^»>?fN>«VlV4N/?Vtv^/»\yri/TV4\/JV*'»4^ ^ 
 
 m 
 
 ?V'r 
 
 ^s;^,m'A'^.:^r^\' 
 
 n. r 
 
 
 ?^>, 
 
 ^- '^^^ 
 
 ii^r,'-^it'^± ^; 
 
 ^^m 
 
 
 %^f: 
 
 ^ . • ,x. 
 
 " 1^- 
 
 
 • * -^ 
 
 1 V 
 
 
 
 Sv^ -- ' 
 
 N 
 
 ^. ' -.1 ^ 
 
 • -<p 
 
 ^ ,' 
 
 
 '-Cl.\ J 
 
 ;k. 
 
 vi'k^ .. , 
 
 
 -. 1^ 
 
 
 Vie^" •• 
 
 
 /-',-■' 
 
 /3. 
 
 
 
 iw«^ '\, 
 
 >^/>AA|/\i'^l>XAI>'>AAlAIAtAIAiAl/\i/^lAiAlAtA|A|/^l/^ 
 
 iMMMR 
 
 Kl 
 
^ 
 
 
 

 2^ 
 
REPORT 
 
 MAHAEAJ LIBEL CASE, 
 
 AND OF THK 
 
 EHATTIA C0N8PIEA(JY (JA8E. 
 
 CONNECTED WITH IT. 
 
 JABUIATI-UEE BEIZRATTAIJEE MAHARAJ, 
 
 vs. 
 
 KAESAInDASS MOOLJEE, EditOT ajid Proprietor, 
 
 AND 
 
 MIABHAI EUSTAMJI HMUi, Printer, " Satya Prakash.'' 
 
 
 '^€^^\^rP^<^ 
 
 BOMBAY : 
 
 rrintnd at t1in BOMBAY (tAZETTE Press. 
 
 1^62. 
 

PEEFACE. 
 
 The following sheets have been compiled and put in this form 
 with a view to give an extended circulation to the proceedings of 
 a trial which has created an unparalleled sensation on this side of 
 India. They contain a full report of the Maharaj Libel case,* 
 together with a copious account of the origin, trial and conclusion 
 of the Bhattia Conspiracy, which arose out of the pleas put in by 
 the defendants. The argument in the demurrer first hied by the 
 Defendants is also given in full. 
 
 The Maharaj Libel case is in all respects a most extraordinary 
 one. The plaintiff belonged to a fraternity, the members of which 
 pretended individually and collectively, to be incarnations of God and 
 according to the spirit of their theological works, even superior to 
 God himself. Their inequitous pretensions are tacitly acknowledged 
 and openly avowed by all their followers. Human nature rises in 
 rebellion against the morality of a theology wdiich sanctions and 
 imperatively enjoins adultery and fornication with its teachers as the 
 only means of salvation ! 
 
 If it be said that the Maharajas exercise absolute control over 
 the minds and bodies of their votaries, it would be a statement 
 that falls short of the truth. Adultery with them is not only en- 
 joined but an absolute necessity without which no man can expect 
 happiness in this world or bliss in the next. A course of bestial 
 licentiousness is their beatitude of heaven. The consequences of this 
 horrid and revolting superstition, were unfolded for the first time 
 before a judicial tribunal in the case of Jadunathjee Brizrattanjee 
 Maharaj vs. Karsandass Mooljee. The cause of morality, it was 
 expected, could not but gain by the trial and the defendant with 
 honest confidence in the justiness of his cause accepted the challenge 
 and in turn dared the challenger. The eyes of India were rivetted 
 
 * The varioiis extracts and translations produced during the trial arc also published in this report. 
 
 M 10815'? 
 
VI TREFACfi. 
 
 on the proceedings. The disclosures in court startled the outside 
 world. 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 
 extraordinary sensation produced by these revelations confined to the 
 native community. It was a subject of almost daily comment in the 
 English society and newspapers. Some watched the proceedings with 
 anxiety, many with mingled hope and fear lest by some mischance 
 the work of reform may be indefinitely postponed, and all with interest. 
 
