Mohan’s v. A. G. Virjee, Civ. App. 12-D-66; 17/5/67; Georges, C. J.

Mohan’s v. A. G. Virjee, Civ. App. 12-D-66; 17/5/67; Georges, C. J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for goods sold and delivered. In finding for defendant , the magistrate considered at least three matters which, for various reasons, should not have been considered. On appeal, defendant’s counsel argued that the magistrate had held to that defendant was not indebted, either because he did not order the goods or, if he did order them, because  he  appeared to have paid for them --- and that the evidence supported either view. The High Court seemed to agree that the evidence would support such a view, “There is much merit in this approach.”

            Held: (T) he learned magistrate has imported into the case so many irrelevant consideration that, in the absence of clear findings on  the pertinent issues, it would not be wise to conclude that he would made the findings which it is being inferred he had made had he considered the matter properly.” Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.