humble, Regarding [me] as thy servant, Protect [me thy] servant, O Life of Vraj, I beseech thee 8
!
!
! ! !

Vra,

!

!

!

A
J.

true

translation.

Flynn, Chief Translator.

Supreme Court,

Translator's

Office,

3lst

October

18G1.

" Three of these songs
'CO-defendant.
It
is

were printed at the Bombay " Union Press" the property of the
these
is

said

in

songs
the

that

Kann

or

Krishna

(the
sect.

Maharaj)
I

is

the

descendant of Vallubh.

That

beHef

entertained

by
is

the

am somewhat

famiUar with and k:;OW the history of Krishna.
(incarations,)

He
in

the subject of
ot

several " avtars"

God (Krishna) came
obtained

to this eaith in the

shape

" female
nieans
•of

cow-herds

salvation

by

falling

and 16,000 " Gopees" love with Krishna, " Ras Lila'"

man

;

amorous and wanton sport with women.

(Witness

reads

the

ditTerent

meanings
English

the

word

'

Lila'
is

from

the

late

Horace
to

Hayman
to

"Wilson's
is

Sanscrit

and
sport.

dictionary.)

There
dies,

no sport imputed
is

Krishna,

which

not

amorous
world
in

When
amorous
peculiar
religion.

a Maharaja
sport.

he

said

to

extend his journey
the

the
of

other
sect

in

The

Maharajas

have
sense
is

neglected
of

instruction

the

their

doctrines.

In the
(or

strict

the

word,
to

they

are

not

the
at
tioi,

preceptors

of

The vow
Both
in

" kanthee")
songs

applied

males

and females
is

the

age

of eight or ten.

the

and

in

the

vow,

reference

mind and

property.)
his

A

person
his

who
wife,

makes
his

a

made vow
and

to
to

viun,
all

give

and dhuu, (body, " dhun," binds his
to

himself to give
Thackooriee.
I

property,

son,

his

daughter

the

Maharaj

or

have heard of in&tances
followers
all

in

which these
Maharajas.

offerings
It
is

have
a

been

practically

made by
reputation

the
in

most devoted
the sect
of

of

the

matter

of

general

that

the

Maharajas have
devotees,
Girls

carnal

intercourse

with the

wives

and daughters
practices,

their

more

zealous

are

sent

to

the

Maharajas before
of these

being touched by their husbands.

I
in

among

the

sect

does not
the
period

know of such instances. any way diminish the
of

The knowledge
influence

and respect of
caste,

the

Maharajas.

Within

my

recollection,

the

Bhattia

composed

* [A name of Krishna.'] t [Names of the river Jamna.]
:!:

A

tide applied

to

the deity Balihadra the elder brother of Krkhia.

109
entirely of Yaishnavs,
liave

taken stops

to

put a stop
of the

to

these practices of the j\Iaharajas.
at

In

1855 the Bhattias convened a meeting
should not be
not

caste,

which
at

it

was

resolved
fixed

that

females

allowed

to

visit

the

Maharajas
for

unless

certain

hours,

when they may
According
piety,
to

have any opportunities
religion,

carnal

intercourse

with
as

the

Maharajas.

the
is

Hindoo

the

laws
act

of

God

are
to

unalterable,

regards morality,
is

&c.

It

considered

a sin to

contrary

them.
on "

Adultery
their

a great
is

sin.

Handling the breasts of females and throwing
as

" gulal"

persons

considered
is

a sin
of a

equal

to

adultery,

according
adulterous

to

the

Shastras.

Red powder"
the

(gulal)

a

sign

bad design, of

an

character.

During

Holee holidays,
directs

the

Maharaj throws [ndal on the breasts
of

of female

and male devotees, and
a
is

the current

some water
festival,

of a

yellow colour

from a syringe upon the breasts of females.
collect

During the
have
carnal
or

" Eas'"
times
is

wives

and husbands

promiscuously

in

room,
held

and

intercourse
in

promiscuously a month.
the

among them.

The " Ras"
I

festival

unto three

four

called

The Maharaj has actual husband of many women.
up
to

sexual intercourse

with

used

the

passage in

many women, and the libel, " You
in

Maharajas,
sense,

acting

the

doctrines

of

that

commentary,"

kc,
there

a

hypothetical

and with no other meaning.
the doctrines
of the

I

am

not

ashamed
of

to

say

was a time when
I

I followed

Vallabhacharya religion

more

strictly

than

do now.
sect.

I

and others have
views
history

prosecuted

enquiries

on the subject
towards
the

the

religion

of our
as

The
the

of our of the

small

party

were directed

doctrines

as

well

towards

religion.

In

my

sect,

particularly,

our larbours have been
I
to

rewarded with

abuses.

I

was an author and a journalist before
of

became a reformer.
write

The tyranny
Besides

and

evil

practices

the

Maharaj's

induced
books,

me

against

them.
in

my

own
to

works,

there

were pamphlets,
of the

placards,

&c.,

published

different languages

expose

the
of

practices

Maharajas.

They were published
ago. object
us.

long

before

my

time,
for

and one
libel

them was a drama written 250 years
Maharaj
plaintiff

There was

no
get

prosecution

by

a

except

this.

My
to

in

writing
of

was

to

the

Maharajas

reformed.

The

had organs
plaintiff
;

oppose

One

them was the
Sati/a

Vishnoo

Punch
plaintiff

newspaper,
himself.

patronized

by

another was the
letters
to

religious

pamphlet edited by

Plaintiff wrote

several

times

the

Chabook and
to

Prakash and
he returned to
education

other newspapers.
tiff's

The communications were made
has

me

through
years
of

Goverdhundas, plainpast
;

secretary.
last

Plaintiff

been

in

Bombay
on

for

some

Surat

year.

He

showed great

interest

the

subjects

female
declared

and

widow re-marriage.
re-marriage.

Subsequently, at a public
that time, he

meeting,
to

plaintiff

himself ao-ainst

From

became

unfriendly

me,

and

discussed

with me,

through
are the

the

publications,
in

the questions of re-marriage

and the creed

of Vallubh.

These

pamphlets

which the discussion was conducted by

plaintiff.

(17.)

(Translation

of a

periodical,

entitled,

passage at the end (page 23 and 24) of a Gujerati printed " The Propagator of our Religion and the Annihilator of Doubt.")
(i.

Thus comparing the antecedent and subsequent connection
Shastras,

e.

whatever meaning
the Shastras,
of determining

is

established that

only

is

the true

meaning

the context) of the of (any passage

&c.

ol)

method
lecture

should

do

so,

and the authors of the Shastras have prescribed this as the sole the meaning. Whoever, therefore may wish to write upon this by supporting his opinions by quotations from the Shastras. And

110
whoever
Shastras,
shall

find

fault
all

merely
people

according

to

his

erroneous

farces

without
believed.

quoting

the

should

by

be considered

as

unworthy of being

A
J.

true translation,
Translator.

Fltnn, Chief

Supreme Court,

Translators

OlJi're,

2Uh January

1862,

(18.)

37 a printed — CTranslation a passage Pageand the Annihilator Keligion Propagator
of
at
of

Gujerati

book

entitled,

•'

The

of

of Doubt.")

Chapter the Fourth.
The " Satya Prakash" newspaper in the issue of the first (day) of the first Aso Vad Samvut 1916 (30th September 1860) the Editor of the " Satya Prakash" has In the first number of the published and made known to all the people as follows book (periodical) entitled, " The Propagator of Religion and Annihilator of Doubt, Shri Jadunathjee Maharaj has quoted a stanza from the sacred Gita and has informed all whoever behaves contrary to the precepts of the Shastras, does not that the people, But in the Ten principles his own ancestor Shri acquire happiness in the next world. Dwarkeshjee Maharaj has inculcated that (we) should act laying aside the precepts of Thus he has represented to the people. But in no one of the Ten principles the Veds. is it stated that (we) should abandon the precepts of the Veds. Nevertheless this person But as to the meaning of the Ten principles which he has given (the editor) says so. in his paper he has extracted the same from a book called Kavi Charitra composed in Bambay by Janardhan Ramchundra and published in the Marathi language. But who knows for what reason he has assigned a contrary (i. e. wrong) meaning to these principles. Of that the Editor of the " Satya Prakash" is quite unaware as is described in a Shaki (couplet.)
'

:

;

He who may walk oa the support Although he may struggle with his Of
this

of

opium
he

-will

legs,

will

fall to the ground. never get up.

what the Editor of the " Asatya Prakash"* says. But as the nought before that of the sun, so in regard to Brahm will his false meaning be nullified before the true meanincr. e. the universal soul) (i. Of that he has no conception at all. In these Ten principles of the way of strengthening Shri Harirayji has benefited all by giving (them) the essence of the (Devotion, &c.) On these same Ten Principles Shri Dwarkeshji Maharaj has Veds and Shastras. composed a short st'^nza. Therefore O Vaishnavs do you behold what is stated in this
description
fly
is

is

light

of the

fire

rendered

(stanza.)

The

musical

mode

of

(chanting)

the

Ten

Principles

is

(termed)

Prabhati

(Light).

A
J.

true translation,
Translator.

Flynn, Chief

Supreme Court,

Translator s

Office,

2bth

January 1862.

(Translation

of a

passage at page 46 of a printed Gujrati book called the " Propagator of Religion and the Annihilator of Doubt,")
!
!

what rascality this (is) What deception Oh, you Vaishnavs God has given you understanding and sense. Therefore do you reflect. Thus the Editor of " Asatyaf Prakash" has written, but on examining the meaning of these Principles every one will
!

* The meaning of the word " Satya Prakash"
of Untruth,
(t

is

Light of Truth, Asatya Prakash means Light

The meaning

of

Satya Prakash

is

Light of Truth. Satya Light of Untruth.)

means

Truth.

Asatya Prakash means


Ill
mmediately understand whose
(Vaishnavs) the more people comprehend the
the
is

the

deception
shall

and
dig

whose
into
this

the

rascality,

Oh

!

Youthe

calumniators
of this

way
true

the

more

will

strength

way.*

A
J.

translation,

Flynn, Chief

Translator.

Supreme Court, Translator

s

Office,

2oth

January 1862.

(19.)


In

Ti-anslation

at page 25 of a Gujrati printed book entitled " of a passage Propagator of our religion and the Annihilator of Doubt" No. 2 vol. 2.
(his

The

September 1860 and 30th September) the Editor of issues of the 23rd Prakash" has asked Shri Jadunathjee Maharaj questions as follows Shastras, have been made by God. Then 1. First question, you write that the That Yajurved consists of 101 in one the Yajurved. of the four Veds you believe Shachas (branches) of them you believe in one, the Apastambh Shaka. The others you have rejected. If the Shastras be the work of God, then all the passages should
the " Satya
:

Having put such a question it is represented to the people that be regarded as Gods. he (the Maharaj) does not believe in all the Shastras, whereas he represents to the And this statement is such as the people people that he believes in all the Shastras. are likely to regard as true because among the Hindu community there prevail many ways (i. e. religious persuasions) wherefore there exists a doubt in the minds of the people as to which doctrine is true and which doctrine is false, in consequence of which
people's

minds are alienated from

their religious persuasions.

A
J.

true

translation,

Flynn, Chief

Translator,

Supreme Court,

Translator s

Office,

2b(k

Jannary 1862.

Translation

of

a

passage

at page

of our

religion

29 of a Gujrati printed book entitled, " The Propagator and the Annihilator of Doubt." No. 2. vol. 2.

Editor of the "Satya Prakash" says that the works treating of Vallabh's kept concealed in the mansions, lest the Brahmans should refute them. For these works written But this statement which he has made is entirt-ly incorrect. But those Vaishnavs in the (Brij) language are in the houses of all the Vaishnavs. do not give them to persons following other religious persuasions because they are not worshippers of the Supreme Being and speak ill of the way of emancipation (by)

And

the

religion

are

Devout Adoration.

A
J.

true translation,
Translator.

Flynn, Chief

Supreme Court, Translators Office, 25tk January 1862. " Plaintiff wrote a letter which was published in the Chabook of the 29th September I860. In the " Propagator of our own Religion," of about the same period, there was
an attack upon the
review the
containing
plaintiffs

" reformers,"
lecture
libel,

that

is,

I
his

and

my
called

friends.

I

was
after

challenged
the the

to

published
appeared.
the

in

pamphlet.

That

was
paper,

article,

the

"

alleged

Plaintiff

my

named

Satya

Prakash,

(Light of Truth,)

" Light of Untruth."

(20.)

(Translation of a portion of a letter printed in the correspondence columns of the Bombai/ Chabook Qujerati Newspaper of the 29th September ISGO, and headed " Shri Jadunathji Maharaj and the Sutya Prakas//.")

Your statement
(thereof)
as follows
:

—There
(*
i.

is

simply

that

of

ignorance,
travellers,

for

I

shall

give

a
to

short

illustration

are
e.

two

of

whom

one has

go

to

Walkeshwar,

way

of religion or religious pcrguabion)

112
and the other has
to go to Byculla.

Now, he who wishes

to

go to

Byculla

goes

by the

leading to Byculla, and he who wishes to go to Walkashwar goes by the way leading to Walkeshwar. Now, in the opinion (of each) of these two persons is the road followed by one anl the other (of them) a wrong (road) ? No, it is not. But why will he who

way

does not wish to go
this in
is

to

Byculla, go by

tliat

way

?

Now,

the

established
different
to go,

conclusion

(from
to that

that)

for
;

souls to go to different places

there are various

means mentioned
the

the Shastras

consequently to whatever

place a

man may

wish

way

place he follows.

Written by Goverdhundass Gopaljee, Bombay, the 27th September 18G0.

A
J.

true translation,
Translator.

Flynn, Chief

Supreme Court, Translator

s

Ojjice,

lUh

January 1862.

Eighth

Day,

Thursday,

%th

February 1862.

Karsandas

Mooljee,

further

examined by Mr. Anstey.
plaintiff,

— (The
ot

learned
adulterous

conusel
love
for

reads

from the pamphlets issued by

passages
in
it

expressive

and

amorous dalliance
enlightenment in
the
nice

with Krishna,

personified

the
likely

Maharaj.)
that

"

From
able

the
to

measure of
understand
that
is,

my

sect,

I

do
in

not the

think

they
of

are

distinction

made
in

concluding

passage

that

article,

the

Maharajas cannot be exculpated from the horrible doctrines mentioned
ments,
answer.

in

these

docu-

by the

distinction

question.

(Mr.

Bayley

objects

to

the

question

and the

Objection
Sir

overruled.)

To
of the

M.

Sausse.

—"
to

That

distinction

is

not

the

opinion

of

the

less

reformed

Vallubhacharya

sect.

Witness proceeded
respect

say.

—"

I

think

that the

the

plaintiff's

power,

influence,
libel.

and

have in no way been affected by
the

controversy
of the

or

the

alleged

They
of

are just
faction
in

same.
sect

Before
at

the

commencement
of the

controversy,

there

was

dissatis-

my

the

conduct

Maharajas.

The

plaintiff

had

complained

such conduct in a hand-bill issued

by him from the Chabook press on the
the

19th

Sep-

tember

1860,

and

circulated

among

Vaislmavs.

(21.)

— Translation

of a printed Gujrati hand-bill.)
to

On

the

part of Shri Jadunatliji Maharaj a warning

the

Vaishnavs.^

By
lows
;

— The
to

order of Shri Jadunathji Maharaj

may
them

it

be known

to all the

Lord has graciously given

to

this

human

body.

Vaiahnavs as folMoreover he has caused

them

have sought the protection of the sacred great What a body this is which saves us from the pains of being born form of eightyLord. four hundreds of thousands of wombs,"]" and dying, and it enables us to attain to (union with) the Lord. ^\n invaluable body such as this, you employ day and night in occupation tending merely to obtain a livelihood. Not only this, but you keep much bad company and
be born in a high caste.
;

And you

(t in this

* Worshippors of Vishmi [whose impersonation or representative is the Maharaj]. Meaning that the soul of a Mortal who devotes himself entirely to the worship of the Deity life is exempted alter death from future birth throughout all the various orders of arimial

existence.

113
for

two hours even, Avith a

mmd

free fi-om solicitude

or call to

remembrance

(his)

name.

Observing

this I feel

you do not worship (the deity) Hari, exceedingly concerned on your

dissolution of) the

behalf, for after (the dissolution of) the body, what will be your condition ? body you have to deal with (the deity) Shri Thakurji.

And

after (the
is
it

How

you

do not meditate a little upon that ? For some time (back) the people
thus
:

of

Bombay blamed

the spiritual guides (saying)

The

knowledge

instructors of the sacred great Lord's (religious) course do not impart (spiritual) " But after arrival here, the reading of (religious) books to the Vaishnavs.

my

and the discussion of questions was carried on, in order that all the VaishBut no Vaishnavs came to navs might acquire a knowledge of their own religious course. Now what can the spiritual guides do ? In the Shastras it is said, when a listen to that.

was

carried on

pupil

being
to

anxious
that

himself
pupil.

asks

his

instructor,

then

only

is

the

instructor

to

give

instruction

But

should

he

give

instruction

without

being

asked,

the

instruction

food

to

would have no effect on the pupil's mind. Such instruction is like giving Such is the mode of giving one who is not hungry to whom it is tasteless.
prescribed
in

instruction

However hold discussions. I continued to be printed monthly a magazine, in order to enable the Vaishnavs to acquire a knowledge of their (religious) course and intimated They were told to subscribe their names (that they were) to purchase that magazine. as purchasers of that magazine, but in the list of subscribing Vaishnavs, names have been written (the particulars of) which are written (below) for general information. In Bombay there are about 12,000 twelve thousand houses of Bhatias Vaishnavs, And the Bhatias assume the name of five thousand are Marjadis.* of whom 5,000
the
Shastras.
Still

when no one attended them,

I

caused

to

" worshippers of Vaishnu alone," and are considered the chief of all the followers (of 100, one hundred individuals have written their Vallabh) of all these Bhatias only hundred and twenty names have been written. names and of the Banias 120, one Out of the whole city There are four Brahmans, eight Marwadis, and two Mooltani Vaishnavs. written. As to most of the names they have of Bombay so many names have been
been written by
poor
it

people.

From
standing

this

will

be

immediately
have.

perceived

by

all

persons

what

sort

of

under-

one cares to understand his own (religious) course. Not only this, but no one cares even to obtain (the favor of) Shri Thakurji. It clearly appears that the only thing they care about is blaming their spiritual guides. Now in this matter I am helpless. O Vaishnavs, you have come and sought the protection of the sacred great Alas Therefore I find it necessary for me to advise you to understand your (religious) Lord. Reflect course. If you do not understand it, what will be your condition in the end ? on that consi'lering you as my (disciples) I thought of imparting to you a knowledge of however, you could not subscribe. your (religious) course through the magazine, for which, Consequently it appears that you do not care to read even books relating to your own You will have indeed to spend R. | ^'^^ ^h^ magazine, but by '(religious) course. In the first place you will understand reading it you will be exceedingly benefited. your (religious) course, as it is contained in the Shastras, by (understanding) which Not only this, but you will be able to you cannot be corrupted by evil company. answer the objections urged against your excellent (religious) course by several people without understanding it. Secondly you will acquire a love for devotion directed to (the In consequence of that love you will obtain (the favor of) Shri Thakurji, deity) Hari. and you will be exempt from the pains of (successive) birth and death, and from the Do you therefore open your eyes and reflect a little. You will not pains of hell. again obtain such an opportunity of understanding your (religious) course. Copies of the Magazine for this month of Bhadarva (August, September) having been
the

people

of

Bombay

No

!

printed have arrived.
course,

Therefore every Vaishnav

who

cares

to

understand
for

his
to

(religious)

and who
is

may

care to obtain (the favor of the deity)

Hari should come

my

place,

and he

to take

(a copy of) the Magazine,

and write

his

name

a

copy

monthly in

(*

A

clas.s

of individuals strict in observing certain ceremonies, &c.

15


114
Alter all, there order that, that Magazine may be regularly delivered to him every month. the proverb (which says) that, " The master's advice extends as far as the gate, and as
is

is

the

food

so

is

the

belly."

The

5th

of

the

first

A so Sud

of

Samvat 1916 (19th
Gopalji.

September 1860).

By the command of the holy Maharaj, "Written Printed at the CImbook Press, Bombay.

by Vaishnav Gordhandas

A
J.

true translation,

Flynn, Chief

Translator.

Sup-erne Court, Translators

Office,

l^th September 1861.

"Witness
as
to

continued.

—"

Plaintiff complains therein

of the carelessness

of the Vaishnavs
to

religious

instruction,

and of

there

being only
out
of

100

subscribers
of

his

magazine,

the
in

" Propagator of our own

Keligion,"

a

population

12,000

Vaishnavas

The bad company, alluded to in the hand-bill, are the " refor The person whose signature appears at the foot of the hand bill is GoverThe subscribers to the magazine are chiefly of the dhundas, the plaintiffs secretary. The Vis/moo Punch is conducted by some Vaishnav, under the plaintiffs lower class. and was so until the 8th November 1860. (An article in a number of patronage the Vis/moio Punch is put in as an exhibit.
Bombay.
mers."
;

(22.)

(Translation of portion of an Editorial article in a printed Gujrati newspaper of the pubHshed every Thursday entitled Vaishnow Panch" (i. e. the society Vaishnavs or followers of Vallabhacharya) dated the 8th of November 1860. No. 3 Vol. I. Page 10.)
'

Vaishnav Dharm Prasarak Sabha' Last Sunday at 7 o'clock in the evening the the society for the propagation of the Vaishnav Religion) assembled in the manOn that occasion Shri Jadunathji Maharaj and Shri sion of Shri Chimanlaljee Maharaj. Gokuladhisji Maharaj and Shri Vithaleshji Maharaj presided, and Bhatji Jumkaji Lai After the proceedings of the last meeting Gordhanji and other members were present. had been read out, Vias Jekisan Morarji delivered a speech as follows
(i.

e.

:

should daily attend here, and to the Vaishnavs before, have explained to them our religious books which are read every day. But the Nevertheless I in my speech again Vaishnavs have neglected to do so. Let i^that pass. Vaishnavs will come to It will be exceedingly well if all the intimate as follows Behold for our sake Shri Jadunathji Maharaj this society which has been established.
that

" I intimated

they

:

having taken great pains in order that we may acquire a knowledge of (our) religion^ more-*" has arranged for the issue of a small book (i. e. a periodical) every month are over he has established a society for the propagation of our religion still you
;

indifferent

!"

A
J.

true translation,

Flynn, Chief

Translator.

Supreme Court, Translator
Attempts were made
as
to

s

Office,

24:th

January 1862.
to

'

injure

me, and
lest

put

me

out

of

my

caste,

but without

success,
plaintiff

the
his

castemen were affaid
agents
so.

I should
not

institute
to

an

action of damages.
to

and
told

asked the

Vaishnavs

subscribe

my
was
to

periodical.
filed.

The One
in

Kanjee
a notice

me

These attempts were made before
about the

this action

I received

of this

action

end of April
of 5th
:

1861.
It
is

I
the

repHed

that
of

notice

the

Rast

Goftar and Satt/a Prakash

May.
the

tyranny

the

Maharajas

which makes the Vaishanvs obedient
displeasure,
to
visit

they don't allow

a

man who
in

has
is

incurred their
indispensable.

the

temple.

Visiting

temple once

a

day

J


115

I

have seen

Maharajs put their

feet

on

the breasts
to

of dying

men, with the view

of puri-

fying

them

of sin.
of

Eewards

are paid for this, Es. 5

Rs.

1,000.

A penalty

is

attached to

the
is

breach

the

" Kanthee" vow.
licentious.

The

general
is

character
to

of the

Maharajs in
"

my

sect

" adulterous" and

The

plaintiff

known

be debaucherous.
sect
to
is

The conseand great

quence of the Maharaja's practices has been general debauchery in the
scandal
before

;

and shamelessness
marriage,
sole

prevail.