 The fierce zeal with which the plaintiif sought to crush the defen- 
 dant, by all the means in his power, will not be a matter of sur- 
 prise, when we reflect that to him it was a life-and-death struggle. 
 He must either confound his assailant, or submit to the just criti- 
 cisms of the press, which cannot in the long run fail to undermine 
 his power to corrupt and defile the homes and beds of hundreds of 
 families. The defendant and his friends did what the law expected 
 them to do. To them it was a labour of love. Fresh from the 
 perusal of works, imbued with a healthy tone of morality, they could 
 not tolerate relig-ious vice or relia-ioi^s debauchees. Some idea of the 
 firm hold which this loathsome system ot religion has on the minds 
 of its followers, may be formed from the fact that nine of the most 
 respectable leading members of the Phattia caste, who in their com- 
 mercial dealings daily come in contact with civilized influences, from 
 sincere religious convictions, oi'ganized a conspiracy to defeat the ends 
 of justice, Ijy threatening to put in motion, that most terrible engine 
 of punishment in India — social excommunication. 
 
 The trial of the libel case occupied full twenty-four days. In this 
 respect it is quite unprecedented in the annals of judicial administration 
 in India. The ordinary reader cannot but rise from the perusal of the 
 report with a sjjontaneous conviction that it has afforded him a more 
 accurate glimpse into the interior of a section of native society, than 
 that 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 N T E N T S 
 
 PAOl 
 
 The Alleged Libel ... 1 
 
 Plaint set forth by Jadunathjee Maharaj ... 3 
 
 Argument on a Special Demurrer filed by the Defendants 5 
 
 Judgment on the Demurrer .. . 18 
 
 Pleas set forth by the Defendants 21 
 
 Conspiracy Case arising out of the Pleas SO 
 
 Trial op the Bhattia Conspiracy Case 81 
 
 Argument on the Motion of Arrest of Judgment ., 48 
 
 Sentence of the Court 58 
 
 Trial of the Maharaj Libel Case 59 
 
 Examination of Witnesses for the Plaintiff 60 
 
 Argument on the Motion of a Non-suit 72 
 
 Court's Decision on the above Application 85 
 
 Speech for the Defence 87 
 
 Examination of Witnesses for the Defendants 93 
 
 Extracts and Translations produced before the Court 95 
 
 Rebutting Evidence for the Plaintiff 152 
 
 Speech for the Defence on the Rebutting Evidence 177 
 
 Speech for the Plaintiff on tlie Defendants' Case 185 
 
 Judgment of the Hon'ble Sir M. Sausse 194 
 
 Judgment of the Hon'ble Sir J. Arnould 204 
 
THE MAHARAJ LIBEL CASE, 
 
 THE ALLEGED LIBEL. 
 
 (Official Translation of an Editorial Article in the " Snfi/a Prakash" Gujrati Newspaper, 
 of the 2\st October, 1860.) 
 
 THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE HINDUS AND THE PRESENT 
 HETJiROlJOX OPINIONS. 
 
 In the Purans and other Shasiras of the Hindus it is stated that in the 
 Kaliyitg there will arise false religions and heresies, and impostors and heretics will 
 cause adverse pers'iasions and adverse religious systems to be established. According 
 to the Hindu Shasiras five thousand years have now passed away since t\ie commence- 
 ment of the Kaliyug. From the Hindu S'/astras themselves it is demonstrated that 
 during this period of five thousand years as many new persuasions and religious systems 
 as have arisen among the Hindus, should all be considered spurious hensies. Now, four 
 hundred years have not as yet elapsed since the birth of VakiM, the projenitor of the 
 Maharajas. In the books of tlie Vaishnava persuasion it is written that the birth of 
 Valabhacliarya took place on the 11th of Waisakh Tad of Samvant 1535, the day 
 of the week Sunday ; since this event 381 years have elapsed to this day, and since 
 the beginning of the KaViyxg five thousand years have passed. The sect of ValabJiacharya 
 then originated wiihin the Kal'niwj itself. In the same way as the followers of Dada, 
 the followers of Sad/ni, the R ■msneld, the Ramanandi, the SIteJanandi and other sects 
 arose ; so the sect of Va'abhacharya arose ; all these sects have arisen in the KaVyug, 
 therefore according to the declarations of the Hindu Shasiras they must be heterodox. 
 
 Jadunathjee Maharaj snys that in the same way as sonr.e one goes from the gates 
 of the fort to proceed to Walkeshwar and some one to Bjculla, so exa^ tly the original 
 courses of the Veds and the Purans having gone forward, have diverged into different 
 ways. What a deceitful proposition this is. Out of one religious system ten or fifteen 
 by-ways must not branch off. The course of religion and of morals must be one cnly. 
 What necessity is there to quit the straight road by which to go to Walkeshwar, and 
 take the circuitous route of Bycalla ? Each sectary has made every other sectary a 
 heretic, and one has scattered dust upon tb.e other ; what then is the necessity for 
 acting thus ? But we have already made known that as regards the weapons with 
 which the Maharaj has come forth to defend himself, those very weapons will oppose 
 the Maharaj, and annoy him. The JNIaharaj considers the Hindu Shustras as the work 
 of GoJ ; he cannot then assert any patticular statement of the Hindu Shastras is 
 false. The said Maharaj cannot allege that the statement that in the Kaliyug here- 
 tical opinions will ariae, is false. Then like several other sects, the sect of the Maha- 
 
rajas has arisen in the Kaliyug, consequently it is established by the Hindu Shastras 
 that it is a false and heretical one. 
 
 The sect of the Maharajas is heretical and one delusive to simple people ; that 
 is proved by the genuine books of the Veds, the Piirans, &c., according to what is 
 intimated above. Not only this, but also from the works composed by the Maharajas, 
 it is proved that the Maharajas have raised up nothing but a new heresy and dis- 
 order. Behold y/ith regard to 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 : II 3 II 
 
 " Consequently before he himself has enjoyed her, he should make over his own 
 
 married wife (to the Maharaj), and he should also make over (to him) his sons and 
 
 daughters. After having got married, he should before having himself enjoyed his wife 
 
 make an offering of her (to the Maharaj) ; after which he should apply her to his 
 own use." 
 
 Alas ! what a heresy this is, what a sham this is, and what a delusion this is ! We 
 ask Jadunathjee Maharaj in what Ved, in what Paran., in what Shastra, and in 
 what law-book it is written that one's married wife should be made over to a Maharaj 
 or to a religious preceptor before being enjoyed. Not only one's wife, but one's daughter 
 also is to be made over ! Alas ! in writing this, our pen will not move on. We are 
 seized with utter disgust and agitation. To render blind people who see with their eyes 
 and to throw dust in their eyes, and in the name of religion and under the pretence 
 of religion to enjoy their tender maidens, wives and daughters, than this what greater 
 heresy and what greater deceit ? In the Kaliyug many other heresies and many sects 
 have arisen besides .hat of Valabhacharya, but no other sectaries have ever perpetrat- 
 ed, such shamelessness, subtilty, immodesty, rascality, and deceit as have the sect of the 
 Maharajas. When we use such severe terms as these, our simple Hindu friends are 
 wroth with us, and in consequence of that wrath of theirs, we have had and have 
 much to endure. But when throwing dust in the eyes of simple people, the Maharajas 
 write in their books about enjoying the tender maidens, — the peoples' wives and daughters, 
 and they enjoy them accordingly, great flames spring up within our inside, our pen at 
 once becomes heated on fire, and we have to grieve over our Hindu friends and over 
 their weak powers of reflection. 
 