The
to

dedication or bowing of maidens

the Maharajs
called,
also,

has

given
is

occasion

these

practices.

The Maharaj
in

" one whose
Marjadees,

aim

amorous sport with women," Certain portions of the
practices

sect,

the

consider
to

these

as

meritorious,

and

no light worthy of blame.
are

In

addition

Marjadees,

there

are

the

" Varkuts,"
generally
act
:

who
as

considered
of

the

most
for

zealous

of the

Maharaja's

followers.
is

They

procurers

women

the

Maharajs.
first

Every Varkut

necessarily

a

pilgrim

they

form
the

a

distinct

caste.

The

thing in

my
ten

studies,

which arrested
are

my
in

attention,

was

commentary
called

of

Goculnathjee.
Charitra."

The

principles

explained

a

Marathee

book

" Kavee

(23.)

—Kavee Charitra" an "
(Translation of
set

from a Marathi extract marked by Janardan Eamchandarji.)
tenets

prjpated

Book, page 96, entitled

Afterwards, Vallabhacharya having invited his
religious persuasion,

up a system

of religious doctrines, called
:

with those of that System* of the Pushti-Marga. The

ten articles of the principal rules thereof are as follows
1

2 3

To secure the firm support of the Acharya (spiritual guide.) To worship Shri Krishna, is the only principal means of Muktif (salvation.) To forsake the sense of shaiue, with reference to the public opinion and the commandments the Veds and Shastras, and to he supplicant to the Acharya for protection (or salvation.)
of the

of

Humility towards God, and the Guru. .5 To believe, that I am not a Purush (man) hut a Gopi (female cowherd) 6 To sing (or praise) always the virtues of the Goswami.J 7 To praise the greatness of the Goswami. 8 To obey the commands of the Guru. 9 To put faith on what GomaiJ may do or say. 10 The association with and the service of the Vaishnavas.^
4

Vrandavan.

ducts

doctrines of the system of Vallabha. He only, who conhimself agreeably to these ten commandments, is the chief worshipper (or devotee) ; and he who conducts himself according to the shastras is the treader in the regulated According to those (principles) the path. Vallabhacharya established these principles.

These are the principal

followers

of the

Besides this, Sidhant Eahasya,

Pushti-marga are the only principal Vaishnavas (followers of Vishnu). there are strict words of command written in a work called the to the effect that all things should be offered and presented to the

Acharya,

and that afterwards these things should be enjoyed.

(^Sanskrit

verse

quoted.)

The substance
transformed into
themselves
(to

of

this

verse
of

—By

those

things

being offered
five

respectively,
of sins

Brahmajl and (thereby) persons) by the enjoyment of them.
the

nature

kinds

they are do not attach

* The system described in the prececding paragraph. t The deliverance of the soul from the body, its exemption from further reabsorption into the divine essence.
X

transmigration

and

its

A

title

I

A

applied to Vallabhacharya and his successors. title applied to the worshipper of Vishnu. The divine essence.
11

IIG
(Sansh-it
Goculnathji has
cribed
in
this

verse

quoted.)
sin

given
It
is

explicit

exposition

of the

arising from

not

doing

as des-

verse.

as

follows.

(Sanskrit

verse

quoted.)

To
into

offer every thing means, that even our wives, sons, &c. should not be brought Regarding this, there are written our use without oftering (or presenting) them.

down

other

dicta

and

their

exposition.

(Sanskrit verse quoted.)
is, that liberty is also given to the effect that lastly be incapable of performing this difficult act, should live (in the world) property) of the Acharya. have thus briefly considering themselves as (the by described the constitution of the S} stem of doctrines of Vallabh, and on his having gained a great number of disciples conducting themselves agreeably to his tenets, Krashnadev, Raja of Vidya Nuggar made a present to him of an image of seven maunds of gold With that wealth Vallabhacharya made ornaments equalling in weight his own body. image of Vithalnathji (and) paid off his father's debt and retained (the for fthe He disposed of it in this way. remainder) for (his) house* expense.

The substance
that

of this

verse

those,

may

We

A
Supreme Court,
"
Translator s
also
Office,

true

translation,

Naratan Dinanath,
l\th June

Marathi Translator.

1861.
'

The Maharajs
the
is
it.

promulgated a
doctrines

new

set of doctrines called

Pushti

Marg.'

(Mr.

Anstey reads

principal

of

Vallubh,
his

as

illustrated

by Goculnathjee)

The
a

Seedhant Rahsia

written

by Vallubh, and

grandson Goculnathjee,
to

has written

commentary on
led

I

had

my
I

doubts

excited
of

as

portions

of the

Commentary, which

me

to

studies

and enquiries, the

result

which was, that I believe that these were

the real doctrines of the sect.
as I

announced in
I

my
as

paper the result of
" gopees"

had

satisfied
to

my

curiosity.

was aware that the females of
and
the

my studies as soon my sect believed the
salvation

Maharajs
falling

be incarnations
with Krishna,

of

Krishna,

obtained

by

in

love

that

our females
that

were bent upon adulterous love towards
were contained in any of the
from personal enquiries and research.

the

Maharajs.
of

But
the

I

did

not
until

know
I

such doctrines
fact

sacred books

sect,

learned the

The Maharaj is known by different names, such as Agni Svaroop, Acharya, Gosaiji, Vallabhcool The Maharaj pretends to be, and is believed to be the personification of God. In &c. respect to salvation of souls the Mahai aj is superior to God, for it is said that when the Maharaj gets angry with any one, God cannot save him from the Maharaj's displeasure
to
'
;

but the

Maharaj can save one from God's displeasure.
is

To

believe the

Maharaj
called
love.

be merely a gooroo,

to

be

born again in the condition
towards
the
of

of an animal

or bird

slchana.'

The

love enjoined to

be cherished

Maharaj
the
sect

means adulterous
reside
:

These

horrid

opinions

are

held

wherever
prevail

members
at

they are

not
to

confined to

Western India.

They

Benares. I

caused a copy

of this

book

be procured from a press at Benares.

I produce these papers as
to

specimens of the attacks
libel."

made upon

the

Maharajs previously

the

publication

of the alleged

(These specimens of attacks,
tendered
as
exhibits.

which

were

never on
the

noticed

by
that

the

Maharajs,

were
have

Mr.

Bayley
that,
for

objected

ground
those

newspapers could not

be

admitted in

evidence,

and

aught

he

knew,

newspapers

might

been printed and pubhshed by these very defendants.

Objection overruled.)

117
Witness
to

Court.

— " These
of the
adulterers.
to

are hand-bills,
attacks
is

newspapers, and pamphlets published from
to

1855-59.
that the

The purport
Maharajs
I
are
able

similar

the
these

purport
different

of

the

libel,

that
as

is,

I saw and
these

read

publications

they

came
read.

out.

am

say

that
to

publications

were

generally

circulated

and

I

read and believed

them

be

true.

To a

certain

extent

they

influenced

my

mind, but I was already convinced.

(24.)— The Bombay

Times,

23rd

August

1859.

" The deeds of the Maharajas are evil and so they love the darkness and not death, the inevitable exposure of the the light, and have resolved to resist to the ot the detestation maority of the witness box, which is sure to bring on them the public, and must at last over-throw their influence even with their most benighted and bigoted devotees. It is not our purpose to describe their lives, their insatiable avarice, their greed of power, their insufferable pride, their grinding tyranny, and utter it suffices to tell the reader contempt of their people, and their abandoned profligacy that they claim to be gods and we leave them to conceive how abhorrent and infamous must be their yoke."
;

(25.)

— (Translation

of

portion

of

an

editorial

article

in

the

Bombay Samachar

a Gujrati newspaper

of the

21st

December 1855.)

True Eepo^im.

We
persons
their

have
of

(felt)

the

much pleasure in learning and feel Hindu Community have resolved to be
and in
order
to

joy in
freed

announcing that several fri m the bondage of
for

religious

preceptors,

adopt

a

proper

course

the

purpose

of

by such bondage they have come to an agreement. It is as follows Many of the reputable and sensible people of the Bhatia caste held a special meeting among themselves, and after having consulted together agreed as follows " The authority which their Maharajas exercise over them is often improper and injurious and thereby their money is unnecessarily wasted injury is occasioned to their (reputation for) intelligence, and a blemish is attached and to the honorable so of their families." These people have consequently determined that Hindus should as far as practicable, avoid taking the opinions of the Maharajas in any matter, and should not allow females after they come of age to go to the Maharajs mansions to perform their devotions.
the injuries

preventing

occasioned to their

characters

and various
:

interests

:

**********
is

**
to
;

It

quite

needless
suffer

for

ui

authority

of their

Maharajs they
in

say that unless they break down the will afterwards repent, even more with regard
to

present

what

they

now

greatly

respect

of

money,

manners,

and

the

honour of their

families.

(26.)

— (Translation

of a

portion

of

an

editorial

article

in

the

Jam-e-Jamshed

a

Gujarati Newspaper of the

25th December

1855.)

" In this manner sensible and right thinking Hindus have seen their error though late, and have made fit and proper arrangements with respect to it. They have called a meeting of their own caste men and have arrived at this resolution that in no case unconnected with matters of religion they should ask the opinion of their religious preceptors, as they on many occasions exercise over them improper authority and cause them to commit acts which reflect shame on the reputation of their families, and that after a certain hour of the day, they should not permit their faraeles to pay Darshana, (divine honors) to their religious preceptors in their temples.
:

118
to their preceptors religious with great wiUingness of their families, and thought it an act of holiness progeny to the seventh generation in heaven. But all this carry their to sufficient now been made public The meaning of our words is folly has spontaneously that they should be backward in respecting the notoriously immoral, the simply this honor destroying and the unrighteous as well as improper commands of their preceptors

Thus very
to

often

they gave

permission

destroy

the reputation

:

of religion."

(27.)

(Translation

of a portion of an editorial article in the Samachar a Gujrati newspaper of the 29th November 1855.)

Durpun,

very great discussion is going on now about the irregular conduct of the Maharajas of the Hindus, and many complaints of them are made to us. And we have received many communications too, and in them there is written something more Should a Maharaj not than (what relates to) the irregular conduct of the Maharajas. a crooked path and should he commit evil entertain the fear of God and walk in certainly necessary to punish him , actions then it is And according as the people shall improve the acts of the Maharajs will appear to them to be oppressive. And the Hindus will not regard the Maharajs oppressive acts as Now their knowledge holds before God's commands in the same way as they did before. them a torch by the light of which they emerge from darkness into light. Therefore they will not now approve the actions ot the Maharajs and they will not behold their families corrupted. The Maharaj is not god thdt they will fear him. The Maharaj also has been made by God and they also have been made by God. They will not therefore submit any longer to the Maharajas evil actions.

A

(28.)

(Translation

of a

portion of an editorial article in the

Bombay Chabuk a

Gujrati

newspaper of the 21st June
advances our
as
in

1859.)
to

According as education
the

India,

savage

conditions

(of

man)
is

minds
:

cause of (our) giving the Vaishnavs here instead of their lords practise very licentious courses towards

saying this

follows

according as we begin begin to be exceedingly
to

reflect

upon

With regard
instructions
their

the

expanded. The Gosawjee Maharajs of
preceptors,

as

spiritual

these

This when viewed by a savage does not strike him at all, but when rightly regarded it appears to be very These Maharajas seem to these Hindus to be pure incarnations iniquitous behavior. and their intentions are full of sin and of the Deity but their actions are very base
devotees.
;

conduct greatly transgresses all the rules of the world, In this respect their appears to be contrary to religion.
their

and

their

religious practice

own

disciples

expose

their

shortcomings.

(29.)

— (Translation aa Gujrati dependent)
of portion
to

of an

editorial

article

in

the Apakhtiar

(i.

e.

In-

newspaper of the
done

22nd June 1859.)

In regard
act

contrary

discussions

by the Hindu Maharajs and how far they preceptors, there were carried many general which the young men have now begun to publish by means of books from
the
various deeds
of
to

the

character

religious

which good consequences are expected
It
is

to

result.

which every one has been constrained to form with regard to the Maharajas of the Vaishnavs from (perusing) the small books which have appeared such as those entitled " spiritual preceptors and families." " The The mansion of the Hindu authority of spiritual preceptors and licentious preceptors." Maharaj is a brothel, his hall is the abode of procuress (women) fallen (from virtue) without reputation, the aspect of his eyes is that of gay lasciviousness, the members
proper
to

know

the

opinion

119
of

person is replete his body are the tenements of evil passions, every particle of his with unholiness, uncleanliness, impurity, and in short instead of being as they are held to be incarnations of God, the Maharajs, have been found to be incarnations of
fiends

possessed

of the

quaUties

and

dispositions

of

demons and

(of)

satan.

(30.)

— (Translation

of an extract from

an

Article in

a Marathi newspaper

called the

Vritsar of the 15th August 1859.)

Should a katha,* or instructions in religion, be given in the Mandirf of a Maharaj, Is it worthy of a Maharaj to give or should a nautchj of a courtesan take place (there) ? encouragement to courtesans ? Because one Maharaj has performed such an unworthy act

own Mandir should not another Maharaj § Vaishnav community to consider those questions.
in his

question

jj

(him)

?

We
them

recommend
to

the
their

It is necessary for

direct

They should direct (their) attention to the present state of the They should make their Maharajas act in a proper way. The Maharajas act Maharajas. If the Gujrati comThis should be put a stop to at once. just as they think (proper). munity direct (their) attention in a proper manner, towards the conduct of their Maharajas Should any Maharaj their spiritual guides will conduct themselves according to their religion. not conduct himself properly, he should be turned out of his Office.
attention to those questions.

(31.)

a — (TranslationTreatisepassage page 13 " A concerning Licentious
of
at

of

a

printed

Gujrati

book

entitled

Spiritual Preceptors.")

In the mansions of the Maharajas there are several attendants and whippers, Sachara (Brahmans) female servants, and other people who are employed by the Maharajas to proAlthough the wives of the Maharajas are not for the most part cure other people's wives. very beautiful, yet they keep them in privacy.^ In the service of those wives there are By means of such men or women appointed for those several widows and married women. iniquitious deeds, the Maharajas send for and have brought, at the same time or later, (the females) who may have been selected from amongst those who come to perform their devotions. As for the various wanton women who are acquainted with the blandishments When called by a Maharaj of love, they are called by the Maharajas winking at them. they consider themselves called by Shri Kristna and as having attained the highest rank, and they quickly go and filled with joy, and all confused, view the Maharajs private parts and receive favors. Sometimes the sturdy fact Brahmin domestics the attendants and the •whippers dine first and cause the Maharajs to eat their leavings. And in committing these <ieeds they** (the Maharajs) do not have intercourse with women suitable to their age, but bulls exert their strength upon poor tender innocent girls not of age.

(32.)

— (Translation
I

of a portion of

a

Gujrati book

of

poetry

entitled

" Whips

for

the

Hindu Maharajs.)
;

Now women
1.

have wituessed the deception of the Maharajs let none (of you) go to the (Maharajs) Mansions
Chorus.
for females of tender

Sending

age
favor.

They give them sweetmeats as tokens of Showing them (a.s) examples (the action,
* Hindu
I

&c.) of

Kan andff

the Gopis^J

** The

f Temple. | Dance. Or bring him to an account. concealed from the public gaze. pronoun they may either refer to the Brahman domestics, &c. or to the Maharajs. ft i. e. the Hindu deity Kanaiya or Krishna. Xt Females of the Cowherd caste in which Krishna was brought up.
religious preaching.
priest.

High

||

^

i.

e.

120
to make his advances ; I have (&c/ If they see m.>ne5% they afFectiouately call (us) If not they caimot bear to see (us) They rob other people's wives of their wealth and youth. Behold the virtue of the spiritual guides ; I have (&c.) In the soMson of spring they fill their syringesf And taking aim at, they wet the breasts (of females)

They cause Kandev*

Without regarding the modesty of those standing near Whether aunts or mother be looking on I have (&c.) Chewing rolls of betel leaves They spit alter eating the b^'telnut
;

Their spittle they

make

others swallow.
is,

Behold what rascality

this

I

have (&c.)

(33.)

— (Translation

of a portion

of

a

printed

Gujrati

handbill

printed

at

the

Baft'ar

Askdrd Press in 1855.)
!

Behold how the banners of the Maharaj's good Gentle readers, do you attend. And he writes. " As for coming to the meeting, conduct and understanding, are flying. Behold then O behold does he write correctly when he it is not my custom at all." writes that it is not his custom to go to a Brahmasabha (a meeting of Brahmans.) For, on receiving invitations to prostitutes' dances he always attends them with pleasure.
! !

Witness continued.

— " These
it

are

only

some attacks amongst many.
closed
for

I

know what
to

the

" slavery bond" was.
bond,

The temples were
bound
his
in
to

a week to
to

force

parties

sign the

and the person signing
nor
to

himself

not
at

write

anything
Court.
is

against

the
its

Maharajas,
objects

attempt

procure

attendance

the

Surpeme

One
still

of

was

excommunicate me,
in
it

which they
not obeying
to

failed.
it

The
be
at

bond
of

binding,
against

and I have read
religion.

that

persons

shall

guilty

a crime

I

have seen the females bow

the

Maharajas,

the

time of
of

worship in

the
are

temples,
fond.

and I have seen the Maharajas touch the
toe
is

toes of females
for

whom

they

Touching the

indicative

of

a

desire
after

carnal

intercourse.

The

females
of the

go

into the zenana,

and the Maharajas go

them.

I have seen the managers

Maharaj's

Maharajas giving water to Vaishnavs to drink, the water which fell from the " lungotee." I have seen the leavings of the Maharaj's food eaten by some

Vaishnavs.
streets.

When

the

I have
in
prose.

seen

the

Maharaj walks on foot, males and females follow him in the " Ten Principles" in two other books, one in verse and the

other

Ninth Dmj, Friday,

Itli

February,

1862.

(Mr.
of the

Spencer Compton read English translations of passages from the
sect,

sacred
day.
the

books

Vallabhacharya
support
the

which were
set forth

put
the

in

as

exhibits

the

previous
to

These
horrible

passages

pleas

by

defendants,

and

allude

doctrines of the sect as mentioned therein.

* The name

of the

Hindu cupid

or god of love.
filling

t This alludes to a practice at the Holi festival when persons amuse themselves by squirts with a yellow fluid and discharging them at one another.

syringes

121
Karsandas Mooljee, cross-examined by Mr. Bay ley.— "I
the plaintiff in
to
first

became acquainted with

the
life.

year

1860,
has no

but have

never been

in

him

in

my
go

He

temple in Bombay.
to other

company, nor even spolcen Maharajas having no temples of
his

their

own,

to

the temples

belonging

Maharajas.

I
in

have no ocular knowledge
respect
to

of

any improprieties committed by
to
visit

plaintiff,

but

have had
ago.

others,

when

I used
prieties

the

temples about ten
the

or

eleven years I have not

I have observed the improto

of Jeewunjee,

head

Maharaj.
the

been

the

temples,

I

believe,

since

1848,

because I
to

knew

that

Maharaja's
the
toes

conduct
of females

was

blame- worthy.

I

mean
I

improprieties

the

extent

of pressing
to

by

Jeewunjee

Maharaj.
of

went once a week every Sunday,
parts,

Jeewunjee's
toes

temple.

The temple
pressed I
did
toes.

consists

two
four
this

and I have seen both,

I
to

saw the
touch

of the

females

three

or

times

when
I

I

myself

went
is,

the

Maharaj's

not

mark
with

when
general
is
still

was young, that
reputation
as
gooroo,

under
adultery,

fifteen.

This

circumstance,

combined

their

regards
I

made me
to

secede from the Maharajas.

Jeewunjee

my

but

have

stopped visiting

him.
the

I

have a daughter
forms of
the

round whose
sect.

neck I put a

Vaishnas have put
children.

" kanthee" myself according " kanthees" with their

ceremonial

my
at

Many
their

own

hands

round
the

necks
the

of

There
say
all

may
the

be

two hundred

reformers

among
to

Vaishnas

utmost.

When
riage,

I

Maharajas have carnal intercourse with the daughters
first

and
their

wives

of their devotees,

and that maidens are
from general reputation.
golal

sent

the

Maharajas
the
toes,

after

marthe

I

say

so

Besides

pi-essing

I

have
in

seen

Maharajs throwing
years,

on the breasts

of females during the Holee festival in

different

when
thrown

all

the the

men and women were
idol,

the

temple.
the

It

was

golal

which

had

been offered
times

to

and
which

is

considered

holy

by
once

people.

The

golal

was someI " kanthee"
females.

in

balls,

where
from the

pointedly

thrown
in

at

the
life

breasts

of

received

spiritual

instruction

Maharaj

my

when

the

was put round
of one
alleged

my

neck.

These sacred books are the property of two of
I

my
time

friends

and of Eamlall Thackorseydas.
Mathooradassdas.
libel.
is

found out the particular passages with the
passages
in

assistance

I

was acquainted with these
are

before

the

of the

I

said

there

about a hundred
sect

sects

India,
of
to

but I
the

don't
sects

think the
follow
old

old religion

represented
or
less.

by any one

at

present.
sect

Some
widely

the
reli-

old religion
gion,

more

The Vallabhacharya
whether
it

professes

follow
its

the

but I
of

am
old

not

certain

does.
itself

It
to

differs

in

doctrines
all

from
sects.
;

those

the

religion,

and conceives
in

be

far

superior
thirty

to

other

The number
seven
I years
it

of the
to

Vallabhacharyas
the the

Bombay may
Agra,

be

or

forty thousand

they

extend from here
ago
is

Ganges and

to

but not uninterruptedly.

I heard six or

that

Maharajs were excommunicated
belief in

by

the

Telinga

Brahmins.

think

the

general
is

the

sect

that

Vallabh was a
Presidency.

Telinga

was

outcasted.

Telinga
large

a

province

in

the

Madras

The
part

Brahmin and Telinga BrahIndia.

mins form a
of

body in Telinga as in other
like

parts of India,
in

and are the worshippers
of

Shiva.

They

are

any

other

Brahmins
daggers

any

other

The
of

Vaishanavs and the
Vallabh,

Shivas are

"

at

drawn."
for

Luxmon
The

Bhatt,

the

father

was excommunicated by
to

his

own castemen
of divine

founding a
story
sects,

new
of

creed.

Menu
to

and other books are considered
and the incarnations
the ancient
religion.

be

origin.

the

" gopees"
opposed

of

Vishnoo are believed in by several
Shaivites believe in

but are

The

the

incarnations

of

Vishnoo

equally

with

IG

;

122
the

Vaishanavs.
I

As
not

far

as

I

have read,
Sir

all

the

sacred

books

do

not

contain

amorous
is

passages.
this

am

aware whe'^^r

William Jones has said that
I have
millions

"

Krishna

to

day the darling god of Hindu women."
stories in books vvrhich are vsrritten after the

heard
of years.

the story of

Brahma coming
in

out of an egg after remaining three millions and

I do not believe

the

modern
vals ;"

Veds, which I have not read.
I

are considered by most Vaishanavs as literally true.
it is

was not present

at

any

of the

The stories " Ras festiof

a matter of general reputation, and

is

described by

Captain

McMurdo

Kutch,

in his work, on that province.
sai," or

Adultery

is

considered a crime whether committed by a "

Gois

any other person.

only once in their life-time
pects the Maharajs are

The when

instruction

which Vaishnavs receive
is

from the Maharaj

the " kanthee"
as religious

put

round the neck.
but

In certain

res-

regarded

preceptors,
its

they don't teach

more than

once in a person's life-time.

Each family

has
;

priest,

who

gives instruction in religion.

The plaii.affis not a Brahmin of high caste he is an outcasted Brahmin, and no high-caste Brahmin would dine with him or the other Maharajs under the penalty of being ex-communicated.
I collected and printed the licentious songs sung by females
houses. I have

when

the Maharajs are invited to their
I heard

heard

the songs

sung within
sect.

the

last

year or two.

them sung.
words, but

They

are sung generally

among

the

What
these

I printed are

not the exact
this
trial.

the substance of the songs, which I got printed for the purposes of

There

are
are

many
he
is

other

songs
;

of

similar

tendency

;

are

mere

specimens.
plainly

The Brahmins
means

highly respected

they are not divine.

generally regarded as God, the

The " amorous Kann" Supreme Being himself
I differ

the jMaharaj

It is not possible that I

can

be mistaken as

to the construction of the

words " tun, mun, and dkun."
with the

" Dhun" means
Chief Ti-anslator
cho"

property, but the Vaishnavs have extended the sense.
as to the
translation
defile,"

of the latter portion

of the

libel.

The word "
and
its

bigado

simply
I

means "

but from

the

context

it is

a

participle

not an active verb.
:

had
I

nothing to do with the article which appeared in the

Summackar
appeared
in

editor

was a Parsee.

had nothing
Maharajs.
Times.
their

to

do with
don't

any of the

articles

which

other

journals against the
in

I

know who
are not

wrote

the

article against

the Maharajs

the

Bombay
for

I have seen Maharajs follow females into their
family,
to

private

rooms,

not the females of

own

who
I

allowed

to

be seen by

strangers.

Plaintiff

pretended

some time
i.

be a reformer.
did

I have not read
to

Goculnathjee's

commentary
against

in the original,

e.

the Sanskrit.
the
:

not intend

convey

any

reflections

the plaintiff, but
adulteries

against
plaintiff

body of Maharajs.

I

have

had no personal knowledge of the
committed a rape
at

of

it

was a matter of notoriety that he

Surat.

I heard from

a

friend that plaintiff suffered last year from the venereal disease.

Mr. Bayley.

—Who
it

is

your friend

?

Mr. Anstey applied that the witness might not be compelled
from the
fact of so

to give

up the name,

as,

many
was
to

" bundobusts"

having been made against the defendant by order
if

of the Maharaj,

be presumed that

the

name were

revealed, the

witness would

be exposed

to importunities

and menaces, and thus justice would be defeated. ground that he

Mr. Bayley

objected on the

had

a very good

reason for

asking

the

name, and that the Court cannot extend the
Mr. Anstey repeated that
ibegged the Court, in the
justice

rules of evidence in defendant's favour.

would be defeated
its

if

the

name were
the

given

up, and
special

exercise of

discretion,

to

obviate

mischief

by a


.123
order in this case, which, he maintained,

had

no

parallel in

the

constitutional

history

of

England

;

and the

special order

might well be made.

The Court decided that to obviate inconvenience to the defendant, the name of the who had a personal knowledge of the fact, must iiot be exposed but that the name of the friend who conveyed the information to defendant, might be given without
party
;

much

inconvenience.

Mr. Bayley.
Witness
Sir

—Who

is

your friend that informed you
I
to

?

Mr.

Witness
of this, of

— " Am bound answer Sausse. — Yes, answer — " Lukmidas Khimjee continued.
to Court.
it.

that question,

my

Lords

'<

is

the

name

of the

friend.

I

know nothing

my

personal knowledge.

family.

M. Sausse. The females go They go to th„ zenana, and then more than one rooni but I don't know
Sir
;

To

to

the
the

zenana,

the

place

for

the

Maharaj's

into

Maharaj's

bedroom.

The zenana has
the time I wrote

of

my

persor.al

knowledge.

At

the article, I believed that the Maharajs did defile their female devotees.

Ee-exammed by Mr. Anstcj. " None of the sects does in itself represent the ancient religion. The adulteries of the Maharajs are a matter of notoriety. Captain McMurdo has written on their adulteries and on the " Eas festival," in the volume 2nd
Hindu
of the " Transactions of the

Literary

Society

of

Bombay," published
are

in the year

1820,

He
'

says

:

" The Bhattias

are

of

Sindh

origin.

They

the

most

numerous

end wealthy

merchants in the country, and worship the Gossengjee Maharaj, of

whom

there are
;

many.
sucli is

'

The Maharaj

is

master

of their
is

property

and disposes of

it

as

h„

pieases

and

'

the veneration in which he

held, that the

most respectable families consider themselves

*

honoured by his cohabiting with their wives or daughters.
sent on this side of India
like
is

The

principal
to

Maharaj

at pre-

'

named

Gopinathjee, a

man worn

a skelton

and shaking
is

'

a leaf from debauchery of every

kind, excepting spirituous

liquors.

He

constantly

'

in a staic of intoxication

from opium, and various other stimulants which the ingenuity of

'

the sensual has

discovered.

He

is

originally

a Brahmin.
(the
all

.

.

'

MundUees
Vishnoo.
and,

are

very

frequent

among them
.f

Bhattias)

as

The well-known Eus among other followers of
.

'

At

these, persons of both sexes

and

descriptions, high

and low, meet together,
kind
of
licentiousness.'
libel,

'

under

the

name and
!'

sanction

religion,

practise

every
passage
'

(Witness here '^ofmes the grammatical
*

construction that
sing.

of the

containing the
give

You Maharajs

&c.)

I

am

sure

the

songs

I

e

printed

exactly

the

substance of what I have heard
of " Purshotum,"

God

or

Maharajs are sometimes called by the name " excellent Being," or " Poorna Purshotum," perfect God, or

women

perfect excellent Being."


124

Tenth Daij, Saturday, 8tk February, 1862.

(2.)

Dr. John Wilson, examined by Mr. Anstey.
graduate of the

—"

I

am

an ordained minister of the Free
I

Church of Scotland, and a
country in
1829.

University

of Edinburgh.
led

came out
study of

to this

My

professional
:

duties as a missionary

me

to the

some
the
in

of the eastern

languages

I

know
at

the

Sanskrit, the

Zend,

and

to

a certain

extent

P

ehlvi.
its

I have

some acquaintaince with the
I have
presided
office

Prakrit languages
in

and the

Brig

Bhasha,

b3 th

forms,
I

the

examinations

languages

of gentlemen
it.

of the

Services.

was

offered the

of Translator to

Government,

but declined

I

am

a

m ember
Branch
Europe.

of the
of the
its

Koyal Society of Great Britain and Ireland, and a member Royal Asiatic
Society.

of the

Bombay
1842
in

For seven years I was

its

president,

and

since

have been
I

honorary president.

I

am

a

corresponding

am

the author of certain

works of the

member ancient Hindu
I

of several
religious

Societies

systems,

and
have

have

prosecij^ted

studies in the literature of the East.

commenced such
to

of

my

studies in
I

the University of Edinburgh, and prosecuted them on

my
up

arrival in this country.

heard

the

evidence

of

the

witnesses

in

this

case

yesterday

;

but I was absent

yesterday.
phical

There

is

one sacred book of the Hindus called the Vishnoo
treatise

Puran, a

philoso-

and legendary
it

dedicated

to

the

exposition of views
it.
i.

respecting Vishnoo.

I

have read
of the

in the original Sanscrit as well as translations of

The most
<'.,

ancient books
heard.

Hindus are the Veds.
to

They

are

what

is

called

" Srootee,"

what
of

is

They

are believed

be the

works of divine revelation in the highest sense
to a later

the word.
revelation

The
by a

Vishnoo Puran belongs
the

period and
Institutes of

is

considered as authoritative
are believed to

large body of the Hindus.

The

Menu

have been written two

centuries

before

Christian

era

;

the

Christian era.
literature

of the

historical fact,

The law books belong to Hindus shows great changes of that the more modern religions are
India

Veds about three thousand years before the The the " Smriti," /. e., what is recollected.
religious
less

belief

and
less

practice.

It is

an

moral
gods,

and

pure.

Very great

changes have

occurred in

with

reference

to

the

positively for the worse, as

admitted by the Hindus themselves.
to

Vallabhacharya flourished
I

from the end of the 15th
visited the

the

beginning

of

the

16th century.

have

read

that

Vallabh

King of
pre-

Vizianuggur about the year 1500 or 1504,
of that place, that the
sent of gold from him.

and I found from the genealogies of the kings
;

King was

Krishna Deva
to

and that Vallabh

received a large

(Witness refers

an ancient Sanscrit drama he held

in his hand.)

The was

dramatist distinctly alludes to the

existence of the

sect of Vallabhacharyas.

(Witness

about to refer

to

the

contents of the drama, to which Mr.

Bayley

objected.)

Witness
s

to Sir

M.
sect.

Sausse.

—"

I have
if it

not

found any

reference
;

to the
it is

drama
the

in

the
of

acred books of the
to

I don't

now

has ever been acted

but

custom

the Brahmins

compose dramas and circulate them among their
the objection, on the ground that the

friends.

The Court upheld
treatise,

drama was not a

professional

and could not be recognised as an

historical authority as to the tenets

of the sect.

Witness continued.
of the sect and
Sir
its

— " My

object in referring to the

drama was

to

show

the existence

aspects to certain classes of India.

M.

Sausse.

—The

aspects of the

sect

to

other

classes

are

not

pertinent

to

the

matter at

issue.


125
Mr. Anstey asked the Court
to take

a note of his argument,

that

the

witness

could

not be prevented from referring to the document.

(Note taken accordingly.)
notices

Witness proceeded

to say.

—"

I have

seen

of the

sect

by Captain McMurdo^

Kesident at Kutch, in papers communicated

to the Asiatic Society of

Bombay
for

;

and

in the

16th volume of the Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, in which the origin and
doctrines of the sect are set
forth

by

Dr.

Horace Hayraan

Wilson,

some

time the

ecretary of the Society.

Amongst
sanctity,

other articles of the

new

creed, Vallabha

introduced one,

which

is

rather

singular for a

Hindu

religious innovator or
it

reformer
of
in

part

ot

and that

and choice food, not in solitude and mortification, but in the pleasures of society and the enjoyment of the world. The Gosains or teachers, are almost always family men, as was the founder Vallabha, for after he had taken off the restrictions of the monastic order to which he originally belongThe Gosains are ed, he married, by the particular order, it is said, of his new god. always clothed with the best raiment, and fed with the daintiest viands by their followers, part of the connection between the Guru and over whom they have unlimited influence teacher, being the three-fold Samarpan or consignment of Tan, Man and Dhan, body,
their deity, not in nudity
costly apparel

was the duty and hunger, but

the

he taught, that privation formed no teachers and his disciples to worship
:

mind and
'

The most celebrated of all the Gosain establishments is at Shri Nath Dwar in Ajmer. The image at this shrine is said to have transported itself thither from .Mathura when Aurangzeb ordered the temple it was there placed in to be destroyed. The present
modern, but richly endowed, and the high priest a descent of Gokulnath, is a It is a matter of obligation with the members of wealth and importance. once in their lives they receive there a this seet to visit Shri Naih Dicar, at least contribute accordcertificate to that effect, issued by the head Gosain and in return,
shrine
is

**»*•»*
:

wealth,

to the spiritual guide.

-X-

*

man

of great

;

ing

to
'

their

means

to

the

enriching of the

establishment.

to

an uncurious feature in the notions of this sect, that all the veneration paid their Gosains is paid solely to their descent, and unconnected with any idea of their
It is not
;

sanctity or learning
respectability,

they are not
iiot

unfrequently

destitute

of

all

pretensions

to

individual

bnt they
Sausse.

the- less enjoy the

homage

of their followers.'

To
with Dr.

Sir

M.

— " From
that

my
the

study of the doctrines of the sect I
sect
is

am

of opinion with

Hayman

Wilson

impure.

I

agree

with

what Dr.

Hayman

Wilson

states.

(Witness reads the parts

in

which

he agrees with

Dr.

H. H. Wilson.)

Vallabh taught that the Deity should

be worshipped in choice food and costly apparel, not

in solitude but in the enjoyment of society.
their followers,

who

consign to

them

their

given of the services of the image, in

The Gossavis have unlimited influence over (An account is next dhun." The which witness agreed with Dr. H. H. Wilson.)
" tun, mun, and
is

homage paid
plishments.

to the

Gossavis

is

paid to their descent, not their sanctity or individual accom-

The most ignorant Gossai

reverenced by his followers.
to,
is

To Mr. Anstey.
and
faithful picture,

—'"The

drama

I have referred

a faithful mirror of the doctrines
day.
I

practices of the sect as they prevail at

the

present

could

not

give

a

more

than by reading one of the passages which I have translated into English.
of the play says to

The conductor
" The
'

one of the actors

:

Veds

have

fled
;

;

lovely damsels

now

look to the gratification of sense with
is

the
feels

descendants of Vallabh
lust at

the

descendant of Vallabh
damsels.

the kisser
one's-sclf

of

females
one's

;

he
wives

'

every step

for

his

large-eyed

Offering

and

and

126
'

daughters to the gooroos

is

in this

world the only course of salvation.
is

Carnal intercourse
of Krishna.

with females, dining and playing with them,
nectarine

one of the principal
is

offices

The
is

'

pleasure of Shree

Gocul (Krishna)

better than a thousand other expedients.

'

If copulation does not take place with Krishna, the existence of the

paramour

of

man
is

*

worse than that of a worm.'

(The passage,

of

which the above

is

the substance,

put

*

on the record.)

The
in the
is

sect of the

Vallabhacharyas

is

a

new

sect,

inasmuch as supremacy

it

has

selected

Krishna

aspect
in
its

of

his adolescence

and praised him
its
;

to

in that aspect.
is

The
in

sect

new

objects

and

new

in

method.

The god Krishna
be

worshipped
of

the

shape of images and the Maharajs

both are believed to
;

personifications

Krishna.

The Maharaj is considered as an incarnation of God he is God incarnate according to Hindu notions, which are peculiar in this respect. There have occurred nine incarnations The Hindus do not believe in any of Vishnoo, the last of which was that of Boodh incarnations which have taken place between the time of Boodh and the present day
;

the Vallabhacharyas, on the contrary, hold
tions of Krishna.

that

Vallabh and his descendants are

incarna-

They view
the

the Maharajs as intermediate
of
receiving
sectary,
his

between
to

themselves

and

the

God Krishna
between
the

;

in

sense

dicta

as

equal
is

Krishna

himself.
;

As
bet

angry

God
not

and the
sectary

the
is

Maharaj
mediator.
also in
is

the

mediator

as

ween
believe

the
the

Maharaj

and the

there
gooroos,

no
but
of of

There
the
light

are multitudes

who
the

Maharajs

only

as

above

represented.

The Maharajs are certainly not the Hindu religion. They are not chiefs
descendants
of

preceptors
or

what

technically
sect

denominated

heads
as

any

single

of

Brahmins.

The

Vallabh
is

are

considerered

outcasted

Telinga

Brahmins.
Telinga

To

my

knowledge there
According
to hold

no

intercourse

between
the

the

Maharjs
religion,

and
it

the

Brahmins.

to the belief

and

practices of

Hindu

is

not possible for

Brahmins
other.

such intercourse with the

Maharajs as members of one caste hold with each
:

tun' embracing body in Tun, mun, and dhun' are used in an all-comprehensive sense and mun' referring to mind in all its mental faculties and qualities which all its relations
' '
;

are

to

be

placed

at

the

disposal

of
'

the

Maharaj

according to the doctrines of the sect.

With

reference to the third

word
it

dhun,' I have seen passages published by the authority
sectaries should

of the Maharajs, in
their sons, wives, use.

which

is

stated that the

make

over

to the

Maharaj

daughters, and every thing else before applying these things to their

own

(Witness reads the translation of
to the

a

passage

from

the

commentary
existence,

of Goculnathjee).

In regard

Brahmin,

it

is

said in the

Bhugwut Gita
of
spiritual

that his qualities are quiescence, &c.

self-control,

patience, rectitude, the

resignation

The

sense

of
is

shame and
passage

public opinion are outraged

by the doctrines of the Vallabhacharyas.
sect.

There
of

no sense of shame in the doctrines of the
containing
as

I have heard

that the translation

the

the
:

should be read

alleged
'

libel
!

has

been disputed.
act

I

consider
to

that

the

passage

Ye

Maharajas
to

when you

according

that

commentary, or

upon your acting according
your devotees,
given
lift

your commentary,
(desist.)

you corrupt the wives and daughters of
passage
is

your hand'

The
to

capable
that
it

of
is

the

interpretation

by the defendant.
principle.

The meaning
not think
it

my
the

mind,

is

a mild expostulation

on the
are

I do
;

that,

in

passage,

the plaintiff and other
inferential

Maharajs
(Witness
says
to

necessarily

meant

is

probably
of

a general
Sanscrit
life,

and
paper,
soul,

proposition.

reads the

Krishna
&c.

:

—"

translation

by himself
thee,

a

in

which

a

sectary

I

consecrate to

my
!")

my

my

organs,

my

property,

myself,

I

am

thy slave,

Oh

Kiishna

127

Translation of the original Sanscrit Text.
Shri Krishna

is

my

protector

I

Om,* I, who am eternally destroyed by misery and pain produced by (my) separation from Krishna, during a time measured by thousands of years, do surrender to the allf furnished Krishna, (my) body, senses, (or organs), breath, heart (as the seat of feelings), relatives, weath, and other wordly things, its feelings, as also (my) wife, house, children, Oh you Krishna, I am your servant. together with (my) soul.
Cross-examined

by

Mr.

Bayley.
is

— " The

passage
the
I

containing
Bhattias,

the

alleged
it,

libel

is

ambiguous, and the composition
the

losse.

I think

who

read
to

would see
that

connection

between
is

it

and the commentary.
but
it

am

not

prepared

state

Mr.
the

Flynn's

translation

incorrect,
case,

might be improved.

I have taken no
it,

active part

in the getting

up of the
I

except that I take an interest in
the
action

I

did

not
in

know
of

defendant

personally
temples.

before

was brought.
knowledge
his

I

have

not

been

any

of the

Maharaj's

have

no

personal
deal

of the

improper
the

practices

the

Maharajs, but have heard a good

from

followers.

From
not

books

I conclude

that the Maharaj and the idol are worshipped as gods.

I do

think that the

Hindus

worship cows and bulls

;

they believe that the Deity
believe

is

present every where and in every-

thing, and, philosophically, they

every

thing to emanate
sect.

from the Godhead.

The

books of Vallabhacharya are read by portions of the
the time of

Sir

William Jones thought that

Menu was

about the date

of Christ.

To

Sir Joseph

Arnould. — "

I would not call the Mormonites a sect of Christians.
religion.
strictly

The

Vallabhacharya sect forms only a portion of the Hindu

To Sir M. Hindu rehgion.

Sausse.

— "I

cannot say that any sect at present

follows the ancient

Witness proceeded
the Vallabhacharya sect.

to say.

— "I
to

know

of a sect that holds doctrines similar to those of

This

book

(one of

the exhibits)

appears to
to
it
;

me
in

to

have

been
across

published
it

by order
researches.
to

of one of the Maharajs.
It

There
been
'

is

no date

I have

come

in

my

appears

have

printed and

circulated

Bombay, but I
word adultery.

cannot

say

what

extent.

The

word

vishai' is not
is

equivalent to

the

The

caste to

which the Maharajs

should

belong

the
is

Telinga
still

Brahmin.

The

third or

fourth in descent of the Vallabhacharya sect, I believe,

alive in

Ahmedahad, but I
parts

have not seen him personally.
as recent
origin

There are a

number
which
are

of sects in
'

various

of India of

as

the

Vallabhacharya
original

sect.

The words

tun,

mun,

and

dhun' have

nothing

peculiar in their

meaning,

has been

extended

by the Maharajs.
in their old

The
of

intelligent portion of. the
'I

Hindu community

making great researches

writings.

have read some of the works

of the plaintiff

and formed a very low estimate

them.

Re-examined by Mr. Anstey.
of the Maharajs,
to

—"

I have seen
it

some very obscene conduct on the part
disgust.

and

have turned away -from
state

in

I should

have
in

been pleased
question were

have seen a better

of things

in this

country.

The

passages

*

Om is

a mystic term used at the beginning of all religious formulas as

-well

as invocations, prayers, Ac.

t All refers to powers, gualilies

and things

:

fdl-furnithed

is

an epithet commonly given to the deity.


128
brought
before.
to

my

notice

by

parties

engaged in the

defence, but I

was acquainted with them

To

the Court.

— " The

meaning

of the words " ras lila"

is

amorous sport

;

the meaning

of " ras" alone might be rendered as the " juices of fruit or of the body."
in a general point of

The Maharajs
preceptors of

view might be looked upon as

preceptors,

but

not

as

the

Hindu

religion."

Eleventh Day, Monday,

Wth February, 1862.

(3.)

Balajee Pandoorang, examined by Mr. Dunbar.
this

—"

I

am

one of the Translators
(in exhibit) in

ajid Interpreters of

Court.

I have rendered
to

into English this passage

the Brig Bhasha.
referred to

(Witness deposes
as exhibits.)

having translated into English several other passages

and put in

Cross-examined by Mr. Scoble.
printed
referred
at
for

—"

There

is

a dictionary of the Brig Bhasha language,
for

the

Calcutta

School-book
of

Society's

Press,

the

use of
is

schools,

to

which I
language

the

meaning

some words.

The

Brig

Bhasha

a composite
other

containing some Sanscrit and

some Hindu words,

and some

no doubt

dialects.

In

making the

translations,

I looked more to the meaning of the analogous than to the
I have never scientifically

mean-

ing of the words themselves.
as a language. I have read

studied the Brig

Bhasha language
confined
*

some
to

songs in Brig
translate.
'

Bhasha.

In the

translations I
literally

myself

to

the

passages

I

had

Russic She'romanee'

means

the

head jewel of humour :' the words mean either intellectual, aesthetic, " Vehvichar bhav" means adulterine, not adoptive, love the first
;

or sensual

pleasure.

word
;

literally

means
where

admixture,
translated as

confusion.
'

The words

are

always
love.'
;

used
Soorut
first

in

a

bad sense

they

cannot be

exceptional or

deviating

'

Aranya'

means

a

forest

sport

is

carried on between

men and women

the

word does not mean beauty.

Re-examined by Mr. Anstey.
and have no doubt as
to the

" I have carefully studied the passages I have translated,
'

meanings I have given.

Vehvichar,' in

its

primary sense,

means admixture
(4.)

;

and

in its secondary sense,

adultery."

Venayeck

Laxman

Shastree,

examined by

Mr. Anstey.
from the
as

—"

I

am

a Brahmin,

and Government Shastree
is that

at the

Sudder

Adawlut, I come

Concun.

The
sit

report

the Maharajs are Brahmins, and I consider

them

Brahmins. I

might

with

them, but would not

dine

with

them.

I cannot

give the reason,

but that has been the

practice for several years, probably

from their having connectioxi with the Gujeratee people.

They have a

good

number

of followers, but they are not the chiefs or heads of any persons
I

but the Vallabhacharyas.
the sacred books.

know
its

the Sanskrit language,

and have seen and read some of
from the ancient
to
differ

All religious sects of the

Hindus are derived

religion,

and

profess to be guided

by

principles
it

and cannot therefore be said
but
there
to

from the

ancient religion.

Each
sect
is

sect says that

follows the ancient religion.

I don't think that the

Vallabhacharya
difference.

deviates
sin

from

the

ancient
to

religion
for

;

may
handle

be some slight
the breast of

It

a

almost

equal

adultery

a person

another's wife :"

129
The witness was
(o.)

not

cross-examined

for

the

plaintiff.

— Vishvanath

Narayan, examined

by Mr.

Dunl.ar.

—"

I

am

Superintendent

of

the Special the

Income Tax Commissioner's

Office

hold the I Koyal Asiatic Society. Government Central Book Depot and Deputy Inspector
I

and a member of the Bombay Branch of substantive appointment of Curator of the
of

Marathee

Schools.