 Jadunathjee Maharaj has commenced issuing a small work styled " The Propagator 
 of our own Religion' ; we ask him in what way do you wish to effect the propagation 
 of religion ? Your ancestors having scattered dust in the eyes of simple people, made 
 them blind ? Do you wish to make them see, or taking a false pride in the upholding 
 of your religion, do you wish to delude simple people still more ? Jadunathjee Maharaj, 
 should you wish to propogate or to spread abroad religion, then do you personally adopt 
 a. virtuous course of conduct and admonish your other Maharajas. As long as the pre- 
 
ceptors of religion shall themselves appear to be immersed in the sea of licentiousness 
 for so long they shall not be competent to convey religious exhortation. Gokulnathji 
 having com[)Osed the commentary abovementioned, has attached to your Vaishnam persuasion 
 a great blot of ink. Let that be first removed. Scorn the writer of the commentary. 
 [Oh, you] Maharajas, acting up to that commentary, defile the wives and daughters of 
 your devotees. Desist from that and destroy at once immorality such as that of the 
 company at the Ras ffsticcd. As long as you shall not do so, for so long you cannot 
 give religious admonition, and propogate your own religious faith ; do you be pleased 
 to be assured of that. 
 
 THE PLAINT SET FORTH BY JADUNATHJEB 
 MAHAEAJ. 
 
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
 
 Plea Side. 
 
 The fourteenth day of May in the Christian Year One Thousand 
 Eight Hundred and Sixty-one. 
 
 Bombay to Wit. — Jadunathjee Brizruttonjee, Maharaj, by Charles Edmund 
 Leathes, his Attorney, complains of Karsandass Mooljee, of Bombay Hindoo Inhabi- 
 tant, and Nanabhov Rustomjee, Raneenah, of Bombay Parsee Inhabitant, and therefore 
 or otherwise, persons subject to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, in an action 
 in the case for that whereas the religion of the Hindus is a religion of vast and 
 unknown antiquity, and accordingly to the same and to the usuage, custom and practice 
 in force in the Island of Bombay and in other parts of India, great honor and ex- 
 traordinary respect and pre-eminence have been and still are awarded, by all good and 
 worthy Hindus to the members of a certain caste or class of Hindus called Brahamins, 
 and to the persons called Maharajas, as and being the present chiefs and heads of the 
 said class of Hindus called Brahamins, and accordingly to the said Hindu religion, and 
 accordingly to the belief and opinion of all good and worthy Hindus, the said persons 
 so called Brahamins always have been and still are considered infinitely superior in worth 
 and dignity to all the other castes and classes of society into which by the religion, sacred- 
 books, laws, usages and customs of the Hindus, the Hindus residing in the Island of 
 Bombayaforesaid,and in the other parts of India from time immemorial whereof, the memory of 
 man is not to the contrary have ever been and still are divided, and whereas also there are certain 
 sacred books of the Hindus called Parans, Veds and Shakastras, and according to the same 
 and according to the computation of time the present age of the world is by them divided 
 and distinguished into four periods of time, called and distinguished Yugs, and which 
 are respectively called to wit Satya Yug, the Tteia Yaq, the Duoapar Yug and the 
 Kali or CaliYug, which said last mentioned Yug also called the earthen or iron age, 
 and whereas also the plaintiff now is and always has been a Brahamin and a Maharaj 
 and a Hindu high priest of high caste, and is a good, true, honest, just, and faithful 
 