I

have

translated Elphinstone's History of India into Marathee.

am
as

one of the Konkanee Brahmins,
of

and
or

am

acquainted

with

b'anscrit.

I

have

read

some
have

the

ancient
;

books

of

the

Hindus.
dine

We
with

have no intercourse with the Maharajas

Brahmins
to

we

don't

intermarry
to

them
I

;

because,

as

Brahmins,

we
their

duties

perform,

and

my

knowledge the
to
all

Maharajas don't perform those

duties.

They
as
to

are not preceptors

of religion

Hindus.
to

am
laws

not
as
;

acquainted
laid

with
in

caste

Brahmins.
six

Every Brahmin,
duties
:

according

our
at

down

Menu, has

perform

sacrificing
to

and

assisting

sacrifices

teaching

the Veds,

which the Maharajas
six

don't

teach

my
the

knowledge,
Maharajas.
refers
to

&c.
I

These are two out of the principal
have looked at some of
in

which

are

neglected
sect.

by

the

books

ot

the

Vallabhacharya
is

(Witness

passages
the

some
of

of

the exhibits.)
;

The Maharaj
as

in

this

passage described
is

as

the

lord,

husband

many women
ocean
of

one
sport

whose only
with

object

wanton sport

with
books
to

many women and
contains

the

wanton
Maharaj,

many women.
is

One
as

of

the

108 names

for

the

and

he

described, there

equal
religion

of

the Supreme Being. I don't think that the Vallabhacharya sect follows the My caste, are bound to Menu, the most ancient religion of the Hindus.
religion,

follow

that
as
far

and they
morality
is

follow
at
all.

it.

I

don't

think

the

Brahmins
in

regard

the
caste

Maharajas
at
all,

models
as

of

my
in

caste

concerned.

They have no The morality

authority
of the

the

Brahmin
was

so

Maharajas

made

the

subject of

comment

some of the Marathee newspapers of Bombay.

To

my

knowledge the chastity

and morality of the Maharajas are very low.
Cross-examined

Others have also a low opinion of them.

by

Mr.

Bay ley.

—"

I

have

seen the
roads.

plaintiff once

at his

house in

Bombay.
1858-59,

I
I

may have

seen other Maharajas on the

Once
his

in

Bombay,

in the year

saw a Maharaj do an

improper

act,

unworthy of
in a

assumed
swing

character of a

spiritual preceptor.

There were two persons

sitting

moveable
of

among a crowd
Maharajas) threw

of males

and females, and the

Maharajas (I think

both

them were

The golal is not thrown only during the Holee holidays. I considered it I do not recognise the Bombay Almanac as a book of religious authority. an act of immorality for men and women to mix together purposely, and for the Maharajas
golal indiscriminately

upon

all.

to

throw golal upon the females.
occasion.

It

was not an
the

accidental

met purposely on the
Kattiawar
Gossai

I consider

book of
out
of

consonant with the Veds.

I have

been in Sind,

crowd the men and women Menu as binding so far as it is the Bombay Presidency, and in
:

and

Gujerat.

Gossaijee

and

Maharaj

are

considered

as

convertible

terms.

commonly means a man clad in reddish-coloured clothes. A preceptor of religion and I cannot say if the Maharajas are preceptors of religion. I have must be a Brahmin not heard that the Koncanee Brahmins are looked down upon by the Gujeratee Brahmins.
;

The
I

fact is the other

way.

We
I

dine with the Telinga Brahmins, but not with the Maharajas,
in

have read the whole of Goculnathjee's commentary
particular
of

the Sanscrit.
it

I

don't

recollect

any
as

passage
the
I

;

recollect

the

general
libel

impression

left

upon

my
is

mind.
not
so

The
exact
of

translation

passage
say

in

the
it

alleged
is

from the commentary,
translation.

mine,

but

cannot

that

a

garbled

There

is

no

mention

17

the

Maharaja's
agent
is

name

in

the

original

:

The

original
in

passage
Sanscrit

is

in

the

passive

voice,

but
I

the

understood.

The word

"

Soorut"

implies

carnal
in

intercourse.

know
It

The word " Soorut" means a would have the same meaning in Gujeratee
Gujeratee.
for

face,

countenance,
to

the

Hindoostanee.
I

according

the

context.

know
case

the
as

defendant

the

last

two or three years and have taken an

interest

in

the

one

of the

public

only.

Re-examined by Mr. Anstey.
bettering,
to
its

—"

The proper meaning
a reformer,
the

of
to

the
see

word " reform"
the
religion
i.

is

and

in

that

sense

I

am

and wish
called

restored best of

pristine

purity.

I have heard

Maharaj
to

" Purshotum,"
Maharaj.

e.,

beings.

This word in the
is

commentary
I
find

applies

the

Goculnathjee's

com-

mentary
is

considered

a

book of

religion.

(The Marathee
in
first

translation of the

put into witness's hand.)
that
all

a

passage
in

the

book

referring
to

to

commentary " Acharya,"
before
I

commanding
tasted or

things

should

be

the

instance
I

offered

him

being
don't

enjoyed
plaintiff

by any other person.
and other
I

From what
specially
plaintiff,

have seen and heard,
to

think

the

Maharajas
with
to

qualified

be

spiritual

preceptors.

From
beyond
the

the

conversation

had

the

I I

did

not think

he

was a man of
in
this

learning,

and as such,

qualified
in
it

be

a

preceptor.

take

no

interest

ease
in

what

is

felt

by hundreds
of
or

of the

public.

(Eefers again to
the plaintiff,

a

passage
the

commentary.).

The

subject
of

my

conversation

with

was

female

schools

and the meaning
Sir

one

two verses from the
is

" Bhagwut Gita."
be a
preceptor
;

To
80

M.
he

Sausse.
is

— " Every
is

Brahmin
upon
as

bound

to

if

he

is

not
of

qualified,

obliged to

undergo a certain penance.

Among

the general

class

Hindus, every Brahmin
(6.)

looked

a preceptor, whether he gives precepts or not."

Javeriial

Oomiashanker,
of the

examined by Mr.
College.

Dunbar.

—"

I

was

lately

one

of of

the the

Duxina

Fellows

Elphinstone
exhibit.)

I the

know

Sanscrit.

(Eefers to one

translations

put in as an

I

made

translation

of the Sanscrit

passage.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley
refers, is

"The word 'Purshotum' to whom that translation Supreme Being, and the offerings referred to are made to him. Re-examined by Mr. Anstey. I have read the passage only, not the entire book
the

:

nor the
(7.)

commentary of Goculnathjee upon

the

passage."

of this Court,
(specifies

Nanabhai Harridas, examined by Mr. Anstey. and have made some translations of books
translations.)

—"
in

I

am

one of the Translators

the

Brij

Bhasha

language,

the

To Mr. Bayley.
of the
dates.

— There
I

are
in

many works
that
collated

in

the

Brij

Bhasha

in

manuscripts.
don't

Most
were
have

Maharcja's

works are

language.

Generally

manuscripts

contain

In

this

instance

have

two manuscripts and
the

the dates each

bore
I

different.

These books are read by Banias who read
of them.

Balbodh

character.

read

portions

I

am

a

" Kyast," a word

derived

from Kya," the body.
followers

The

Kyasts are followers of the Maharajas.

They

are

respected by their

and such

Brahmins

as

receive

alms from the Maharajas.

To Mr. Anstey.
Maharajas are

—I
to

find

one

of

the

books

composed

reputed to

be
be a

outcaste

Telinga Brahmins.

A

by Vallabhacharya. Brahmin out of
Brahmins.

The
caste
I don't

would not be reputed

preceptor of religion

among

learned


131
know what common Brahmins might
Maharajas."
(8.)

think.

There are some Brahmin

followers

of the

Narayeii

Dinanathjee,

examined
Court,

by

Mr.

Dumbar.
to

" I

am

one

of

the
of

Translators
the

and Interpreters of
this

this

and remember

have

translated

some

documents in
Witness
to

case,

(specifies

them.)
read
the

Mr. Bayley.

I

did

not

books before

they were
;

put

into

my
the
last

hand
ten or

for

translation.

I visit
visted his

one Maharaj

Jeevunjpe,

as a friend

he

is

considered

head man.

I have

temple perhaps

two or three times a year,
improprieties
in his

during the
I

twelve

years, I

have not seen any

temple.

have

not

been there during the Holee,
occasions
in

and have not seen any
;

golal

thrown.

There are certain
is

on

which
I

golal

is

thrown

the

Holee

is

one of them.
at

There

no impropriety

the

act

itself.

have not seen Jeevunjee throw any golal
idol
all

dl

at

any

time.

I
all

never went there to see the
sects

or

the

worshippers.
gooioos.

Gooroos are

worsliipped
is

by

throughout
:

India
not

;

and

sects

have

The form
in

of worship

always the

same

they
;

are

worshipped as

gods.

There are

my
I

caste

both

Vaishnavs

and

Shivites

but none of them are
since
this

followers

of the

Maharajas.
attention
it

have read the commentary
called
to

of Goculnathjee

action

was
I

filed.

My
place.

was particularly

the

word " Purshotum"

therein,

and

remarked that
in one

applied to

Purshotum
stated

(God)
the

alone.

The word Acharya
ought
to

(gooroo)
to

occurs

And

it

is

that

dedication
to

be

made
I

Purshotum
:

through
it

what the word " Soorut" means
not positive,
carnal

means
not
of

—"

the

Acharya.
soo,"
to

It
;

is

very

difficult

say

good say

and

" rut,"
or

attached.

I

am

guess

merely.
to

I

am

prepared
the

whether
it

not

it

means
" tun,

intercourse.

As
to

the

name
there
is is

town,

Surat,
in

means " Surat," good
dedication
'

town.

According

my
from

views
It

nothing
in
all

improper
sects.
;

the
to

of I

mun, and dhun"
derive

(to

God).

enjoined

As
I
;

the

Eas

lila'

would

the

word
is

" ras,"
of the
of

an

assemblage

not

" rus,"

juice.

The

word

" Kas," however,
festival."

capable

interpretation

of juice.
is

never heard
the

of the "

Eaa
is

a " Achar" means practice, and is a component part of Acharya (spiritual guide) which latter means a practiser, " Shankaracharya" is the gooroo of the Shivites. I have
deviation.

The popular meaning

" Vyabhichar"

adultery

primary meaning

not

looked carefully
it

would read
it,

thus

:

— " Acting
defile the

at the

passage

containing

the alleged

libel.

(Looks

at

it

now.)

I

according to that commentary, or having

acted according to

you (Maharajas)

wives and

daughters of your devotees "
are defiling" that
it,"
is

There
literal

is

not

the

slightest

doubt that the passage says
off

;— " You
your

the

translation.

The

following words are " take
slightest
to the

hands from

that

is,

from the

defiling,

&c. I

have not the

doubt that

this is the

meaning which a person reading newspapers
is

would attach

passage.

The
and
is

" Bhagwut Gita"

a book of very high authority, on

which witnesses
story of Krishna

are

sworn,
his

an

extract

from the
of all

Mahabharut,
sects

1 have heard the

and

16,000 wives,

Vaishnavs
all

regard

him

as

a Hindoo

god

;

his incarnations are believed in

by

Hindoos.
to ask ?

Sir

M.

Sausse.

—Well

Mr. Bayley, have you any more questions

Mr. Bayley.

I have several

My

Lord.

132

Tioelfth

Dcui,

ThnrRdoij, iZlh

Fehruary, 1862.

Narayan

Dinnanathjee,
I

re-examined

by

Mr.

Anstey.
of

1

am

not a
is

follower of the

Maharaj nor a Vaishnav.
Jeevunjee Maharaj.
Kelly, to

am

the only

member
is

my
if

family

who

acquainted with

My
is

nephew Shamrao

assisting the plaintiff's case

by desire of Mr.

whom

he

an "

articled clerk." I don't

know

he

is

so assisting at the request

of Vurjeevandas Madhaodas.

All the parties connected with

the defendant

knew very

well
for

that I was acquainted with

Jeevunjee.

It

was

Mathooradass that

applied to

me

first

the translations, and he
lieve in the

knew very

well that I was a friend of Jeevunjee Maharaj.

I be-

Bhugwut Gita

on which

witnesses are

sworn.
I have

I know

Sanscrit to a certain
of

extent, but
translations

am

not a very learned Sanscrit scholar.
the Brij

no doubt of the accuracy
with great
I would

my

from

Bhasha.
day.

I have read
I cannot

four or five of

the old Sanscrit dramas
facility.

which are extant

at the present

read them

I believe
to

the Sanscrit and Persian are
sian
dictionary
for

entirely different

languages
word.

;

not

refer

a

Per-

the

meaning
best of

of a

Sanscrit
;

I I

gave the meaning

to the

word

"Surut" according
Dictionary.

to the

my

ability

since then

have referred
say in

to

Molesworth's

(Reads the meanings of the word.)
libel,

I

meant

to

my

cross-examination
I

that I had not, before the

heard of the " Eus
but I
said I

mundlee"
from
" Eas

festival.

16,000

married

wives

of

Krishna,
I

never heard of 16,000
Goculnathjee's

have heard of " gopees :" he

might have

had them

besides.

translated

extracts

Commentary,
(Mr. Anstey

which I had not read before the
hands a picture
is.

libel.
is

I have seen pictures of "

Ras

lila."

to witness.)

This
is

not a picture
of "

of

lila :"

I don't
in the

know what

it

I

cannot

say

if

this
it.

a

picture

defendant understands
there
is

I

did go in

Eas lila" understood once when worship was going on
temple where

sense in which
;

in Jeevunjee's temple

no prohibition.

I never

went

to the part of the

women
it,

are admitted.

I saw the ceremony of waving the lights and the image also.
improprieties against the Maharajas.

I never heard of an accusation of
for
it

When

there

is

no occasion

I would

consider

the throwing of " golal" an improper, not indecent
it

act.

Throwing

on females I consider

improper, rude, uncivil, and almost indecent

act.

It has

no connection with the sense of

adultery.

" Bhooka" means powder
golal

of every kind.

I don't

know what powder
to

the Maharajas
is

mix with
to say if

which they throw on females.
certain powders
sect,

Eeads from a sacred book, but
is

not able
I

throwing
of

on females

equivalent

seducing,

(seduction).

don't

know

any

except the Vallabahcharya, in which there are hereditary gooroos by

blood or adoption.

I think

among
is

the Shivites

the head

disciple succeeds

a gooroo.
is

The
allow
don't I

Maharaja I

am

acquainted with

a very learned nian, but I

am

told

he

an exception.
gooroos gooroos

The

other Maharajas are not to be respected for
to

any

learning.

All
feet.

females

approach them for being
I

respected by

touching their

Hindu Some

allow their feet to be touched.

have not seen any gooroos
feet
of gooroos.

throw golal upon females.
generally.

have seen some females touch the
that

I

am

speaking

In

no sect

I

know

of

is

the

gooroo
;

water by males or females

I don't

swung in a swing, or has his body rubbed with saffronknow of the leavings of any gooroos' meals being eaten
from
their

by

their followers, or the

water falling

" langotees" drunk.

I

have

seen the

wooden shoes

of

some gooroos respected.

The person who puts
the family, or

the sacred

thread upon
is

a

Hindu
I

child,

whether the

father, or the elder of
I

the family priest,

con-

sidered to be the child's gooroo.
don't

cannot say

when

the custom of having gooroos originated.

know

if

the

dedication

of " tun,

mun, and

dhun"

is

made

by females

to

any

133
gooroos but the Maharajas.
tary-

I have seen the the dedication
to

Marathee version

of Goculnathjee's
to the

CommenI

I think

it

enjoins

of " tun,

mun
only

and dhun"
;

Acharaya.

understood the

v^'ord
it.

" Purshotum"

apply to

God
never
is

I don't
libel,

know

in

what sense the
I

Valshnavs take

Referring to the passage
in the

containing the
I

I do

not agree with Dr.

Wilson that
have not the

it

is

suspensive mood.
the

heard

of

a suspensive participle.
:

slightest
it."

doubt that

passage

not conditional

I

don't agree with Dr.

Wilson's version of
(9.)
find

Mathooradass Lowjee, examined by Mr. Anstey.
a

—"

I

am

a Bhattia
the
sect.

merchant,
Gujeratee,

am

member

ot

the Vallabhacharya sect.
I

I

know
able

the

Brij

Bhasha,

and the Marathee languages.

am

acquainted with the sacred books of
I

my

(Xames
I

some
sider

of the books

which he has read.)
to

am
sect

not

to

read

Sanscrit

or

Persian.

have given these books

Karsandass

for

the purpose ot be ing produced in Court.

1 conT

myself

skilled in

the doctrines of

my

and the ancient

religion of the Hindoos.

heard the ancient religion expounded from the Bhagwut and other two works.
differs

Our
is

religion

from the ancient

religion.

Idolatry

is

not enjoined by the
to

Veds.

It

mentioned

in a

book called " Balbodh" that none would be able
time),

read the

Yeds
be

in

the

Kali-Yug
In
are

(present

and that the
it

acts

mentioned in the Yeds would not lead
not
to

to salvation.

a work by Goculnathjee
opposed

is

stated that the Shastras are

followed

which

to the doctrines of the
sect,

" Pooshtee Marg" (the doctrines of the Yallabhacharya
Yallabhacharya
as

sect).

In our
are
are are

" Poorn Purshotum," and his incarnations
as

and Wittulnathjee,
incarnations,
&c.

considered

God.

The Maharajas
of

are

considered

those

and
There

known
108

as

the

children
to

Yallabh.

Poorn

Purshotum,
his

Acharya,

names

given

Yallabhacharya

and

descendants,
called

similar to the

108 names

of the

Supreme Being.
and
also

Maharajas are

which names are " Maha Prubhoo'
of

(great

God) by

several devotees at the time of worship.

The major
their

part

the

Bhattia
is

caste worship the Maharajas as God,
also

worship
is

portraits.

Each Maharaj

worshipped

by

his

individual name, and

regarded as

God from
is

his birth, without

reference to his subsequent character or qualifications.

Yallabh

regarded as the incarnation
son
of

of the head of the

Supreme Being.

In

reality,

he
not

was
dine

the
or

Luxmon
with

Bhutt,

a

Telinga Brahmin.
dants.

The Telinga Brahmins would

associate

his

descen-

The Maharajas have about two lacs of followers out of some twelve crores of Except when putting the " kanthee" round the neck of a child, the Maharaj never gives religious instruction. The Maharaj, at the performance of the " kanthee" ceremony, makes a person repeat a " muntra" (incantation) to this effect " I have been
Hindoos.
:

separated from Krishna for a long time.
children, house,
(the Maharaj).

I dedicate

my

body, mind, wealth, organs,
it

wife,
to

and

all

to

Krishna."

The Maharaj
is

desires the person to repeat
girls

him

Children are

made

to repeat this

" muntra," as also young

and lads

on the occasions of their marriage. The Maharaj " his tun, mun, and dhun." to him In practice

Krishna
" Eas

;

and

a

Yaishanav dedicates
is

all

a person's wealth
lila"

not given to the
sport, carnal

Maharaj

!

but as

to

women, he commits

adultery.
is

means amorous

intercourse.

This picture (an indecent one)

a correct representation of the sport Krishna
in

had with women.
believed in

There are many such pictures
sect
;

the Maharajas' temples.

This book

is

by the

it

contains this
of

picture,

in

which
the

there

are

represented

naked

women and Krishna
golal

at the top

a

tree.
;

One
the

of

pictures

represents

shepherdesses, as coming out after

bathing

other

represents

and

the

colour

of

Kessoora flowers (yellow) with Krishna.
is

the women, them as playing with " Bhooka" is a sacred

powder

called

" abir," and

used with

golal.

The

followers of the Maharajas, males

and

ir34

females, will, after death,
lila,"

become " gopees,"

for the

purpose of having amorous sport " Kas

with God, in which the Maharajs will

take

part

and

enjoy

both

as

gods

and

as

gopees.

The Maharajas, when they worship
I

the image, wear long hair because they regard
plaintiff to the effect that

themselves as gopees in this world.

had conversation with the

I should arrange with Jeevanlalljee Maharaj to write and edit the " Propagator of our

own

Eeligion" during the time he (plaintiff) would be away from Bombay.
plaintiff in the

It

was started by
hand-bill
sect

name

of a society, of which he
I

is

the

president.
it.

I received this

at the entrance of plaintiffs dwelling-house.

have read

I

am known
sect.

In

my
is

bj

the

name

of

" Mathoora Punth," because
the

my

opinions are opposed to the immoralities and

adultery
case.

of

Maharajas,

and as

if

I

was the founder of a new

This

not the
of
sect

From my

infancy I was instructed by

my
and

father not to believe

in the practices

the Maharajas, which, he said, are immoral

adulterous.
reasons.

Many

persons

in

my

know

the fact, but refrain from avowing

it

for several

Since the last eight or nine
out-

years I have explained to

my

friends these

immoralities.

I respected the Maharajas

wardly

;

my

friends did the same.

In the year 1912 (1855) a writing was

prepared

by
into

Bhattias to prevent females from going to the Maharajas unless at certain hours, and with
the view of preventing the adulteries.
force after a year.

It

was resolved
at the
that,

that the writing

should come

There was a dispute
it

time between the Maharajs and the Bhooif

leshwar Brahmins, and

was apprehended

the

document

was made

public,

the

Brahmins might obtain a triumph.
into force.

The year

elapsed, but the agreement

was not

brought

Since this action commenced, a hand-bill was issued from the press of plaintifiTs
object of suppressing the

manager Purbhoodas, with the
produced in
this

agreement and preventing

its

being
sect,

Court.

The Maharajas'
since

adulteries were a matter of notoriety in the

and there has been no improvement
garden of Goculdass Tejpall

remember having been with Khuttao Mukunjee. About eight years ago
1855.
I
in,

often
I

to

the

went there

with him, when at the entrance we were informed by the malice that a Maharaj
side with four

was

in-

women.

Seeing us go

Lukhmidass Khlmjee followed
was
in

us.

Goculdass was
the

in the garden opposite,

knowing the Maharaj

his

own

garden

with

women.
and saw

We

went

in.

Khuttao stopped in the dining-room.

I entered

by

another

door,

two widows

sitting outside.

They

told

me

something, but notwithstanding that, I pushed forward.

1 found the door of a room fastened from inside, and removed the latch

with

a

knife.

I

saw there Maharaj Yachalalljee was
sitting

in the act of connection with a

woman.
seeing

The
me,

other

woman
his
into,

in

the

room.

The Maharaj was ashamed on

and put on

" dhotia" (waist

cloth).

[Mr. Bay ley objected

to this sort of evidence

being gone
this

as

the alleged act did not concern the plaintiff.

Mr. Anstey contended that

part

of

the

evidence was necessary to disprove one of the allegations of the plaint.
sel

The learned counthe

would rely on the 7th

plea,

which embraced the
if

practices of

all

Maharajas.

The
from

defendants' witnesses were challenged

they could

name a

single instance of adultery

personal observation, and
stop the witness.

now that there was an instance, the plaintiff's counsel wanted to The Court overruled the objection. Witness continued.] " The woman
and a member of the
I paid
sent
for
;

was
age,

of the Bhattia caste

sect.

She was about
gave

25

or

30 years

of

and was a married woman.
! !

my

respects to the

Maharaj on seeing him com-

mit the act

Goculiass was

the

Maharaj

him

some

sweatmeat and

pan

soparee.

The women went away, and a companion
;

of Goculdass struck one of

them

in

the head.
is

I refused to conceal the act

I said I never

would conceal such an

act.

There

a club

are very

among the Bhattias of my sect called " Bus mundlee," of which the members much respected, as they pay greater homage to the Maharajas and commit moi«

135
adultery.

The members would not admit a
I

stranger.

They go

to

the meeting

with

their

wives.

was never a member.
rose at 6 P.

The Court

M.

The Court-house was more

excessively

crowded than

on

any previous day.

Thirleentfi

Bay, Friday,

14///

February, 18G2.
seen

Mathooradas Lowjee
person of Maharajas.

continued.

—"

I

have

frequently

females

approaching

the

I have seen

ten or twenty Maharajas worshipped

females touch the soles of the Maharajas' feet with their
their

The hands, and then apply them to
females.
of

by

own

eyes.

I have seen females perform this
their female devotees.

kind

worship
seen

to

plaintiff
plaintiff

Several

Maharajas press the toes of
J'ressing the toes
rajas,
is

I have not

the

do

this.

a sign of a desire for adultery.
signs with their eyes.

When

the females look at the
this

Mahaand

the latter

make

Accordingly, the females take

hint

retire into

a room.
to

I speak this

from

my

personal knowledge.

(A
is

packet containing golal

was shown

the Court and put in as an exhibit.)

This powder
the Holee

thrown on the occasion

of the Vussunt

Punchmee (which
is

falls

shortly

before

holidays).
to

The

golal

is

thrown by the Maharaj on the persons of such females as he wishes
with. Golal water
at the females.
also
is

gratify

his

desire

This

done with the same object and purpose.
character in

thrown by means of syringes, and the Maharaj takes precise aim Females sing " gurbees"
the
will

(songs)
asleep

of

an

amorous

presence of
ease

the
if

Maharajas

;

—such

and you awoke

me," " you
on.

my

mind
is

you

will take

as " I was me," " you are

my

husband," and so
is

The purport

of such songs

evident as sung in the presence of

the Maharajas It

notorious that the Maharajas are adulterers.

The

plaintiffs reputation is

no way better than that of the other Maharajas.
(throwing powders on females)
is

According

to

our Shastras, conduct such as this
;

considered equivalent to adultery
it

and

in fact,

under the

head of adultery in a

religious book,

is

so described.

" Choowa," a

sort of fluid, is

thrown

by females on the persons of the Maharajas. Such conduct is witnessed quietly by the husI first became acquainted bands of females who sing the " gurbees" before the Maharajas. with Judoonathjee about sixteen months ago, when he paid a visit to the house of Jewraz
Balloo and sent for me.
I

am

acquainted with about seven or eight Maharajas in

Bombay.

They

are Jeevunjee, the

head Maharaj, Goculeshjee, Dhishjee, Goculadhishjee, Chimunjee,
I have been out of Bombay, and have seen The Maharaj at Mandavie is Kunchorjee, and I the widow of a Maharaj. with Majee Maharaj
;

Muggunjee, Dwarkanathjee, and Jadoonathjee.
Maharajas
at

Kutch Mandavie,' Beyt, &c.

was

also

acquainted there

Sir

pleas of justification,

M. Sausse remarked that and came to
It

since

the

Court

rose

yesterday,

he had read over the
individual
acts

the opinion that the

evidence, as to the

of other Maharajas ought not to be admitted,

and that the evidence

to that effect already

on

record should be struck out.
to absent individuals to
tion,

would be struck out accordingly.
guilt.

It

would be an

injustice

admit evidence of their
to.

Any

evidence

as to general reputa-

would not

of course be objected

Witness continued.
admit females
into the

— " Eventually
temple unless

ihe Maharajas refused to accede to
at certain

my

request not to
after

hours.

The

refusal

was

made

some

136
private
all
it

discussion.

I

am

unwilling
it

to

reveal

what
and

conversation I had

with
iheir

Jeevunjee,

unless forced to give

out.

Jeevunjee said
very

persons are
is

masters of
to stop
to
it.

own

houses,

and adultery has increased
said, remonstrate
to remonstrate,

much,

difficult

He
;

could not, he

with his elders or with those who were superior

him.

If he attempted

he was afraid the other INIaharajas would not mind him
secure

and

he, therefore,

suggested that I should

the aid of Shreenathjee
said,

and

Muttressjee-walla

Maharajas.

Without

their co-operation,

he

nothing
it

could

be effected.

As

the

females

were

the

source of great income to the Maharajas,
stop

was

rather a very

serious

matter, he

said to

that

source

of

income,
that,

and
an

thus

deprive

them

cf

the

means
give

of defraying

their

expenses.
lust,

He

added
it

like

opium-eater, a

man

could not

up

the

practice of

and therefore

was not

possible to put a stop at once to the practices of the

MahaI

rajas.

He

advised

me
with

to

have

patience

in

the

matter of

this

desired

reform.

had

similar

conversation

Jeevunjee

on

another

occasion.

I stayed for

about

four hours

with
the

plaintiff at the
first

house of Jewraz Balloo.

He
him
is

also sent for

me

on other occasions.

On
we

occasion I

had some
do

discussion with

on

the
the

subject of female education, in

the course of are not

which he
to
so,

desired
unless

me

to

do

as

he or

Maharajas

directed.

I said

bound
to

what you
at

say

good.

He
the
to

said

you are
do
said

bound
not

to act

according

what we

say.

I said I

can show
house.
it

you precedents
I said

from the Shastras, upon
study the

which he desired

me

to

see

him

his

Maharajas
do.

Shastras and instruct
necessary,

their

followers,

as

is

their

duty

He

that

was not
I
list

and

that

the

followers

must

do what

the Maharajas directed
plaintiff said

them

to do.

spoke of the desirability of establishing a library,
for the purpose,

when
to

he had prepared a

and ask money.

me

to

procure subscriptions.

I said I would procure the subscrip-

tions,

but that the money could not be entrusted
the

him.
to

He

then said I and
of

my
libel.

friends

might keep

This

was

subsequently
to

the

publication

the

The

Shankaracharyas do not allow
in

women

approach them.

I have read of the ten principles

the Brij

Bhasha and the Marathee languages.

pond

in substance with those of the sacred books.
to

works and Goculnathjee's commentary, are
lend encouragement to
it.

It

is

said

in the
;

The doctrines mentioned in these corresThe doctrines propounded in plaintiff's my mind productive of adultery in the sect, and " Propagator of Our Own lleligion" that we
it is

ought

to

be in adulterine love with

God

in another place

said such

love
to

cannot be

cherished in the Kali Yug.

Of

this

two contradictory injunctions, the former,
readily than the latter.

my

mind,

would have
love with

effect

over a person's

mind much more
as the

The

adulterine

Vaishnavs.
of
the

God means something The meaning of the
is

adulterine

love

between the
is

Maharajas

and

the

dedication of the " tun"

that the wives

and daughters
myself present

devotees are dedicated to the Maharajas.

The

seat or

" baituck" of the Maharajas,
I was

even, in his absence,
at the

w^orshipped

and respected by the devotees.

meeting of the Bhattias in 1855, and took a part in the proceedings.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley.
founded,
adulterous
or

—" I
new
I

am
sect

not called Mathoora
;

Punth because I have
have
opposed the
of
is

am

about

to

found,

a

it

is

only

because I
the

practices

of the

Maharajas.
wife to

frequent

at

present

temple
it

Jeevunjee
the custom

Maharaj.

I

don't

send
to

my

that or

any other temple, though
of

among the Vaishnavs
to the temples.

send their wives.
worship
in
it

The wives
as

very

few
other

Vaishnavs do

not go
the

I

do

not

Jeevunjee

God.

The
is

Vaishnavs touch

Maharaja's

feet,

Maharaj

in the

him same way as
swing

a swing, a sacred
is

necklace

put

round the neck of the
;

put

round the
it

neck
it

of the

image

they take up the
worshipping.

dust of the feet of the Maharaj and eat

or put

into their

mouth.

When

137
they
is

call

him Maha Prabhoojee. Purshotum, Vullubh Dev,
vSupreme

&c.

I can swear that the Maharaj
is

addressed to in these names of the

Being, and not the image, which

in

inner room.

The Maharajas take
is

their

seat outside.

At

that time, the doors of the

an room
I

containing the image are shut.
rajas
;

I have been to the temples belonging to the
the

other

Mahaonly.

the form of worship

same

in

all.

I went

to

worship the
in

image
It is

joined

my

hands

to the

Maharaj, but

did not worship

him

any way.

stated in

the sacred books that the worship of the Maharaj should be performed in the same
that of God.

The Maharajas
preceptors

are of

Brahmins,
rehgion.

and are
few
of

regarded as gooroos.
the

way as As Brahmins
consider the

they are not the

A

Vaishnavs

do not

Maharajas as gods. I do not, but my brother does consider them as such. The dedication That after the dedicaof " tun, mun, and dhun" is not at present made by all Hindus.
tion, the

Maharaj can do what he pleases
marriage

with

females,
;

is

a matter
heard.

of notoriety.

I have

not seen any act of impropriety by the plaintiff

I

have

About

four

years ago,

on the occasion
in-law
of the

of
girl.
;

the

of

my

daughter, a Maharaja was invited by the father-

A
was

Maharaja
for

then

demanded
was

a fine

from

me

of

Ks. 5-4 which I

refused to pay

it

my

appearing in mourning.

" Krishna

Lila" means amorous

sport with Krishna,

which commenced when he

six or seven years old,

and lasted

till

he reached his eleventh year.

Some

four or five years ago, I

saw dramas

of this story of

Krishna, which were performed in Maharaja's
of this story are sometimes observed temples.

temples

before males

and females.

Pictures

on

the walls of

some

buildings, not

on the walls of

The women, however,
It
is

are not painted
at

naked.

This book containing one indecent
years ago
there are
:

and some other pictures was published
of the

Ahmedabad

five
;

it

is

an abridgement
it

Bhagwut.

recognised
It
is

among

the Vaishnavs

some

parts of
or

which
on the

are recognised top of a tree.
in

by

others.

certainly indecent

to observe

naked

men

women

I have never appeared in that

the

Veds.

The Maharajas

wear

long

manner on a tree. I have not seen any pictures hair and consider themselves as " gopees"
one of the sacred books.
angles

(covvherdesses) in this world.

It is so stated in

The

hair on the
it

head

is

worn by the Hindus not with the
:

object that

may

hold us by

and pull
a mere

us up to heaven

it

is

to

be

tied

up

at

the

time of worship.
education.

The

plaintiff is

humbug when he
female
school
in

pretends to encourage female

I have heard that he opened a
in

Surat

;

and

he

collected

subscriptions

Bombay

for

defraying

its

expenses.

At
The

the meeting of the

Bhattias held in 1855,

several

resolutions

were passed,

one of which was to prevent females
season.
object

from

going

to the

temples at night

during the cold
I have seen

was

to

prevent

them being

defiled

by the Maharajas.

Goculadhishjee
their dress I

make signs to females two or three times about five or six years ago. From knew the women belonged to our caste. The place in which the Maharaj 's
is

females reside
his

separate

from

the place

where these

acts are committed.

I have been to

bed-room, and have seen females going into and coming out of his bed- room.
five

I

have

been there only once,
list

or six years ago.

He

had sent
the

for

me, as there was a subscription
bed-rooms
a female
to
:

to

be prepared.
I

Widows
seen

are

constantly

near

Maharajas'
to

it

is

their

business.

have

Dwarkanathjee Maharaj giving a signal
his

go into his

bed-room.

On

seeing me, he held back

hand with
and
the

She was

asking

something

of the

Maharaj,

latter said

which he was making the signal. " take this" (Witness

explains the very incedent attitude and signal made.)

The

female was a married woman,

about twenty years of age.
the occasion of her marriage.

I once

threw

golal on the

mother-in-law of

my

daughter, on
not in the
present of

This
it.

sprinkling of golal

was done with
golal,

respect,

way

in

which

Maharajas

throw

On

throwing

the

T

made her a

18


138
money.
1

on which occasion
golal,

remember one Matoojee Maharaj held a meeting some years ago at Mahaluxmee, golal was thrown. In the island of Beyt, when the Maharajas throw
touch
the
females.

they
;

Licentious

songs

are

sung by

females

on

occasions

of

marriage

but

when they

are

addressed to the Maharajas, the females singing

them wish
time being

for carnal intercourse

with them (the Maharajas).
to

In some songs, on occasions of marriage,
exchange husbands,
for the

the

women on
seen
If

one side wish those on other side
is

of course.

Such a thing
the
seats

never done

;

it

is

carried into

practice only with the Maharaj.

I

have

of

Maharajas

at

Bombay,
Sati/a

Beyt,
at

and Mandavie
all,

worshipped

by

Vaishnavs.
prevail

the Bhattias of

Bombay were
in

educated

such adulteries
not a
full

would not
of the
is

amongst them.

The

report
:

the

Prakash
the

is

report

Bhattia
omitted.

meeting held in 1855

the resolution

about

females

and the

Maharajas

Ke-examined by Mr. Anstey.
the
is

"

At

the time of the Bhattia meeting in 1855, I read

Smnmacliar

in which the

substance of the resolution

about the

females

is

given.

It

also correctly given in the

Jam-i-Jamshed.
year

(These papers are put in as exhibits.)

The
it

resolution

was not embodied
into
force until
is

in the report published in the

Satya Prakash, because
primary exertions

was

not

come

a

afterwards.

I think the

singing of licentious songs on
ot

occasions of marriage

going

out of fashion

through the

the

Satya

Prakash.

The Maharajas

sitting in conclave

threatened to fine

me

once,

because I had a

controversy with them.

They have

committed
:

many

such extortions.

The
of
its

plaintiff

said
fact.

he had opened a female school at Surat

I

had no further knowledge

being a

There

is

a principal temple of a Maharajah at Beyt."

Fonrtemth Day,
Dr.

Tursday,

lifh

Fehruary,

1862.

(10.)

Bhawuo Dajee, examined by Mr. Anstey.
practitioner.

—"

I

am

a Graduate

of

the

Grant Medical College, and a private
College.

I

am
a

a prizeman of the Elphinstone
I

I

won a
ot

prize
late

on the

best

essay

on

Female

Infanticide in Kattiawar.

was

a

member
I

the

'

Board
of the

of Education,

and

am

Fellow

of

the

sity.

am

a

member
I

Bombay Branch
others.

of the
is

Royal Asiatic
school

Bombay UniverSociety, the Bombay
endowed
the

Geographical Society
in

and several
a

There

a female
not

permanently
of

my

name.

am

Shenvi Brahmin,

and

a

member

Vallabhacharya
a particular

sect.

I have obtained a diploma of the Grant Medical College.
the history
the I
natives,

I have taken

interest in
classes

and

antiquities

of

my
first first

country.

My

practice

extends

amongst

all

of

and I was
plaintiff,

the
I

Graduate

employed by the Maharajas of
half ago, once or

Bombay.
twice

know

the

whom

saw about a year and a

professionally.

Mr. Anstey.
Er. Bhawoo.

—What was nature — " Am bound, my
the
I
in

of the

disease ?
to

Lord,

name

the

disease

which

I

came

to

know

confidentially

the
is

course

of

my

profession ?

Sir

M. Sausse.

It

a proper objection on the part ot this gentleman.

139
Mr. Anstey
were bound
cited authorities to

show

that the objection cannot be upheld.

One

of the

pleas asserts distinctly that the plaintiff
to

suffered from a certain disease,

and the defendants

prove

it.

The

objection

was overruled.

^'itness

continued.

— " The

disease

was
it,

syphilis,

which
to

is

commonly

known
was

as

the

venerial disease.

I did not treat

him
a

for

he mentioned

me

that

he

suffering
literally

from " chandee," and would send

man

to

me

the following

day.

" Chandee"

means chancre, an

ulcer.

There were two friends present.
retired as soon as the
visit

Mr.

Lukhmidass Khimjee and
began
to

Eao Saheb Vishwanath Narayen, who

plaintiff

describe to

me

the disease.

So

far as

I

remember I did not

him

again.

He

said
to

the story of

the case would be explained to

me

the next day.

It

was communicated

me by

Gover-

dhundass,

plaintiff's

secretary

and

disciple.
to the witness entering

(Mr. Bayley again objected

into the
to

particulars.

Mr. Anstey
Plaintiff said

argued and cited authorities as
to

to the objection.

Witness
objection

Sir

M. Sausse.

me

that he

would send Goverdhundass.
to

The

was overruled).
and
in the

Witness conti-

nued.

— Goverdhundass came
He He

me

the next day, and said Maharaj Jadunathjee was sufferinspection,

ing from chancre.

I insisted
did not

upon an ocular
send
I
for

meantime

prescribed
similar

simple ointment.

me

again.

I

have

attended three
at Surat in

other

cases connected with Maharajas.

saw Jadunathjee's father

December 1849.
was a private
knowledge of
reputation
;

I went

to his house.

lived

on the second

story of his house.

There

staircase pointed out to

me, by
first

which a person could
story.

pass out

without the a good

those in the rooms on the

The

plaintiff does

not bear

I

have

a

very

unfavorable

opinion
:

as to his

character

for chastity

and morality.

I have

known only one learned Maharaj The Maharajas are respected for
as incarnations
of Krishna.

the rest are not above the average of ordinary Brahmins.
their descent, not for their learning.

They

are worshipped

I

have seen

them worshipped.
to the

After

the visitors

have paid
is

their respect to the idol, they go to

pay

it

Maharaj who

sits outside.

There

no order

among

visitors

;

there

is

great hustling
is

and elbowing of men and women
of the cords.

together.

At

the

entrance to the inner room, there
in their hands.

a railing on which two persons stand with large cords
I have

Accidents have occurred from the striking

known an

instance in which ornaments

and hundreds rushing
their

to

have seen the Maharaja's bath, drink the water dripping from his " lungotee." The women apply
lost

were

in the crowd.

I

hands

to the soles of his feet
is

and eat the

dust.
to

In the compound of

this

(the

Bhohas
to the

leshwur) temple, there

a one storied house,
of the

which the Maharaj

repairs after

he

done with

the
to

personal worship

image.

The
in the
is

devotees pay

more

attention

Maharaj than

the

idol.

There are two rooms

house and two staircases, one lead-

ing to the temple and one to the outer gate. the Maharaj 's bed-room.

There
In

an entrance from the
faces

zenana into

The inmates
of

of the

zenana have their
this
;

always covered, but

the faces of the female devotees are uncovered. representing
the
sport

temple I have seen several pictures
I
don't

Krishna with

the gopees

think

they

were indecent.

About twenty years
His conversation was
sions,

ago, I
all

saw a Maharaj exhibiting indecent
:

pictures to

men and women.
occa-

about
to

a

Maharaj applied

women it was somewhat indecent. On one or two me for medicines which would prevent a woman from
with Jeevunjee

being

pregnant.

I had conversation

Maharaj

al)Out

the

immorality of the other

Maharajas, once publicly.

I remonstrated with him, but he said he had no control over the

adulterous acts of the Maharajas.

This was about three years ago

The Maharajas

are sectaries,

140
and are not good Brahmins.
at sacrifices, taking charity

A

Brahmin has

six duties to perform

:

Sacrificing

and

assisting

and giving
fit

charity, &c.

The Maharajas only take

charity.

The

great majority of

them

are not

to be gooroos.

Their acts are inconsistent with the an:

cient doctrines of the Hindoos.
father,

A

gooroo

is

his relative or the family priest.
initiation,

There

a person who initiates a child it may be his is no mention of " tun, mun and dhun,"
is
it

in our " gayetri," or verse of

which
:

to
is

be recited

only mentally.

It is not

innocent
adultery.

sport to

throw " golal" on

a female

considered one

of the three forms of

(Reads the translation of a passage from one of the Hindu law books called Miiax)-a.)

The Law about Adultery

man

is now told. [Adultery means the mutual connection of a with another's wife, (or the means of bringing about the connection.)]

V^asa describes three

varieties
first

of

adultery,

in

order that the adulterer

may

receive

the punishment for crime of the of the highest degree.
Fi)-st

degree or for crime of the middle degree, or for crime
spots,

Adallery.

—In

uninhabited

on

untimely occasions with (slang) language

other than the current language of the country, casting lewd glances towards another's wife " or smiling" [(sporting) addition in the Marathi translation] this is called first adultery.

Middle Adultery. Enticing [a woman] by good perfumes [(such as sandle, Buka, Argaja, &c.) addition in the Marathi translation] flowers, incense, ornaments, clothes, food,
is called middle adultery. Highest Adultery. Sitting in retirement and on one seat, and embracing each other, placing hands on [one another's] shoulders, and holding [each other's] hands and playing by taking hold of each other's hair is called highest adultery. Note. The above is a translation of the Vyavaharadhyaya of the Mitakshara from the Marathi translation of the Sanskrit original, published in Bombay by order of Government in 1844. I have compared this English translation with the original Sanskrit text published under the authority of the committee of Public Instruction in 1829 at Calcutta. The brackets at the end indicate words in the Sanskrit Original but omitted in the Marathi

and drink,

translation.

Who
or

ever touches, " the ends of the cloth passed round the loins," the cloth over the
in a solitary place or
is

breast, the thigh or the hair, or

who converses who occupies one seat (with another's wife,) Manu. 6. He who with pride or folly or
" The word "
lila" means amorous H. H. Wilson's dictionary and

also to be

caught

flattery says,

an improper time punishment.) that he enjoyed this female
at
(for

before, that is also considered adultery.
sport.

The dance

called

" Eas

lila" is

mentioned in

Professor

which the Maharajas wear

their

Bhagwut. I can best describe the way in hair by showing a photograph taken by my brother (Dr.
in the
is is

Narayan Dajee).

(The

photograph
their hair

put in as an
peculiar.

exhibit.)

Except in one

respect, the

way
and

in

which they wear

There have long been public

discussions
notice that
silver

notices of the conduct

and character of the Maharajas.
five

The

earliest bitter

I saw was in the Dhoomketoo
toe-rings.

or six years ago.

I believe all the
libel

Maharaj as wear

judgment
your

:

— " Oh,

This passage at the end of the alleged

I would read thus, according to
spoil the daughters,

my

ye Maharajs, acting on that commentary, you

&c, of

disciples, raise

raundlee.' "•

I think that upon the whole
is

your hands from that, and destroy at once immoralities like the ' Rus " acting on that commentary" is quite positive.
the most emphatic part of

I think " desist from acting"

the

passage.

The

passage

is

addressed to the Maharajas generally.

The
;

plaintiff,

before he

was a Maharaj, had a very

bad reputation as

to his chastity at

Surat

but he was then equally revered as a Maharaj.
the course of

Cross-examined by Mr. Bay ley.

— " In

my
high

private practice,

I

have atsure
the

tended upon hundreds of different castes of natives, both

and

low.

I

am

141
plamtiflf

used the word " chandee."
disease.

It is possible patients

may
silver
;

be mistaken
it is

in

describing

the

symptoms of a

" Chandee" originally means

used as a slang term

for chancre.

To

Sir Joseph Arnould.

—"

I

was

told the plaintiff

employed another practitioner

;

he

did not like to expose himself.

To Mr. Bayley. " I think the plaintiff was not of a sanguine, but of a phlegmatic I know nothing of plaintiff's disease personally except what I was told by him and his secretary. I wish decidedly for a better state of things among the Hindus
temperament. he I heard from plaintiff that he had established a female school in Surat wanted to train up the girls in the doctrines of his sect. I have never been present at " Rus mundilees," they are described in books, and are known to exist as secret societies. they were in love with him. I think Krishna had no improper connection with the gopees
generally.
:
:

Mr. Bayley asked witness some questions about the Veds and Purans, when
Sir

Joseph Arnould
If

said.

— This

is

all

very interesting, but

we must
the

really

save
surely

time

in this enquiry.

we were

sitting here to listtn to lectures

on

Purans,

we

could have no better authority than Dr.

Bhawoo

Dajee.

to the

Re-examined by Mr. Anstey. The story of the gopees and Krishna is not confined Uneducated persons take it literally, but not so enlightened Vallabhacharya sect.

persons.