Euliject of our Lady the Queen, and as such has behaved and conducted himself, and until 
 committing of the grievances by the defendant as hereafter mentioned was alvva}'s reputed 
 esteemed and accepted by an I a^non:Tst all his neighbours and by and amongst all 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 as hereafter mentioned, he th.» plaintiff had resided in Hombay aforesaid, had 
 during all the time deservedly obtainel t!ie gtodwill of tlie Hindus and otlier inhabitants thereof, 
 and whereas also the plaintiff has always been and still is a member of a certain 
 ancient Hindu religious sect to wit called the sect of Va'bhadiaria or the sect of the 
 ^Jaharajas, and has not ever been guilty, or until the time of tiie committing of the 
 grievances by the defendant as hereafter mentioned been suspected to have been guilty 
 of holding heterodox opinions in matters connected with his religion or of offences or 
 improper conduct hereafter menti ned to have been charged upon and imputed to the 
 plaintiff or of any of them, or of any other such offjnces or improper conduct, by 
 means of which the said several premises the plaintiff before the committing of the 
 grievances by the defendant as hereafter mentione •, had deservedly obtained the good 
 opinion and credit of all his Hindu neig'ibours and other good and worthy subjects of 
 our said Lady, the Queen, to whom he was in any wise known to wit at Bombay 
 aforesaid, yet the defendant well knowing the premises, but greatly envying the happy 
 state and condition of tlie plaintiff and contriving and wickedly and maliciously intend- 
 ing to injure the plaintiff, his good character, of a Braha.nin and in his said character 
 of a j\laharaj and High Priest, and in his said good name, fame, credit and r-^puta- 
 tion and to bring him into public scandal, infamy and disgrace with and amongst all 
 his Hindu neighbours and other good and worthy subjects of our Lady, the Queen, 
 and to cause it to be suspected and be ieved by those neighbours and subjects, that 
 he, the plaintiff, had been anl was guilty of holding heterodox opinions in matters 
 connected with his said religion, and that he had been and was guilty of offences and 
 improper conduct hereafter mentioned to have been charged upon and imputed to him, 
 and to harass and oppress him heretofore to wit on the twenty-first day of October one 
 thousand and eight hundred and sixty, to wit at Bombay aforesaid in a certain news- 
 paper, printed and published at Bombay aforesaid, in the Gujratee language and 
 character, but circulated amongst and real and understood by divers Hindus and other 
 inhabitants of Bombiy aforesaid, and of other parts of India, called the Satt/a Prakask, 
 which being translated into the English language is as follows, that is to say, the light 
 of truth, falsely, wickedly, willfully, designedly and maliciously did print and publish 
 falsely, willfully, designedly and maliciously caused to be printed or published, of and 
 concerning the plaint. ff, and of and concerning the religious opinions of the plaintiff and 
 of and concerning the 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, 
 and of and concerning the the plaintiff as and being a Member of such sect, and of 
 and concerning such other circumstances as aforesaid, a certain false, scandalous, malicious, 
 infamous and defamatiry libel, which said false, scandalous, malicious, infamous, and 
 defamatory libel 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 words and figure following, that is to say — (Here follows a copy of the alleged 
 libel in the Gujratee language and character.) And the plaintiff in fact says that the 
 
said false, scandalous, malicious, infamous, and defamatory libel so printed and published 
 and caused to be printed and published by the defendant as aforesaid correctly translated 
 into the English language was and is, according to the tenor, following ; that is to say, 
 (Here follows the English translation of the alleged libel.) 
 
 By means of the committing of which said grievances by the defendant, the plaintiff 
 has been and is greatly injured in his character of a Brahamin and in his character of 
 a Maharaj and UinJu High Priest and in his aforesaid good name, fame, credit and 
 reputation, and brought into public scandal, infamy and disgrace with and amongst the 
 said Hindu Inhabitants of Bombay, and other good and worthy subjects of our said 
 Lady, the Queen, in so much that divers of those neighbours, inhabitants of Bombay, 
 and subjects to whom the innocence and integrity of the plaintiff in the said premises 
 were unknown, have on occasion of the printing and publishing of the said grievances 
 from thence hitherto suspected and believed and slill do suspect and believe the plaintiff" 
 to have been and to be a person guilty of holding improper and heterodox opinions in 
 matters connected with his religion, and of the offence^ and improper conduct so as 
 aforesaid charged upon and imputed to him by the defendant, and have on that account 
 from thence hitherto shunneJ and avoided the company and conversation of the plaintiff" 
 and have wholly refused and still do refuse to have any acquaintance or discourse with 
 and to bring and other gifts and presents to him as they were before used and accus- 
 tomed to do and would have done again had not the said grievances been so committed 
 aforesaid, and the plaintiff has been and is by reason of the committing of the said 
 grievances otherwi?:, 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 Side. 
 (Before the Hon'ble Sir M Sausse, Kt., Chief Justice.) 
 First Day, Tuesday, 2nd July 1861. 
 Jad'inatlijee Brisraltonjee Maharaj vs. Karsandass Mooljee and another. 
 