To

Sir

M.

Sausse.

— " Some

•"

of the Maharajas, as I have heard, are
;

men

of unspot-

ted character,

men

of piety,

and good men

and therefore

I said the passage refers to

the

Maharajas generally.

To

Sir

Joseph Arnould.
whole
class of

I think the passage in question
to the

is

directed as an exhorta-

tion to the

Maharajas, not

plaintiff personally.

To
that
it

Sir

M.

Sausse.

— " From —"
I

the context, I say the remark

is

not necessarily

directed

to the plaintiff,

or necessarily implied against him.

It is possible a reader

may

understand

applies to the plaintiff.
Sir Joseph Arnould.

To

myself understand
it
;

it

as a general exhortation,

and any

intelligent reader

would so understand
Sausse.


;

I

mean

a reader of fair ordinary intelligence.
does
not

To

Sir

M.

— " The
the

expression " adopt a virtuous course of conduct"
plaintiff
it

imply any imputation against the

is

an exhortation
is

to set

a good example.

To
ment

Sir Joseph Arnould.

— " The
words

exhortation 1 think

carried on from the

commenceto

of the paragraph to

" desist from

that."
is

Nothing

is

imputed

the

plaintiff distinctly.

I think decidedly that the plaintiff
inferential,

not singled out.

Any

imputation

upon him would be

not direct.
of opinion that
it

To

Sir

M.

Sausse.

—"
is

I

am

is

not intended against the

plaintiff

in

a direct manner.

The article in the original English translation, now in my hands, tends
don't think the plaintiff

does not allude specially to the
that way.

plaintiff.

The
I

Reading the

Gujerattee article,

intended to be included

among

the licentious

Maharajas.

From

my

knowledge of his antecedents, T would include him.

142
To
Sir Joseph Arnould.

— As

a reader not acquainted with his antecedents, I would be

doubtful whether I must include
(11.)

him

or not."

Dr. Dhh-ajram Dulputram, examined by Mr. Anstey.
I

— "I

am

a Graduate of

the Grant Medical College and a private practitioner.

know

the plaintiff,

whom

I

first

met

in July

1860, at the

girl school

of

Munguldass Nathoobhoy.
from venerial

In consequence of some-

thing said to me, I called upon
professionally at his house.

him
was
to

at his house.

In December 1860, I attended upon him
affection
;

He
it

suffering

I

made an
it

ocular
;

examinationsaid he

of

it,

and found
it

be an ulcer.

He
the

gave

me

the history of the case

he an

had suffered from

three or four

months previously and had caught
blackwash
externally,

from

impure intercourse with a woman.
internally.
Plaintiff said

I

prescribed

and

mercury
and

he suffered some

years

ago

from

the

same

affection,
if

had

taken a preparation of mercury, prepared by himself.

Plaintiff asked

me
at

I had read in
it.

medical works that the disease would go by having intercourse with a temale free from
I said I had not.

He

then said he had twice tried the

experiment

Surat.

He

suc-

ceeded once in

it,

but not the second time, because he was then

much
him
I
did

reduced.
in

Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley.
appeared
to

— " The
three

plaintiff,

when
his

I saw

December 1860,
as
to

have been suffering

for

months previously.
of

My

opii^ion

the

ulcer

make a personal examination. I treated the plaintiff for more than a month. I had seen him in Surat a There is a difference of opinion among doctors as to whether good many years ago. mercury is necessary in Syphilis. The blackwash I applied externally was mercurial. I have treated a good many persons in high rank for this complaint. The plaintiff was alone the room had more than two windows. In the comin the backroom when I saw him mencement of the treatment, I told plaintiff not to go out. I saw him sometime before I I have known the defendant for the last seven or eight years but never treated him. communicated to him the plaintiflPs complaint, nor even to Lukhmidass Khimjee, nor to
being syphilitic was confirmed by plaintiffs histor}^
case.
:

;

anybody

else.

I never mentioned anything about this to anybody before appearing I was born a Yallabhacharya, and
I

in

the
to

witness-box.

am

a Kyast.
for

I do not at present go

any of the Maharaja's temples.
plaintiff did not tell

have

been

practising

the

last

three

years.

The

me

he had prickly-heat."

(12.)

Lukhmidass Khimjee, examined by Mr. Dunbar.

—" I

deal in piece goods and

member of the Bhattia caste. I am one of the twelve shetts of the Mahajuns. I have known the plaintiff for the last ten or eleven years. I first became acquainted at Beyt, Our acquaintance ripened into friendship. At Beyt, whither I had been on a pilgrimage. I made presents to him when I invited him to my residence. I also made presents to him on another occasion. There is a temple dedicated to Luxmijee at Beyt, where I once

am

a

saw Jadunathjee Maharaj.
golal

There were females
it

present

in

the

temple.

After
so,

throwing

on the image, he threw

upon a number of persons, and in doing
fourteen

he pressed the
breast, she
it

breasts of a Bhattia girl about

years

of

age.

As he squeezed her
he

smiled.

He

threw the golal upon the crowd, so that they might not see through
I used to visit

what

he was doing.
uncle,

him

at the place

where

had

put

up.

My

maternal

Damodhur Dewjee, accompanied me. I went to plaintiff about one o'clock in the when he was in his bed. My uncle went up and shampoed one of his legs. I went up and followed his example. It is a great mark of respect to shampoo the Maharaj 's The Bhattia girl above alluded to, came there with a widow, about a quarter of an legs. The widow whispered something into plaintiff's ears, upon hour after our arrival there.
day,

143
which he desired us
to go out.
girl

We
left

obeyed the order.

Tlie

widow came out with us and
outside,
out,

went

in again.

The

was

in the bed-room.

Wlien I went

my
shut

uncle
tlie

indoor,

formed

me

of the visit of the females.

Afterwards, the widow came

The girl was inside all the time. In put up the chain and held it with her hand. consequence of certain conversation I had with my uncle, we both went in again to see " Kas lila" i. e., the plaintiffs conversation with the girl. We were allowed to go in the

moment we

expressed a wish.

I

saw the

plaintiff

having carnal connection with
lila."

the

girl.

Several people are often anxious to see such "

Eas

Plaintiff asked

my

uncle

what

I would pay for seeing the " I

Ras

lila."

My

uncle said that I would serve
to

him
I

(plaintiff).

had

to

pay some money before
old.

I

was

allowed

see

the

" Ras

lila."

was then
as

eighteen or nineteen years
as the female
act,

The
to

who

is

defiled

have

and sure

to lead to the paradise
;

who are allowed to pay money for the indulgence. known as " Gowlok." I left
followers

see the

"

lila,"

well

It is considered a pious

the room

shortly

after-

wards from shame

my

uncle remained inside.

Two

or

three

days

subsequently,
I

I

saw
pil-

another married Bhattia female enter the

plaintiff's

bed-room.

When

went

on

a

grimage

to

mundlee."

Gocul Muttra at Benares about eighteen years ago, I first heard of a I was present at " Eus mundlee" at Beyt about the time I spoke of.

"

Eus
some

There

were twelve or thirteen
days at the appointed
the stories of the
to the book,

men and On place.
tlie

thirteen or fifteen females.

It

was held daily
offering

for

these occasions, after the
book.

persons had

taken their
is

seats,

84 and

252 were read from a
fruit,

Some

and
is

sweetmeat,

or parched

rice is

placed upon

the book.

then made The sweet-

meat

or fruit

then distributed

among

the meeting

The persons who
the room.
in the room.

are not

members,
spread

and who came merely
meeting, and

to listen to the stories,

then

left

I was a stranger at the
I

when

I retired the
floor

men and women were
before

saw beds
was
a

near

each

other

on the

the

lights

were put

out

There

heap of

mattrasses which were put separately on the floor after the strangers had

withdrawn.
to

My
The
exis-

uncle was a
*'

member, and was

desired

by the other members
;

to
five

ask

me

go

out.

Eus mundlees"

are a matter of notoriety
is

even a child of
:

years knows
there,

of

its

tence.

Their existence

notorious this

way

—they
are
for

read

ths

stories

misinterpret

them, and have connection with the v/omen. Each member must go to the meeting with his wife, except the " Varkats," who are admitted without their wives. Those followers of
the Maharajas
devotees.

who are members of The Varkats are procurers

the
of

society

reputed
the

to

be

pious

and
one

staunch
occasion^

women

Maharajas.
corrupted
us,

On

plaintiff told

me

" the Varkats are the persons who have
plaintiff,

Maharajas."
there.

another occasion at Beyt, I was sitting near the
seeing me, she was
fore said

when a female came

On On

ashamed and drew her
I

cloth partially over her face.
at

My

uncle

there-

we would go away.
hands of females
is

went and stood

some

distance,

and saw the female and
the

the plaintiff retire into his bed-room.
his toes the

I saw plaintiff on three or four occasions press with

who worshipped him by
Bombay.

touching

soles

of his

feet.

Pressing the toes

the signal for adultery.

I saw plaintiff at Byculla where he

had put

up, the second or third day after his arrival in

144

Fifteenth

Day,

Thursday,

20th

February,
"

1862.

Lukhmidass Khimjee, examined by Mr. Dunbar.
evidence
Sir
will

On

account

of

my

having given
of

here

the

other

day,

I

was abused and

ill-treated

by a number
on

Banias.
the

M. Sausse
notice

'If

you give the
matter.

names

of those

persons

affidavit,

Court

take

of the

Mr.
Sir

Anstey corroborated the witness having been

an eye-witness of the
in

assault.

M. Sausse ordered
punished by
fine

it

to

be explained

to

all

Court,

that

it

was informed of

the threats
severely

and intimidation used against the witness, and that such conduct would be
or

imprisonment, or both.

Witness continued.

—"
a

I

am

aware of plaintiffs arrival in Bombay in
arrival.

1860.

I

saw

him two
two or
introduced
furniture,

or

three

days

after

his

I

was

in

the habit

of seeing

him

frequently,

three

times
to

day.

I

was a
I

friend

of his.
to

I

invited

him

my

friends,
sofas,

and induced them
&c.

invite

him.

I

him to made him
of two

my

house,

presents of

lamps,
in

chairs,

know

plaintiff

was the
an

editor

pamphlets.
printer
I

I

had a hand

getting

them
for

published.

I

made
of

arrangement

with a

named
at
his

Gunput Crushnajee,
request.
his

the

publication edited
his

plaintiff's
:

two

pamphlets.

did so

The pamphlets were
secretary,

by

plaintiff

the

Maharaj

dictated,

and

Goverdhundas,

acted

as

amanuensis.

1

have seen the handbill issued
to
;

by plaintiff", asking the Vaishnavs to become mended him to issue a handbill to gain more
contents
of

subscribers

the the

pamphlet.

I

recomthe

subscribers
letter

Maharaj
in

dictated

the
in

handbill.

Plaintiff"
is

caused

a

to

be

published

the

Chabook
roads,

newspaper,
alluded
to

which
the

there

mention
before

made
the

of the

Walkeshwur
to

in

libel.

Plaintiff",

action, said

me

:

—"

and

Byculla

All the Maharajas

are

running away from

I

have therefore come down
editors."

Bombay in consequence to Bombay for the

of publications

in

the

newspapers,

and

purpose of discussing and debating with

the
bay.
said

Pie I

asked
not

me

if

an action would proceed during his absence from

Bom-

I said
the

did

know.

Kursondas

Nensey, who
Plaintiff"

was present
then asked
I

on the occasion,

action

would proceed even in his absence.
at
his

me

if his

evidence
that

could

be taken
;

own
to

house

if

he remained in

Bombay.
to

said

that
six

was
ago,

impossible

that

Jeevunlalljee
failed
if

Maharaj
obtain
to
to

was

summoned
Court,

Court

some
an

years

but that
then

all

efforts

for

him an exemption
to

from attendance.
get

Plaintiff*

asked whether,
!

he

were

go
the

he would
that

elevated

seat

near
off

the judge the
for

I

subsequently

came

conclusion

the

plaintiff

had not

left

practices

he

pursued at Beyt.
of female

For a few months I was misled by

his professions

the

promotion
at

education,

widow

remarriage,

&c.

One day
about

whilst

I

was

sitting

the

plaintiff's

temple,

two females,

one a

married

woman

25 years of

age,

and the other a widow, came up.
silver

produced a
seeing
signal,

goblet

which she had concealed under her
to

The former, when she approached the staircase,^ The Maharaj, on clothes.
bed-room.
about
the

her,

made

her a signal,

go into his
of the

She did not understand the

to

whereupon a female " come her and said
Plaintiff asked

servant
hither,

Maharaj,
!"

24 years of
females

age,

beckoned
the

Vaishnav
go and

Both

then

entered
for

bed-room.
lication

me
I

to

make
to

immediate
the veranda,

arrangements

the

pub-

of the

pamphlet.

went downstairs

but having had a suspicion

145
in

my

mind,

I

wont up again
outside

into

the

same room where

I

had been

before.

I found
first

the

widow

sitting

the

door.

I

remained there about half an hour,
I also

when

the

Maharaj came out and turned pale on observing me.
:

saw
her

the
that

young female
plaintiff
:

come out
carnal

she

was
with
to

smiling
her.

and

laughing.

I
the

thereupon
silver

thought
in

intercourse

She

had

,

not

goblet

hand

it

had must
told

have been
plaintiff I

given

plaintiff.

The widow and
again in
the

the

young

had some business and he had
visited
plaintiff

better

send his own

woman man
took

then

left.

I

to the printer.

I

also

left

and

evening,

when he

me

into

an inner

room for the purpose of private conversation. He opened the conversation by asking me what I had done with regard to opening female schools here. I said to him you profess to be a reformer, while inwardly you Maharaj, this is all a sham
'
!

commit such
convez'sation.

acts

!'

He

denied the

charge.

He

said

he

had

been

inside

for

the

purpose of accepting sweetmeat or

fruit.

Plaintiff

then adroitly

changed the subject of
subject with plaintiff.

On

another

occasion,

I

had conversation on the same
sweetmeats
other

I said you told

me

that

you
the

accepted
the

from female

devotees

openly

and

how
to

it

was that you went
so

inside

day with the young woman.
said

Plaintiff said

he did

at

the

desire

of

woman.
I

I then

why he
with
to

kept

the

widow cut
the

;

which

plaintiff

made no
feet,

reply.

have seen male and female devotees touching the
seen

soles

of the

Maharaj 's

and I have
medicine.

him

press

his

toes

hands of

females,

young and
the

beautilul.

About a week subsequently
I

what I have
in

said above,

I saw plaintiff

taking

some

had

another
not
to

conversation

the

bed-room
'

with

plaintiff

same evening.
to

He
males

directed
;

me

fathom him and said
for

What
to

income do we derive from you,
us,
I"ll

if

you make arrangements
Oodeypore
those
'

large

profits

undertake
or

root

out

adultery

from the practices of the
theft
to

Maharajas.'
or

Plaintiffs

lather

grandfather
not
at

having

committed a
allowed
syphilis.

in

the

neighbourhood,

he

would

any

time be

enter

territories
!

without

a

pass.

Plaintiff

said

he

suffered

from

I

said,

Maharaj

I

am now

perfectly

convinced

you
is

have

not

reformed

your
females

conduct
;

as yet.'

Plaintiff

said do not fathom.
for
it,

Our income
will

chiefly derived
to

from up

if

you make other
from
;

arrangements
the

I

undertake
it

root

out the

practice
at

of

adultery

among

Maharajas.

He

said
in

was impossible
conduct.

to give

once
to

such

practices

but I have
I

my

Plaintiff asked

me

bring in

Dr. IBhav/oo Dajee.

made some reform took Dr. Bhawoo
(Witplaintiff

Dajee
ness

to the plaintiffs residence.

describes

what occurred then and

Eao Saheb Tishwanath was with us Some days in the evening.)
of Dr. Dhirajram. of
to plaintiff

at the time.

afterwards

informed
sickly.

me

that he

was under the treatment
the

Pie

became pale and
I860-

I took Dr.

Bhawoo Dajee
of

about the middle
adultery
or
is

September
I

The

general

reputation

Maharajas

as regards
ten, twelve,

very bad.

have personal
meeting

knowledge of the Ucentious conduct of
of the Bhattias in 1855, I

fifteen of

them.

After the

had conversation with Jeevunjee Maharaj on the subject of the We said the conduct of the other Maharajas. I as well as others were sent for by him. Dr. Bhawoo, Yenayekprinters were discussing, and he had been served with a summons. row Wasudew, and if I mistake not ISTarayen Dinanathjee, were there. Dr. Bhawoo, said to the Maharaj* " reform your conduct, be pious, establish schools, preach to your followers,
&c., and none dare publish

any thing against you."
substance.
;

It

was a long

lecture that Dr.

Bhawoo
the
Cursetjee

gave

:

I merely

give the

Jeevunjee said

he would not be able

to control

acts of the other

Maharajas

as their principal income

was derived from females.

Cama, who was
39

present on

the occasion,

said a

great deal to

Jeevunjee Maharaj.

The

;

146
Maharaj
I will
said,

"

As

regards myself, I
practices."

now

leave off such

am He

ready

to give

my

signature to any arrangements
signature.

offered to

give,
of,

but did not give his

Jeevunjee,

on finding

me
;

on

one

side,

accused
place.

me

and reproved
to

me

for,

divulging

secret matters.

No
last

arrangement took
year

I

was

invited
it

the
to

general

meeting of
I discon-

Yaishnavs held
tinued

my

consent was not taken, as

ought

have been.

my

visits

to plaintiff afterwards.

Cross-examined

by Mr. Bayley.

— " The

plaintiff

was about 28 years
that

old

when

I saw

him

at

Beyt

;

he

is

now about 40
as religious.

years of age.

At

time, I considered such acts as

plaintiff

was guilty

of,

My

views have changed since the " slavery bond," to

which I put
in the year

my
1860

signature as did several Justices of the

Peace put

theirs.

I

knew from
presided

her dress that the young female I saw at Beyt was a married woman.
at

Plaintiff

an

exhibition for the distribution
Plaintiff expressed

of prizes to the female schools, of

Munguldass Nathoobhoy.
saying the
girls

an opinion against the
doctrines
only.

system

of

education,

should have been taught religious
this.

Venayeck Wasudewjee
at the
It

remonstrated against
time.

The

subject

of remarriage

was talked about everywhere
remarriage.

A

meeting was convened by

plaintiff to discuss the question of
to

was
I

largely attended.

I discontinued going

the plaintiff

on account of his bad

conduct.

am
bay.

not acquainted with the two females
Plaintiff is said to

who

visited the plaintiff at his residence in

Bom-

be a gooroo of religion, but he
to

does not

act

so

;

he never gives

instruction.

It is true

he ought

do

so.

I signed the " slavery
forfeited

bond" unwillingly.
the Court.

my

coming here
five

to give

evidence, I have

that bond.

To
saw

—"
I

By
have
house
also

I

spoken

or six years ago to

my

friend Mr.

Dhunjeebhoy Framjee, partner
plaintiff,

in the

of Wallace

&

Co., about the

immoral

practices of

I

at Beyt.

had

about a year ago conversation on the same with Ivhataoo Muckunjee, Mathooradass Lowjee,

and Nursey

Jetta.

The

conversation took place in the garden house

of
at

Gokuldass
Zanzebar,
I

Tejpal

when
also

my

maternal uncle Damoder Dewjee was there.
to

He

is

now
year."

have

spoken
(13.)

Mr. Munguldass Nuthoobhoy
Lulloohhai,

at

Matheran

last

Kalabhai

examined by Mr.
I

Anstey.

—" I

am

a
in

Kyast, and

a

student of the Elphinstone Institution.
three years ago.
subject of
his

know

the plaintiff
I

whom

I saw

Surat

about
the

He

was a friend of
I visited

my

father.

had a conversation with him on

widow remarriage,
I

him
first

frequently and

saw him

in

different
to

rooms in
him.
I

house.
sitting

used to receive from plaintiff folded jxiwn soparee when I went
story

was

one day with him on the
the

when

a

Banya
fourteen

girl

came
fifteen

in

company
She
sat

with a female servant of

Maharaj.

She was

about

or

years.

passed across the hall into a side room, and a

Banya who was
the
side
hall

sitting

near us got up and
servant
to

went away.
in the hall.

Plaintiff left the hall

and went

into the side room.

The female
I

Pour

or five females

came

into

afterwards.

went

have

my
it,

usual paren soparee from plaintiff towards the

room, and

on opening

the door of

saw
give

plaintiff seated

on a couch opposite the door, kissing and embracing the young woman.

Plaintiff

on seeing

me

left

the female and
;'

came

to

the

door

and said

'

Oh

I

forgot

to

you the usual pawn soparee
to get

so saying

he came out with

me and
one

d^ired his atten-

dant

me

the

pawn

soparee which I

received and went away.

Plaintiff

went back

to the inner

room.

I used to visit the plaintiff in

Bombay.
in
sin

On
their

occasion, I

saw two

or three " chachias" sitting near plaintiff

who advocated
was no
in

presence
;

the

adulterous

doctrines of the sect.

Plaintiff said there

adultery

but

it

was wholesome

and

purified the blood.

PTe gave an instance of the athletes of the Oaekvvar Court,

who he

147
said kept

maay

concubines, and used

to

engage themselves in cohabiting with them before

they come out

for

a wrestle.

On

another occasion

when
was
in

I was standing in the house yard

of plaintiff's residence,

two

or three

Vaishnavs who were speaking
love

(pointing to a female) that Jadunathjee Maharaj

with h-r.

among themselves Some days
her I followed
to

said,

after

when

I did not attend the school on account of a holiday, I saw the
road.

same female passing
her

by the Kalbadevi
to plaintiffs.

I was going on some business
into the private
sitting.

;

but on seeing

She went
plaintiff"

room

of the Maharaj and I

went
the

the

visiting

room where
I smiled at

was

After a few minutes plaintilT followed

young womanout

and I remained

sitting in the visiting

room.

About half an hour

after,

he came

and

him when he asked me why I smiled. I told him you are effecting a great He smiled at this and made no remark. The young woman came out after a reform. Her dress was rufliled when she came out. From the dress time and went away smiling. and the jewels she had on, I presume she was a respectable woman. I had some converhe said it was published sation with plahitiff about the " Propagator of our own Keligion
' ;

on his behalf.

One day
;

at Surat,
told

I

saw
to

plaintiff"

refuse to

i\'!ow

some
in
feet

females
the

to

touch

the soles of his feet

and he

them
this,

touch the feet of his wife

zenana.
rise

He
to

explained to

me

afterwards, that

allowing

females

to

touch his

might give

suspicions as to his chastity.

After

while at

Eombay, I saw him
lies.
is

allowing females to
in Surat,

touch his

feet.

To

my

knowledge, the plaintiff
in adultery.

tells

His general reputation

was that he was immersed
at

My

father

Sheristedar in the

Sudder Adawlufc>
the
publication

Bombay.
libel.

The

respect paid to the plaintiff has not diminished since

of

the

Cross-examined by Mr.
Dhirajram.
I

Scoble.:

—" I

am 16

years old,
Plaintiff

and

am

the

nephew

of

Dr.
1

am

acquainted with the defendant.
I told

was a married

man when

saw him

at Surat.

Narmadashunker

of the plaintiff's acts

which I had seen.

Ee-examined by Mr. Anstey.
not the plaintiff's daughter."
(14.)

—"

I

am

sure that

the

female

whom

I

followed

was

Curseljee Muncher/ee, examined by Mr. Dunbar.
plaintiff's

—" I

am

the

manager

of the

Chabook newspaper, and know Purbhoodass, the

secretary,

who manages
by
a

this case.

He

brought

to

me

this hand-bill

(produced in court) and a small

pamphlet of " gurbees."
servant
of

I took the printed copies to plaintiff's residence,

where

I

was

told

tha

Maharaj that the money would be paid us by Purbhoodass."
(15.)

Canoba Gunputroic, examind by Mr. Dunbar.
the

—" I

am

a printer and
other

rememthe
sent
for

ber

having printed

" Propagator

n;anuscript which was brought to
to the

own Religioa" and me by Jadunathjee's men. The
of

our

pamphlets,

proof-sheets

were

Maharaj's house, to one Goverdhundass.

This

is

the

written

order

I received

sending proofs to Goverdhundass, at the house of Jadunathjee Maharaj."

Mr. Anstey
racy Case."

offered to

put

in the evidence

and judge's notes

in the

" Bhattia Conspi-

Mr. Bayley objected, on the ground that those proceedings did not concern the
Islr.

plaintifP.

Anstey argued at some length that the
;

proceedings
the

were

closely

connected

with
his

this case

there being this difference that, in the former,

plaintiff

acted

through

agent, and appeared

now

m

his Tiame to seek redress.

The two

cases are inseparably connected.


148
The Chief
Justice suggested the
better course

would be
in

to

cross-examine each witness
It

as to whether or not he signed the

" bundobust"

question.

did nor

appear

quite

necessary to put in the record and the judge's note in that case.

Mr. Anstey stated

in reply to

an enquiry made by the Court, that there were several

more witnesses

to

be examined

for the defendants.

The Chief

Justice

remarked

that,

in justice to the other suitors of the Court,

and with
of

the view to save pubUc time, no more evidence which

was

merely

corroborative
'

what
be

has been already adduced, should be formally recorded, but that such witnesses
only submitted to cross-examination.
to be

should

Witnesses as

to

new

facts

would of course be allowed

examined.

Sivtecrdh Dcvj, FridoJi, 2\st Fehniary 1862.

Mr. Anstey gave the
calling

gist of the

evidence each witness

was expected

to

give,

before

him

into Court.

(16.)

ChuUoorhhooj WaJjee, examined by
sect.

Mr. Anstey.
I
visited

—"
at

I
his

am

a

Bhattia
in

of

Val-

labhacharya

I

know

the

plaintiff,

whom

residence

Bombay.
servant

One

day, a female having gone into the hall, entered an

inner

room.

A

female

told plaintiff

something in his

ear,

whereupon he

left

the hall on pretence of going to
inside,

take

his dinner,

and entered the inner room.

Plaintiff

went

saying, I

am

going to dine.

About half an hour after he came out. The female came out soon after him and went away. I saw no change in her dress. After a kv; minutes the Maharaj again went to dine.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley.

—" I

used

to visit the plaintiff

almost dally.
is

I never
one
door.

saw

the zenana.

I

had once been
in
or

into the inner room, to

which there
to
tell

o'lly

I was

asked

to

go

by the
four

Maharaj,

who

wished

me
I

a

secret

story.

I

presented
the

him two

books

which he
to.

asked

from

me.

observed

nothing in

hands of the female above alluded
I did

I studied for a year and a
tell

half in

a school
I visit

under the defendant Karsandass.
the
great

not

him anything about
time.
is
;

the female.
plaintiff

temple

of

Jeevunlalljee

Maharaj.
present
of
at

I had conversation
the
there

with

about
it

adultery.

Kalabhai Laloobhai was

I

asked

plaintiff"

how was

that
this

great

men committed
replied
'

adultery
is

which

prohibition

in

the
it

Shastras.

To

plaintiff

there
of

no sin in adultery

on the

contrary

gives

strength

to

and

purifies

the

blood

man.

And

I say

this

from

my own

experience.'

Then

he gave an instance of the athletes of the Gaekwar Court.

to,

I

He-examined by Mr. Anstey. " When I went into saw a bed there. The books I presented to the

the

inner room
related
to

above
to

alluded

plaintiff'

the

Mahathe

rajas.

They were
after

written against the Maharajas, and I
in

gave them

plaintiff"

within

month

his

arrival

Bombay."
Cania,
at

(17.)

Cursctjec

Naasermavjce
persons

cross-examined
residence
of

by Mr. Bayley.

—"

I

was

present

with

some other

the

Jeevunlalljee

Maharitj,

when a


140
conversation
conversation
took
place.

There was

an

understanding

with

me

that

nothing

of

the

was ever to be divulged to any one or in a court of justice. Afterwards I am unwilling there was a similar understandmg with Lukhmidass Gocuklass and others. had two conversations with I divulge the conversation which was confidential. to
Jeevunjee

Maharaj,

on the

second
to

of

which Lukhmidass was present."
the

Mr. Anstey did not wish
subject
of
it.

press

witness

to

divulge

the

conversation

or

the

and know the

by Mr. Bayley. " I am a Bhattia Shrofl', had a conversation once at the house of KurThe Maharaj was sitting on a sofa, sondass Nensey about a year and a quarter ago. and we were sitting on the ground. The Maharaj spoke of the " Varkats." The owner asked him what was the explanation of the adultery committed by the offspring
(18.)

Damodhur

Jetta,

cross-examined
I

plaintiff,

with

whom

of

Gosavis.

He

said

whatever

evil

is

committed,

it

is

through
at

the

Varkats.

He

did

not
in

say he
other
to

was corrupted by them.
houses
as

The Varkats
of charity
;

are

present in the habit of living
acts,

persons'

a matter

they

commit bad

and go con-

stantly

the

Maharajas.

Re-examined by Mr. Anstey.
was summoned
(19.)
as

—"

Kursondass Nensey
case."

is

absent

from

Bombay

:

he

a

witness in

this

Munguhlass Naihoohkoy, examined by
I
the

Mr

Anstey.

—" I

am

a

member

of

the

Bania caste of the Vallabacharya sect.

am

a shett of
school.

my
I

caste,

a Justice of the Peace,

and a grand

juror.

I

have

founded

female

was present on one occasion
the

with others at the house of Jeewunjee Maharaj.
the subject of the adulteries of the Maharajas. the conduct and practices of
could.
lish
all

Dr.

Bhawoo opened

conversation on
to control

Jeewunjee said

he was

unable

the other Maharajas.
if

He

expressed a

wish

to

do

all

he

Dr.

Bhawoo remarked
against

that,

anything

them.

At

they adopted a virtuous course of conduct, none dare / a private conversation with Jeevunjee (which witness
that
it

divulged on being ordered to do so by the Court) he was informed
to

was impossible

put a stop

at

once to the practices

of the

Maharajas

;

their

chief

income was derived

from females, and they could not be prevented from

visiting the

Maharajas, &c.
preside at an exhibition

Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley.
of the girl's schools at

—" I

invited plaintiff once to

my

house."

Vallabhacharya

(20)—K}aiUano Muckunjer, examined by Mr. Anstey. sect. I am a member of the firm of Jewraz
in the Bhattia caste.
.

—"

I

am

a

member

of

the

Balloo,

and decide with him
1855.
I

any disputes

I was present in the garden of Goculdass Tejpall about
at the

six or seven years

ago.

I

was

present

Bhattia

meeting in
for

remember
give the
I

having been present at a meeting convened by a Maharaj
for himself.

the purpose of raising funds
it,

Several Maharajas ask for

particulars of

any one

of

my

visits

unless the

money when they want Maharaj's name
the gate
to his

and I cannot
mentioned.

is

remon-

strated with a

Maharaj about the

size of
is

temple,

which could

not admit

men and
crowd.
I

females separately.
I

There

at the

temples a

promiscuous

crowd of

men and

women, which
MuhaiLijus,

consider improper.

I have

not observed an instance of indecency in the

have

heard

some

immoral

and indecent songs

addressed

by

females to the

when

Ihc latter are invited to their h.ouses."

— —
150
(^21.) Nui\^('//

Jetha, cross-examined by Mr. Biiyley.

—What

have

you come here to

prove

?

Witness.

I don't

know what

I

am

to

be asked.
thing.

Mr. Bayley^Then, I wont ask you any
(22.)
tion for his

Tliackarsey Narronjee to Mr. Anstey.

— " The

plaintiff

has a very bad reputa-

morahty and chastity
Joseph Arnould.

in

Kutch Mandavie

since the last seven or eight years.

To

Sir

—"

I heard that he had a bad reputation tor his adultery."

(23.) — Roicjee
vie.

Sitnderjee to

Mr. Anstey.

—"

I

knew

the

plaintiff

in

Kutch

Manda-

He

bore a bad character as to his morality.

To Mr. Bayley.
heard that the
that gambling
(24.)

—"

It

is

well

known

that

all

the

Maharajas are

bad.

In
I

Kutch I
also

plaintiff's character

was worse than that of other Maharajas.

heard

was going on

in his house."
to

Kandass Munckarain

Mr.

Anstey.

—" I

am

Assistant

Engineer

in

the
bore-

Garrison Engineer's Department,

am

a native of Surat,

and know the

plaintiff.

He

a bad character in Surat as to his chastity and morality.

To Mr. Bayley.

—"

I don't think any but
Plaintiff

the

over-devoted

could have

had a good
and
love."
to

opinion as to the plaintiff.

was

of a frolicsome character, given to play

To Mr.
temple."
(24.)

Anstey. — " I

heard from those who visited

the temple that
of females

plaintiff

used

laugh and smile and joke

and appear

gay in

the presence

who went

to the

Janai-dan

Rmnchundra

to

Mr. Anstey.

—"

I

am

employed

in the Post

Master
the

General's Office, and

am

the author of a Marathee book called "

Kavi

Charitra," on

subject of the Vallabhacharya religion."

(26.)

Narmadashunker Lalshunker
interest in the question
plaintiff at

to

Mr. Anstey.

—"

I

am
I

a

Naggur Brahmin,,
the

and have taken an

of

widow remarriage.
lie
declared

am

man who had
widow

a discussion with the
remarriage.

a public meeting.

himself against

I furnished the manuscript to the last witness for the book on the Vallabha;

charya sect

it

was

in reality

my

production.
to the

I have

studied the books of the Vallabha-

charya

sect,

and have no doubt as
in Surat,

meaning

of tuti,

mun, and dhun

;

the dedication

thereof includes wives, daughters, sons, property, body, soul, &c.
reputation everywhere,

Mandavie,
to

The plaintiff Kutch, and Bombay. I know
things about the plaintiff.
last

bears a bad the
witness

Kallabhai,

who has communicated

me many

To Mr. Bayley.
lectures at

—"

I have been a poet since the
sect, to

seven years.

I

was delivering
I

my

house on the improprieties of the
the society of such

bring the devotees to their senses,
as the

and
from

to

make them shun
materials

nasty persons

Maharajas.

do

not

except Jeevunjee as being virtuous.
furnished

I wrote

my

essay against the Vallabhacharya religion

The

dedication of tun,

me by Shastrees, from books, and by the devotees themselves. mun, and dhun is addressed to the Maharajas I am quite sure
;

of this

from

my

study

of

several

works.

My

version

of the

doctrines
plaintifllis

was
bad

a;

proved

of as cerrect
in

by several Shastrees.
the
publication
of

I informed the
libel.

defendant of the

ciiai'acter

Surat

before

— —
151
To Mr. Anstoy. My compiling a The Shastrees who approved of
publicly
in

:

dictionary 'detained

me
is

last

year
their

from

going

to

Surat.

my
the

version
book.

would not There

known
religion,

connection
of

with

names to be no morality of any kind
like

whatever in

the
less

doctrines

Yallabhacharya.
religion

The

Maharajas

are

not

preceptors

of

much

of the

ancient
to

of the

Hindoos."
I

(27.)

Ramdass Bkanjee,
sect.

Mr. Anstey.
previous
to

—"
the
to

am

a Bhattia
of the

and

a

member
letters

of

the

Yallabhacharya
in

I have

publication

alleged libel written

articles

the

Guzeratee newspapers
the

against
I

the

Maharajas.
expose
the

I

also

wrote

to the

Bombay Times on
pretentions
of the

same

subject.

tried

adulteries

and

the

godly

Maharajas.

To Mr. Bayley. The defendant never
the

—"

I a

member

of the

sect,

though I hate some of
articles.

its

immoralities.

assisted

me

in

writing those

I

have not
editor

abused any of

Mahrrajas
is

;

I

have exposed their immoralities.
in

I

am

the

of the Khojah Dost,

v/hich

the

organ of the reformers

the

Khojah community."

(28.)
in
this

the

Trtbhoovandass Dicarkadass to Mr. Bayley. " I am the first assistant teacher " Goculdass Tejpall Anglo-Vernacular School." The Parsee defendant came tome
to

morning
served

say

that

my

evidence

would
the
last

be

required

in

the

Supreme
written
I

Court
in

I was
the

with

a subpoena within

half hour.
of

I have

articles

Guzeratee

newspapers on the conduct and character
for

the

Maharajas.

have not
of

visited

any of the temples
sect."

the

last

five

years,

though I

am

a

member

the

Yallabhacharya
(29.)

Nanahkoij Pestonjee,
I
I

to

Mr.

Anstey.

—"
to

I

am
been

the

editor

of
to

the

Chabook
a

newspaper.

remember
believe
is

these

papers

(exhibits) having

brought

me by

man

whose

name

Purbhoodass."
the Chabook newspaper

Mr. Bayley admitted the papers were taken
the
plaintiffs

by Purbhoodass,

alleged

secretary.
to

(30.)

Kanabhai Rustomjee
proprietor

Mr. Anstey.
TJtdon

—"

I

am
I

one

of the defendants in this case

and

managing
the
fell

of

the

Press.

was

the

printer

of

the

SaU/a
started

Prakash newspaper,
for

and the co-defendant was the
but in
the

editor.

The paper was
in

not

profit

to

proprietors,
far

cause
I

of

reform

the

native

The
his

receipts

short

of the

expenditure.

printed

some numbers of

community. the " Pro-

pagator

of

our

secretary

Purbhoodass,

own Religion" for the plaintiff. The manuscript was brought to me by who manages this case. I sent the bills to Dr. Dhirajram,
of the Maharaj."
here.

who

paid

them on behalf

The dffendants case concluded

At Mr. Bayley's
the
to

request,
to

which was, he
stop
for

said,

made with
to
to

the

view

to

save

time,

Court allowed the case
ascertain
behalf.

a few minutes,
it

enable
call

the plaintiff's counsel

from

his

client

whether

was

desirable

more

witnesses

on

his

Mr. Anstey protested against such delay
and as
it

as

being

unprecedented to his knowledge,
the
natives.

might cause an

unfounded impression

among

152
The Chief
public time
thereby.
;

Justice

said

that

the

request
to

was

entertained

wiUi

a

view

to

savfi

and the Court could not stop

enquire

what impression might be produced

The Court
again,

adjourned,

therefore,

for

ten minutes.
to

On

the

Juilges
for

taking their seats
plaintiff.

Mr.

Bayley said he would proceed
called

examine witnesses
the
first

the

One LalloomuU Mohtoomull was
the
witness
in

as

witness,

when Mr. Anstey
denied

stated

was
Court.

sitting

in

Court

during

the

trial.

The

man
in

having

been
trial,

present

Three witnesses swore that he was present
to

Court during the

and was seen handing notes
Mr.
fining

Purbhoodass, the plaintiffs secretary.
to

Bayley
witness

cited

authorities

show that the power
prevented

of the

Court

was limited
for

to

the

who

could

not

be

from

being

examined,

disobedience

of an order of the

Court.

Mr. Anstey argued that the old established practice in England was the general The left no discretion to dej)art from it. practice of this Court, and the Judge is
plaintiff

had every opportunity
that

to

bring

this
to

evidence
not the

before

;

and when
in

it

was borne
several
trusted,

in

mind

the

men
to

swore falsely as

being

present
the

Court,

when

persons

were ready

swear that he

was,

Court,

learned

counsel

would not admit the man's evidence.

The Court was The
current
against
witness,
rejecting

of opinion
decisions

it

had no power

to object
for

to

the witness being examined.
is,

of judicial

in

England has been
witness.

some years one way, that
had
for

the

evidence

of a

The Court

no
his

power
conduct

to

exclude

a

though he might be made subject to observations
of the Court's
order.

and disobe-

dience

"

As

the

witness

was

likely

to

take

some time

in

examination,

the Court rose

at

half-past 5 p. m.

At

the

close
to

of the

proceedings,
into custody

the

Chief

Justice

ordered

the

man, Lalloomull
morning,
for

Mohtoomull,

be taken

by the

Sheriff until
of

next (Saturday)
order."

contempt of Court and

for

wilful

disobedience

the Court's

Scdenteenth

Day^

Satiirdaij,

22nd February, 1862,
objection
to

Mr. Anstey asked the Court
the
trial of the

to take a note of his

the

reception

of

the

evidence of witnesses who, in disobedience of the order of the Court, were in Court during
case.

The learned

counsel cited several cases in support

of

his

argument,

that the evidence was inadmissible.

REBUTTING EVIDENCE EOR THE PLAINTIFF.
(1.)

Lalloomull Mohtoomull, examined by Mr. Scoble.
sect.

—"

I

am

a Mooltanee, and a

niember of the Vallabhacharya

I

know

the plaintiff, during the whole time of whose

;

153
visit at

Beyt, in 19' 7, I was there.
of age. I never

I

went

to visit liiin

every day
time.

:

he was then
I

about

23

or

24 years
;

His married wife

was

dead

at the

know Lukhmidass
his

Khimjee now
tion at

saw him

visit
:

the plaintiff at Beyt.

Plaintiff bore a very good reputa-

Beyt during that period

there

were no

stories

current

against

chastity

or

morality.

He

resided at the mansion of Jugonnathjee Maharaj.

Vaishnavs used

to visit the

Maharaj

at all times of the

day when he happened
Beyt,

to

be in the house.

He

had a retinue
of

of ten or twelve servants, but had no Varkats with him.

He
which

had with him a Bhattia
is

Mandavie.

There are several temples
is

at

one

of

that of

Luxmijee.
is

The
of the

room

in

which the image

placed

is

about ten or twelve feet square.
cents
is

There

an outer

court to this shrine.

A
all

tax of one coree and two

levied

by the

officers

Graekwar Sirkar on

persons

who
this

visit

the temple of Luxmijee.
festival

Jadoonathjee

arrived at
three
or

Beyt

in the

month

of February,

and the

of
is

Vussunt Punchmee occurred
It
is

four days afterwards.
at the temple of
ples at

During
to

festival golal

thrown on the image.

not

usual

Luxmijee
the

throw
to

golal on the Vaishnavs.

In three of the thirteen temIn the

Beyt

it

is

customary daily
exception

throw golal on the persons of the Vaishnavs.

other temples,

with

of

Fagan-wud

the

1st,

no

golal

is

thrown

on

the

worshippers.

I deal in golal,

piece goods,

&c., at Beyt.

On
is

occasions

when

the Maharaj
priests

throws golal on the image at the temple of Luxmijee, he
four other temples
:=

surrounded
inside

by the
temple.

of

women and men accommodated
to four

separately

the

In

the are

court-yard there

is

a promiscuous crowd of males and females.

The

thirteen

temples

under the guidance of persons belonging

" gaddees"
There
is

or seats.

The Gaekwar's men
priest

keep order at the temples at the time of worship.

one

officiating

at

the

temple of Luxmijee, and four sepoys maintain order there during worship.
at

AH

the temples

Beyt belong

to

the
is

Vallabhacharyas.
paid.

temple unless the tax
day, in
it

The images are worshipped from outside the The Maharaj makes a circuit of all the temples twice a
I

less

than half an hour.

never heard of a "

Rus mundlee"

at

Be^t

:

I

read

of

here in the newspapers."

In the cross-examination by
admitted that the witnesses
the truth.

Mr.

Anstey,

the
to

witness,

after

shuffling
in

a

good

deal
to

who swore on Friday

having seen

him

court,

swore

Re-examined by Mr.
Sir Joseph Arnould.

Scoble.

—"

I believe conscientiously that I did not

come
on
lo

into Court."

— Now,
far as

what reliance can you expect to be placed
I

the

statesays.

ments of
(2.)

this

man

?

As

am

concerned, I cannot attach any weight
Scoble.

what he

Damlas Hunsraj, examined by Mr.
I I

—"

I

am
is

a Bhattia and a native of
dead.
I

Dwarka.
tiff,

am

a Vaishnav.
at

My

gooroo Nuthoojee Maharaj,
invited

know

the

plain-

whom

saw

Dwarka, and

him

to

my

house on the occasion of
bore
or

my
I

daughter's

marriage.

For chastity and morality,
him.

the

plaintiff
for

a

good
five

character.
:

heard

no
a

stories against

He

remained

my

guest

four

days
house

I

kept

him
as

in

separate house, a dhurmsalla, which was not distant from
mile.

my

so

much
at
is

half

a

I

saw

or

heard

nothing

against

him.

Of

the

thirteen

shrines

Beyt,

seven,

including the temple of Luxmijee, are in charge of the Gaekwar, and to each

attached a

choubdar.

I have never seen golal thrown on the worshippers at the temple

of

Luxmee
have
Gujeratee

never heard at Beyt of the existence of the

"

Rus mundlee
its

:"

if

I

did,

I

should
the

punished the members
inewflpapers of

of
I

it.

I

came

to

understand
"

nature

through

Bombay.
'JO

know nothing

at all about

Rus mundlees."


154
Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey.
against me, after having tried me.
three years of

—"
He

I

was ordered

into custody

by

the

Gaekwar

for

three years, for having apprehended robbers in a foreign territory.

Major

Shortt

reported

did not fine
to

me
to

five

thousand rupees.
I

"During the
to

my

custody, I

was not

able

go

the

temples.

subscribed

the

Parses Reformer, which contained
is

articles abusive

of the

Maharajas.
;

All I

that I have not seen golal thrown at the temple of
there.

Luxmee

I do

not

mean know
is also

to
if
it

say
is

thrown
of

There are only six temples

at

Beyt under the control of the Gaekowar.
of Luxmijee's temple

Five
covered

them

are covered over with a roof
;

The court-yard

over with a roof

it

looks like a house.

To Mr.

Scoble.

" I was not tried by Major Shortt, the Resident.

To
to

Sir

M.

Sausse.

I did not appear personally before

Major Shortt

;

my man
plaintiff,

used

go to him during the enquiry."
(3.)

Meetaram Pursotum, examined by Mr.
to Beyt.

Scoble.

—"

I

know
to

the

whom
to the

I saw at Beyt in 1907.

I was a clerk of the Coomavisdar's
I

mehta, and was sent

Maharajas who came

was sent

to

plaintiff,

and used

accompany him when
and
bore a good
four sepoys
his

he visited the temples.

He

had put up

at the

house of Dwarkanathjee,
I used to attend

character as to chastity during his residence there.

him with
in

whenever he
though
'

visited
close

the

temples.

I

never

noticed

any thing improper
I have

conduct,

I stood

by

him

on

such

occasions.

not

heard of the existence of

Kus

mundlees.'

Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey.
the counsel mentioned
it

—"

I first heard the
of

name

of "
is

Eus mundlee" when
the

just now.

The mansion

Dwarkanathjee

same

as

that of

Jugoonathjee.
I

Jadoonathjee was the only officiating Maharaj at Beyt during the seven months
Vallubhjee Maharaj was not ut Beyt at that time
plaintiff's
;

was with him.
to this

I never heard anything
at
in

up

day against the
I

character.

I did not

know him
heard
witness

any other
Court
this

place

except Beyt.
plaintiff

came

to

Bombay

fifteen

days

ago

:

I

today
in

that the

had been charged with adultery.
at

I saw the last

Court

day

:

he

was not Coomavisdar
Maharaj
if

Beyt during the
to

time I was there.
alone
;

I would

have disobeyed the
for

he

asked

me

leave

him

at

the

temples

even

a

few minutes.
his order.

There were the

Sircar's sepoys at his house

they would not have

left

him by

Re-examined by Mr.
never asked

Scoble.