 Mr. Bayley, with Mr. Scohle, instructed by Messrs. Collier and Leathes, appeared 
 for the plaintiff". 
 
 Mr. Anstey, with Mr. Dunbar, instiucted by Messrs. Acland and Prentis, for the 
 defendants. 
 
 This case was set down for argument on a demurrer filed by the defendants. The 
 demurrer was on vai'ious grounds to show that the plaintiff had no hcics standi in the 
 Court in that form of plaint. 
 
6 
 
 Mr. Baijlet/ took a preliminary objection that the defendants could not be heard 
 on the ground that they had not complied with the Rule of the Court No. 19 of 
 1825, which required that on the margin of the demurrer and paper books, some at least 
 of the grounds of demurrer shouldjfir be specified. 
 
 Mr. Ans'ey submitted that the rule had been complied with and that sufficient 
 cause had been set forth to ♦ entitle the demurrer to be entertained. He adduced 
 English authorities in support. 
 
 The Chief Justice said there was no rule in this Court which prohibited a special 
 demurrer. But the Court has, since he had the honor of presiding here, discoui-aged 
 such demurrers. There was no rule prohibiting a special demurrer, and therefore a 
 party cannot be said to have no right to file one. He thought that under the authorities, 
 the reference given in the margin to the grounds in the body was sufficient, and he 
 could not refuse to proceed with the hearing. 
 
 The objection having been overruled, 
 
 Mr. Anstey opened his argument by stating that a certain Jadunathjee Brizruttonjee 
 Maharaj was the plaintiff, and two persons, Karsandass Mooljee, a Hindoo, and 
 Kanabhoy Eustamjee Raneena, a Parsi, were the defendants. 
 
 He stated that the plaint set forth was clearly open on the face of it to a general 
 demurrer, not included in the special grounds. That general ground was public policy. 
 The grounds of demurrer set forth specially are as follows : — First that in the plaint, it 
 was not stated, alleged, or specified that the alleged improper and heterodox opinions 
 surmised to have been imputed to the plaintiff, are or in what manner and to 
 what extent they are improper and heterodox according to the Hindu religion or 
 that of the Valabhacharya, or what were or are the doctrines of the said religion 
 or sect. Secondly, it was not stated, ic. what the alleged offences and improper 
 conduct are, and to what extent, if they are to any extent, contrary to the said 
 religion or the doctrines of the said sect on the alleged custom or practice in force 
 in Bombay and other parts of India. Thirdly, it was not stated, &c. what is the alleged 
 custom, usage, &c., and by what persons and sects the same is followed and observed 
 and in particular whether the same is a Hindu or a Christian usage, &c. Fourthly, 
 it is nowhere stated that it is contrary to the doctrine or discipline or custom, &c. of 
 the Hindus, kc. for the Maharajs under pretence of religion, to enjoy the tender maidens, 
 wives, and daughters of the people. Fifthly, for that there is no specific offence charged 
 against the defendants or either of them. Sixthly, it is not stated, &c. in what sense 
 the expressions " heterodox opinion" and " offence and improper conduct" are understood 
 or applied by the plaintiff or the Maharajs, or the Hindus generally. Seventhly, that 
 the said expressions are insensible and ambiguous, and have no meaning in law. Eighthly, 
 that the several inuendoes, alleging that the plaintiff and other Maharajs are guilty ot 
 rascality and shameful conduct, and defile the wives and daughters of their devotees 
 and other Hindus by criminal intercourse with them, &c., are not warranted by the 
 words of the supposed libel, nor supported by any inducement or introductory averment 
 to which the inuendoes refer. Ninthly, that alleged translation is altogether incorrect, 
 and the sense of it repugnant, and at variance with the alleged libel. Tenthly, that 
 there are divers clerical errors in setting forth the libel, whereby the translation and 
 libel are unintelligible and insensible. And, eleventhly, that there are omissions of 
 
/ 
 
 material statements and averments, especially as to the alleged commentary and book 
 published by one Gokalnathjee and by the plaintiff himself, and to which the alleged 
 libel purports to be a reply. 
 