—"

It

is

since

my
the

arrival

from

Eajcote that I heard of
temples, the Maharaj

the plaintiff's adultery, as alleged in

the newspapers.
followed
:

While

at the

me

to

go out.

The sepoys
left

Maharaj

from

room

to

room,

and

wherever he went.
bed-room.
not leave

He

slept in the

store-room

he was

attended by sepoys
;

even

in his

He

would not be

alone even for a

moment
so.

his personal attendants

would

him even though he
Sir

desired

them

to

do
at

To

M. Sausse.
time
the
the

—"

The

plaintiff

was

Beyt
thrown

in

the

month

of

February,

and

remained there ten or
during the

twelve days.
plaintiff

I saw
at

golal

in the

temple of Dwarkanathjee
is

was

Beyt.

In no other temple
golal

golal

thrown about.
Vaishnavs.

The Maharaj and
of the
idol.

Brahmacharyas throw about

on the persons of the
allowed
to

Females and males, who pay a tax of nearly half a rupee are

touch the feet

To

Sir

Joseph Arnould.
after the

—"

If

the

Maharaj

be

present,

the

devotees

pay

him

the

" durshun"

image."

— —

(4.)

Raghowjee Natlia, examined by
I

]Mr.

Scoble.
I

—"

I

am

a Bhattia of
plaintiff

tlie

Vallabhin

charya

sect.

have

a

Maharaj

for

my

gooroo.

saw the
and

at
left

Beyt
for

the

month
While
days.

of

February 1851.

On

the day I arrived in Beyt,

the Maharaj

Dvvarka.

I I

was
to

at Beyt,

the Maharaj

returned from
to

Dwarka,
"
or

remained
I

ten or twelve

visited

the plaintiff

frequently

make

durshun."
in

heard

or

saw nothing

prejudicial

his

morality

either

during his

residence
at

absence

from Beyt.
I
It

Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey.
I

—"

I

was

Beyt on a pilgrimage.
as

am
is

quite sure

was not
did
not

in

Bombay
evidence
the

at in

the

time doing

my

business
the

a

Broker.
or
to

a

sin

to

come and
I

give
sign

this

Court

against

Maharaj

divulge

his

secrets.

" bundobust" against giving evidence
Arnould. — "
sin.

here,

whilst in Kutch.

To
Maharaj,

Sir

Joseph

If

Mathooradas

l^owjee

gave
so
;

evidence

against

the
!

he committed a
is

The whole world would say
rupees
for

even the Mahomedans
to

Witness

fined

twenty

not giving
there

a

direct

answer

Sir

M.

Sausse.
in

To
Bombay.

Sir

^I.

Sause.

—"

I

heard

that

was a meeting of the Mahajuns held

To
would

Sir
it

Joseph
in

Arnould.

—"

If

there

be

anything

bad

against

the

Maharaj,

I

tell

Court. Sause.
all

To
our

Sir

M.
and

—"

I

think
are

the
like

Maharaj
his

would never do anything bad.

lie

is

gooroo,
(5.)

the

women

daughters."
Scoble.
at

Preinjee
served

Poonja,
in

examined by Mr.
he visited Beyt

"

I

am

a
or

Pocurna
twenty
ago,

Brahmin,
years.

and

have

the

temple of Radhajee
since

Beyt
ten
or

for

fifteen

I

have known the

plaintiff

twelve

years

about

the

month
part
of

of February or

March.

He
I

visited

the

temple of Radhajee twice a day,
conduct

always
on
the

accompanied by his
the

attendants.

observed

no improper or indecent
in

plaintiff or
It
is

the

female
our
as

worshippers

the

temple.

I

heard

no

reports

against
occasion

him.
;

not

usual in
as

temple
in

to

throw golal on the followers upon any
of

in

our

temple,

well

the

temple

Luxmijee,
is

golal

is

thrown only

upon the image.
after

In the temple of Dvvarkanathjee, golal
have throvm
a very
it

thrown upon the musicians

the

priests

upon the image.
as
I
to

So

far

as

my

information extended,

the plaintiff bore

good

reputation

chastity.

Cross-examined by Mr. Anesty.
jee's

—"
a

have not heard
follower
in

any report against Jadunath-

chastity
is

up
to

to

this

day.

I
to

am
"

of Runchorjee

Maharaj of Mandavie

;

he

gone

his

destination,

lila"

heaven"
Scoble.
his-

(G.)

Purshotumdass Doolubbhoy, examined by Mr.
several

—"

I

was a resident of
also.

Surat

for

years,

and know the

plaintiff

I

knew
since
in

father

During the
against

time I resided in Surat the plaintiff bore
his

a good
Surat,

character.

I heard no
I

reports
to

chastity
visited

or

morality
in

whilst

I

was

in

nor

have

come

Bombay.

I

him

Bombay

but

saw nothing improper
Anstey. — "
I have

his

conduct.
to

Cross-examined
against the
plaintiff's

by Mr.

never

up

this

day heard

anything
ago

moral character,

except that I
in

was

told

three or four
I

months

that he was

charged with

immoral conduct

a newspaper.
at the

heard that a

meeting of

the Mahajuns was held for

making u " bundobust"

house of Jeevunlalljee"

—— —
15G
(7.)

Purshotumdass Dayarcon, examined by Mr. Bayley.
of

I

am

a

Bania

and

a

member
years,

the

Vallabhacharya
the
I
plaintiff.

sect.

"

I I

have been

a resident

of Surat for

many
crime

and

know

In
tlie

Surat

have heard he bore a good character as
here

regards

cliastity.

heard
in

that

newspapers

charged

him with a

great

which he committed
Cross-examined
here or
in

Surat.

by Mr.
I

Anstey.

—"
or

I

never heard
five

anything against
ago,

plaintiff"

either

Surat.

came here
plaintiff'

four

months

newspapers charged the
that

with
to

immorality.

I don't
I

when know if it
the

I
is

heard
right

that
or

the

wrong
God,

one
It

should

offer

his
to

wife
give

the

Maharaj.

consider

Maharaj as

my

and

would

be

a

sin

any evidence against him.

Re-examined by Mr.
to
tell

Bayley.
I

—"

My

respect

for

the Maharaj

would not induce
tell
it.

me

lies

in

Court.

If

knew anything

against
if

him
the

I

would

To
It

Sir

Joseph Arnould.
in

" I do not
to

know

Maharaj

can do anything

wrong.

would be improper
(7.)

him

do an immoral

act."

Pnrbhoodass Dayaram, examined by Mr. Scoble.
the

—"

I I

am

a resident of Surat
the plaintiff,

and

am

mooneeta of the firm of Kamdass Purshotumdass.
character
for

know
heard

who

bore a

good

chastity

and morality.

I

have

not

any bad reports

against him.

Cross-examined by
nected
thirty action

Mr.
of

Anstey.
our
the

—"

I I

get

no

letters

from

Surat except
for

those

conor
this

with
years.

the

business

firm.

have
in

been

in

Bombay
I

twenty-five
before
or

I

used

to

visit

plaintiff

Bombay.

did

not

hear

was brought that he was charged with immorality.
I

Since

the last two

three

years
till

this
is

have heard rumours of the immorality of the Maharajas. I have never heard moment of the existence of the " Eus mundlees." I have drunk the water
distributed
to

which
sinful

the devotees

in

the

temples.

A
told

gooroo

would

not

commit a

act.

To
a bad

Sir
act,

M.
I

Sausse.

—"

If a trustworthy person
it."

me

that the Maharaj committed

would believe

(9.)

Narronhhoy Vijbhookhundass, examined by Mr. Bayley.

—"
the

I

am

a resident of

Surat,

and
;

came
I
for

to

Bombay
to
visit

about two

months
a

ago.

I
or

knew
twelve

plaintiff,

who
bore

his

my
The

gooroo

used

him once
1908.

day
I

for

ten

years.

He
in

a

good reputation
plaintiffs

chastity

and morality.
in

have

visited

him

occasionally
at his

Bombay.

father
in

died

Plaintiff has

established

Sanscrit

school

Surat,

—no

own expense a

girls

school.

Cross-examined by
Sanscrit school at his

Mr. Ajistey.
expense.

—"

Jadoonathjee

told
to

me
the

that he

had

opened

the

own

I never

heard up

day

before

yesterday

any

rumours against the morality of the
(10.)

plaintiff or

any of the other Maharajas."

Morarbhoy Vijbhookhundass, examined by Mr. Scoble.

— " I am
jail,

a Bania
on
the

shroff"

carrying on business between

Bombay and
all

Surat.

I

was the man who,

day of
their

the Royal Proclamation of 1858, released
debts.
I

the debtors in the Surat

by paying

know

the

plaintiff",

who

bore a good

character for chastity and morality.

I have

heard no report against his morality, either in

Surat or

in

Bombay.

I

have seen nothing


157
to

diminish

my

respect towards the pLaintiff.
there.

On my

last

visit

to

Surat, I did

not hear

that he

had established a school

Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey.

—"

I have not heard

any thing against

plaintiff

or

any

of the other Maharajas as to their chastity.
tliat

I never stated in the shop of Eduljee

Framjee

the Maharajas
(11.)

commit immortal

acts."

Munshookhratn Khooskaldass, examined by Mr. Bayley.

—"

I

am

a moomeyn of

the firm of Gopalrow
resided in Surat for

MuUarow, and have come to Bombay since the last four years. I I am a member of four years, and knew the plaintiff in that city.
I

the Vallabhacharya

sect.

went and

to the

plaintiff

almost

daily for " durshun."

He

bore a
;

good

reputation

for

chastity
it

morality.
I

I heard

no gup or rumours

against

him

I

should have heard of

if

any

existed.

have seen him in Bombay.

Cross-examined by Mr.
whilst 1

Anstey.

" I do not

remember Jadoonathjee going

to

Beyt
until

was

at Surat.

I never heard a
trial

rumour

against this or any other Maharaj

a few days since this
Sir
]Mr.

began."
call

Joseph Arnould.— Will you
Bayley.

the Maharaj, Mr. Bayley
I think necessary.
I

?

I should call

him

if

am

not called upon to pledge

myself.

E'u/kfernh

Dai/,

Mondaj/,

24///

February,

1862.
I

(12.)

Nanabhoy Kursondass,

examined by Mr. Bayley.
I

"

am

a cotton
to

dealer,

and
year.

am
I

a permanent resident of Broach.

am
a

in

the

habit
of the

of going

Surat

every
I

knew

the

plaintiff"

at

Surat.

I

am

member
about.
I

Vallabhacharya

sect.

never visited the
his

plaintiff,

but saw

him going

did not hear

anything against

character.

Cross-examined by Mr.
it

Anstey.
against

" I went

once

a year
is

to

Surat.

I do not consider
I

a sin

to

tell

the

truth

a gooroo. never

To-day
in

the

first

time

hear anything

against

the

plaintiff's

character.

I

saw him

Surat."

(13.)

Nurrotumdass Eurrybhoy, examined by Mr.
Surat,

Scoble.

—"

I

am

the

mehta

of

the

Nawab

of

and

am

a Bania by
to

whose father I went once a day
character for

morality

was
four

good.
in

I
;

know the plaintiff", to whom and to make " durshun." To my knowledge, the plaintiffs did not hear any reports against him. I know he
caste.

I

has

established

a

school
or

Surat

and

I

have heard that he pays
it

its

expenses.
or

It
five

was opened three
hundred
pupils.

years

ago.

A

few months ago I heard

had four

Cross-examined

by Mr.
in
1

Anstey.
last

—"
to

The
come

plaintiff*

never
I

visited

me

at

my

house.

He
that

left

Surat

about

November

to

Bombay.

heard

about a year ago

some newspapers
before
that

Bombay and
heard any

Surat published certain

charges against his character.
Afaharajas.

Never

had

rumour

against

any of the

158
To
Sir

M.

Sausse.

— " One may
satisfied

spread
it.

but I should not be

with

which I mean anything contrary to I would consider the Vallabhacharya sect.
Maharaj,
(14.)
&c.,

a rumour against the character of a Maharaj, The Maharaj would not commit a bad act, by The religion is contained in the books ot rehgion.
it

a

bad act

if

one

offered

his

wife

to the

even though

it

may

be

enjoined

by the

religious

books."
I

Bhookhniidass Kishordass, examined by Mr. Bayley.
Surat, and came
sect,

—"

am

in

the

service of

Nusserwanjee Bomanjee Bhownugria of
I

to

Bombay
plaintiff,

about a year ago.

am

a

member
I

of the

Vallabhacharya

and know the
a very

whom
for

I saw
chastity

very

frequently at Surat.
morality.

He

is

my

gooroo.

He

bore

good character

and

heard no bad report against

him.
I

Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey.
to

—"
his
told

cannot say
ill-will

whether or not the
of the
to

plaintiff

had

leave Surat

for

some years by reason of the
bad act committed by him.
I

inhabitants

towards him,

in consequence of a

am bound
I

him by
it

the

" muntra"
to
tell

(incantation)

administered to

me
I

by

fathers.

do

not consider
I

a sin

the truth against
as god.
It
is

a Maharaj.

never
the

a

lie

in

my

life.

do not regard
act.

my

gooroo
or

not possible

that

Maharaj

would do a bad

Until

a month

two ago, I never heaid a report against any one of the ^laharajas"
(15.)
of

5^z<ryovm

il/oo/c/^«^«(/,

examined by Mr.

Scoble.

—"
the

I

am

a

mehta

in

the firm
gooroo.

Manockjee Bomonjee, Oursetjee

Cama and
at

Co. I

know
his

plaintiff,

who

is

my
for

I

knew him

for

several

years

Surat,

where he

bore

a good character
the

chastity

and morality

I

never

saw any impropriety on

part at

temple.

Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey.
the

—"

I do

not
is

image

;

I

cannot say
incarnation
left

if

the

Maharaj
I

know the age ever swung in a
I

of the plaintiff.

We
not

swing
regard
in the

swing.

I

do

my

gooroo as an

of God.

have seen golal sprinkled on
but
do not exactly

the

image

The stayed away
temple.

plaintiff
five

Surat in
years.
in

1851,
I

remember whether he
one
of the
in

or

seven

heard no report in
or

Surat against any

Maharajas.
the

I heard

rumours

Bombay about two

three

months

ago,

as alleged

newspapers.
Sir
to

To
coming

Joseph

Arnould.

—"
to

I

never

heard

that

any Bhattia

shetts

were punished
that

a resolution not

give

evidence

against the Maharaj.

I

simply heard

some Bhattias were

litigating

and were punished.
gooroos,
their conduct
for

To
I
act.

Sir

M.

Sausse.

—"

The Maharajas being

would never be bad.

would not believe a bad report against a Maharaj,
If any

he would not commit a bad
act,

person

told

me

that a

Maharaj committed a bad

I

would not believe

him."
Sir

M. Sausse

suggested,
in

with a view to economize
to

time,

that

any further witnesses,
simply submited
the

whose evidence was
to

effect similar

that

already

given had better be

cross-examination, as was done in some instances
(16.)

with the witnesses

for

defendants.

Ka7idass Doolubhdass, cross-examined by Mr. Anstey.
plaintiff"

—"

I

heard no bad report
to

whatever against the
liis

in
told,

Surat.

He

is

my

gooroo.

According
of
his

my

religion,

good

conduct

must be

but nothing must

be said

bad

conduct as

a

gooroo.

To Mr. Baylej.

—"

The

truth

must be

told

without

shame,

even

against a

gooroo.

159
To
be
Sir

Joseph

Aniould.

—"

If

there

is

anything bad against the Maharaj,

it

must

proved
(17.)

here."

Balkrishnadass Oo^nedrarn, examined by Mr. Scoble.
sect.

bad,

and a member of the Vallabhacharya
or

1848
every

1849

:

he resided there
third

five

or

six

AhmedaAhmedabad in months, during which time I went to him
I

—"

am

a shroff of
in

I

saw the

plaintiff

second
morality.

or

day

to

make " durshun."

He

bore a good character for chastity

and

I heard

no report against him.
Anstey.

Cross-examined by Mr.
a Maharaj
with a young

— "I

never heard
to

Brahmin female
or

Baroda.

in Ahmedabad The first time

of the elopement of

I

heard anything
I

against a Maharaj
in

was three
the
last

four
or
six

months ago, through the newspapers.
years."

have been

Bombay
(18.)

since

five

Bhoijchund Kaivul, examined by Mr. Bayley.
frequenting
in

—"

I

have been

Bombay

for

the
to

last

three

or or

four years.

come from Ahmedabad, and I saw the plaintiff at
day
did
to

Ahmedabad

1848

or 1849,

and went

him once

twice

a
I

make " durshun."
hear

He

bore

a

very good character for

chastity

and morality.

not

any report

against

him.

To Mr. Anstey.
through
the
the

—"

I

heard only
I

two months ago bad reports against the
before
off

plaintiff

newspapers.

never

heard
not

this

a

bad report against any
;

one

of

Maharajas.
else.

My
I
or

Maharaj has
the
in

carried

any Brahmin lady
I

I do not

know
were

anything
closed
for

belong to

Vallabhacharya
1859.
I
did

sect.

heard
the

that

the

temples

eight

nine days
I
ths

not

sign

" bundobust"
Case on
but he
is

on account

of which they were closed.

heard of the

Bhattia
the
place
if

Conspiracy
of

Ahmedabad. regard him
he

We
as

regard

Maharaj
of

in
:

God,

my return from my gooroo. I
sin.

an
sin,

incarnation

God
told

and

he chooses,
tell

he can commit a
truth

If

commits

a

God
is

will

punish

him.

I would
to

the

even

of a gooroo.

Five or six years ago,
of God.
]\Iy

the

Maharaj

me
is

make " durshun" and
present
in

to take

the

name

.Maharaj

Kanyalaljee

who

at

Kotah.
less

To Mr. Bayley.
I

I regard the

Maharaj the same as the image, but

than Thakorjee.

regard
(19.)

Thackorji

as

God."

Bapoolall Malhooradass examined

by
a

Mr.

Scoble.

—"

I

am

a

Bania and a

member
last

of the

Vallabhacharya
in

sect.

two months I was
to go to

Baroda,
or

Mehta to a shroff, in Bombay. Until the where I saw the plaintiff for about three months.
I

am

I used
built

him every second
for

third

day

to

make " durshun."
in

There

is

a temple

by the Gaekowar
highly

the

Maharajas.

The

plaintiff is

the gooroo of the
city,

Gaekowar,
sons

who very
his

respects him,

and on his

arrival

the

sends

out

his

with

elephants, &c., to welcome him.
chastity

The

plaintiff

bore a good

reputation in Baroda

as regards

and morality.

he
that

is.

To Mr. Anstey. The Gaekwar
he
built

—"
is

The
a

Gackwar

is

a Mahratta
rehgions,

;

I don't

know

of

what
It
is

caste

follower

of all

and respects everybody.

true
all

a mosque some days ago,
killed

and, I

to please a

Mahomedan
of the

fakeer caused
loves

the

hogs in Baroda to be

at

once.

never

heard

touching

of Val-

lubhjee

Maharaj and Tara,

a

Mahomedan

female."

ir,o

(20.)

Mansookhram Nurrotum, examined by

Mr. Bayley.

—"

I

came

to

Bombay

from Baroda seventeen years ago, and have frequently gone to the latter place on business. I saw the plaintiff at Baroda in 1904, and so far as I heard, he bore a good character
for

chastity

and

morality.
of

I

heard

no

bad report against him.
sort

I
as

am
those

a Bhattia
of

caste.

The Bhattias

Baroda do not wear the same

of dress

by Bombay.
I

To Mr. Anstey. " I heard people talk of know what the charge was in that case. Being
understand the language and manners
of the

the Bhattia

Conspiracy

trial

;

don't

a resident
Bhattias,
is

of Guzerat,

I

would not

Bombay
There

and therefore would not
telling
lies

have attended
good
not
object.
tell

the

Bhattia

meeting,

of 1855.

no harm in

for

a

To

save a
for

Brahmin charged with murder,
even a
to

I

would not

tell

a

lie.

I would

an untruth

good

object.

I

consider

my

gooroo

as

an incarnation of

God,

and accordingly bow

him.

The Maharaj would not commit
never
the

sin.

To
regarded

Mr.

Bayley.

—"

I

had

my

attention

pointed
to

to

such questions as Thackorjee
:

the
so

incarnation

of God,
all

&c.

I consider

Maharaj

inferior

the

he

is

by

Vaishnavs."
Scoble.

(21.)
of

Purshotum Permanund, examined by Mr.
and
at present

—"

I

am

a

Bania merchant
in

Baroda,
:

ship

goods

from

Bombay.
I

I

saw

the

plaintiff"

Baroda in

1904

he bore

a

good

character for

morality.
at

observed

no impropriety of conduct

on the part of the

plaintiff" in

the

temple

Baroda during the time of worship.

To Mr. An3tey.
aff"orded

—"

We

were very
of

glad

when
I

the

us

an opportunity

making " durshun."
amongst
us.

Maharaj came to Our females and we
nothing
against

our
all

city

and
the

were very
of

glad

when he came and
before
Scoble.

resided

heard

any one
^

Maharajas

this action

was brought.
can I
say

To Mr.
say
that

— " How
its
;

whether or not
wives
to

it

is

a calumny

on

my

sect, to

any of
the

members
it is

off"er

their

the

Maharajas.

Nobody

off"ers

his

wife to

Maharaj

false."

(22.)

Nanahhoy Dayabhoy, examined by Mr.
plaintiff"

Bailey.

—"

I

am

a

resident

of Surat

I know the
there on
there
for
for

from his infancy.
in

I

was

at

a pilgrimage

1903.
I

I

arrived

there

about a month.
a month.
I

accompanied
to

him

to

Muthra when he came when he was there we remained Buldewjee, and travelled with him
Shree

Gocul

:

about

used

be

in

his

company when he
at

visit«d places.

the

temples.

He

bore
forty

a good character for
or
fifty

chastity

and
his

morality
retinue,

those

There were some
were defrayed by

people

who formed

and

whose

expenses

him.

I

heard no

stories

against his

morality.

To Mr. Anstey.
males used
his
toes
to

" I

was not with the
the

plaintiff"

at

Oodeypore.

I don't
the

know
presses

if

he
fe-

was prevented from
visit

touching

image
the

in

the

temple there.
feet.

On

pilgrimage,

him
did

for

" durshun" and touched his
It
is

He
teet,

never
not

with

the

hands of females.
top.

custom

to

touch

the

from

below,
plain-

but at the
tiff"

I

not laugh

when you asked

me

of the

cause which led

to

leave

Surat.

Sir

Joseph

A mould,

—O

yes,

you

did.

161
Witness
Court
for
to

Mr.

Anstey.

'•

I

simply
;

holding a caste meeting
this

not for

heard that some Bhattias were fined in this making a " bundobust" against giving evi-

dence in
(23.)

case."

Lalljee

Natha
in

was

called

as

the

next

witness,

when Mr. Anstey

stated

he

was observed
Lalljee

sitting

Court during
sitting

the

trial.

admitted he was

in

Court one

day.

Examined by Mr. Scoble.— "
bout
four or five
or

I

met the
fifty

plaintiff

on a pilgrimage at Gocul Muthra aabout a month and
a half

years

ago,

and was with him
servants

for

He
at

had a hundred

a hundred and
that
in

with

him.

His
bore

tent

was pitched
in

some
ber,

distance from followed

of

his

servants.

The Vaishnavs, about a thousand
to

numfor

him

a procession from place

place.

He

a

good character

morality,

and I

heard no report against him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey.

—"
did

I

was
not

in
in

Court during the

examination of Drs.
day.
for

Bhawoo Dajee and
Sir

Dhirajram.

I

sit

Court on
this

any
in

other

Joseph Arnould.
one day.

If I

mistake

not,

I

saw

man

Court certainly

more

than

Mr.

An