 31): Anstey would tirst contend that on the grounds of public policy, the Court 
 should not entertain such an action. He had made many researches and enquiries, and 
 not an instance could be discovered of an attempt like this, wherein a Maharaj or 
 Hindu High Priest, sought, by the machinery of Her Majesty's Courts, or by that of 
 the late East India Company's Courts, to enforce the discipline of his sect. It behoved 
 the Court to decline to lend its jurisdiction to such uses : else it might be that the 
 Court would find itself helping some impure sect for the propagation of most immoral, 
 irreligious, and beastly doctrines. Now what is the origin asserted by the Maharaj ? If 
 one can discover any meaning of the plaint, the plaintiff is a priest 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 
 Hindus : — and disregarding his duty as a Hindu to venerate the Maharaj, the 
 defendant employed his leisure time to set at nought the authority of the Maharaj and 
 expose the immoral doctrines of the sect. It was declared that the Maharaj was 
 entitled to a different treatment, but that not having been so treated by the defendant 
 he was disparaged and lowered in the eyes of his devotees, and therefore he claimed 
 these damages. Mr. Anstey said that on the face of the plaint it was clearly a spiritual 
 offence for which the plaintiff sued, for the plaint s».4s forth his spiritual ascendancy 
 over the Hindus. It was contrary to public policy that he should be allowed to come into 
 this Court, for it was not a libel cencerning his private character, but against his 
 office as Maharaj. He (Mr. Anstey) could find no authority for such a suit, where 
 a heathen priest attempted to establish his spiritual ascendancy by means of an action 
 for libel. The rule of non-interference in religion has been laid down in the Acts of 
 Parliament, and applied by Charter to India, and the learned counsel urged, that 
 this Court would not allow that good rule to be violated in a matter where it was 
 impossible to know before-hand the enormity of the mischief likely to result from such 
 interference. Suppose, for illustration, that the defendants are religious reformers, whose 
 sole view is to promote the truths of natural religion and to get rid of all superstitions 
 and religious abuses, which are but of very modern growth, and not to be traced to 
 the mysterious past, will not the Court take it to be against public policy to entertain 
 a suit to stop them ? a suit by which it is endeavoured to support the ill-gotten 
 authority and presumed ascendancy of the plaintiff? and will not public policy refuse to 
 allow such authority to extinguish the progress of reformation in a smooth and 
 unobstructed course ? He (Mr. Anstey) found his own view to be always entertained by 
 the Charter Courts. In the Asiatic Journal for May 1832 was the report of a Hindu 
 case of breach of promise of marriage, in which the Chief Justice who decided 
 it, observed that all Hindu religious matters and usages should be kept out of the 
 Supreme Court. In the case of the Khojas and Memons, reported in Sir Erskine 
 Peiry's Oriental Cases, p. 122, his Lordship laid down the doctrines, which Mr. 
 Anstey conceived to be that of this Court (reads the passage). With reference to 
 the same question in the case of Ardaseer Cursetjee vs. Perozebye, 10 Moore's Privy 
 Council Cases, p. 414-19, the Lords of Council are found expressing themselves thus 
 (reads the passage). On the authority of this case, which is so strong in point, will 
 
8 
 
 the Court lend itself to support this ecclesiastic, this Maharaj to enforce his spiritual 
 authority ? If the scene were changed from India to England, where the Judges take 
 cognisance of spiritual suits, even there this Court would not lend its jurisdiction to 
 the Church Kstabiished, inasmuch as although the Ecclesiastical or Courts Christian 
 exist there, a Court of Common Law never intervenes, and declines to entertain such 
 matters, and refers parties to those Courts. This is carried so far that, where the 
 Ecclesiastical Court has power to entertain an action of defamation, the Court of Common 
 Law never assumes a concurrent jurisdiction to ent ain such a suit, as partaking of 
 an ecclesiastical nature in illustration of his arguments. Mr. Anstey contended that 
 either this action was im[)roperly brought, because his lordship had not the judicial 
 knowledge of the Hindu doctrines, usages, &c , and especially of the modern sect of 
 Yalabliacharya, upon which plaintiff based his authority, and consequently his lordship 
 must disallow the suit from going on ; or that this Court being not congnisant of 
 those matters, the plaint was faulty in not setting forth what those doctrines, &c. are. 
 To test this he would assume the first of the alternatives just named to be true. He 
 would therefore read from authorised works on Maharaj doctrine and practice, what are 
 the enormous and horrid canons of faith and morals, of which his Lordship was by 
 the plaint assumed to be judicially cognisant. 
 
 Mr. Bayley. — We are to argue the demurrer ; the facts are admitted. As to 
 what the Valabhacharya sect is, we have nothing to do. 
 
 jJ/r. Anstey. — I say you have, unless your assumption is wrong, that his Lordsip 
 has judicial cognisance of those sects and doctrines. 
 
 Chief Justice. — I say I have no such knowledga nor am I called upon to 
 have it. 
 
 Mr. Anstey said that the second alternative therefore was now the only one open to the 
 plaintiff, namely that the Court was confined to so much of his doctrine and discipline as was 
 properly averred in his plaint That averment was demurrable tor its insufficiency. The first 
 point in the demurrer was that it was not stated or specified in the plaint what the alleged 
 heterodox opinions or the sect of Valabhacharya were, 'i'lie learned counsel contended that it 
 ought to have been so stated, and the plaint was therefore bad, and the reason for that was 
 that in every action the defendant has right to an answer, to have the alleged libel set 
 forth fully, and that the statement on the face of the plaint must be such as to enable 
 the Court to give judgment as opinion on law, in support of which argument he referred 
 to two cases, Solomon vs. Lawson, 8 Q B. 823 and Cartwright vs. Anderson, 5 B. and A. 
 In the first of these the omission of a letter in the count for libel, and in the second 
 that of a word in a document were held material to the plaint. Again when libel is 
 set out, there must be by way of inducement or inuendo, or both, sufficient averments, 
 to explain the libel, and if there are not such avern ents, then it is no libel. For 
 want of such necessary averments to connect the libel with the introductory matter, the 
 plaint is held insufRcient, Grey vs. Cooper 9 L. J. 9 Exchequer, and Robinson vs. Clarke. 
 To call a person a " damned fool," and a clergyman a " dunce," were not held libel 
 [cases cited.] It has been well settled as a duty incumbent on the non-conformists to set 
 forth the doctrines and practices of their body to enable the Court to judge of inuendoes 
 connecting them with libel, Ilartley vs. Ilerrick, 8 Ttrm Reports. In the present casft 
 it should have been shown by positive averment that the plaintiff wjw a lawful priest. 
 
9 
 
 for he sued as priest, and that his sect was a sect capable of being protected at law 
 and that he was liable, and how, to be damaged by the slander. In another case it 
 has been held not a libel to publish of a Catholic j)riest that he imposed a degrading 
 penance upon a man, in the absence ot the averment that such would expose him to. 
 the censure of his superiors. The same doctrine pervaded our law, and Mr. Anstey 
 remembered the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, when Vice Chancellor, refusing to grant 
 injunction for ejecting a clergyman from the pulpit, on ground that the affidavit was 
 insufficient to show that the sect, to which he belonged, had the same view of the 
 decencies of spiritual hfe and morals as the rest of the English world. In Burn's 
 Ecclesiastical Law, he found it clearly laid down that a man cannot be proceeded against 
 in a temporal court for mere heresy, except where the Statute made such offence 
 punishable by law. The learned counsel here pointed out the distinction between a written 
 and an unwritten slander, and said that in order to constitute a libel of an imputation 
 on your conduct in profession, it must be such an imputation as to make it probable 
 that you would be injured in your circumstances. Suppose that the plaintiff had professed 
 to be a priest of the goddess Bhowanee, but not being recognised as an authority, he 
 deserves no protection of law, and no amount of imputation on his illegal profession could 
 be construed into libel. In Morrison vs. Langdori, 2 Fuller 724, the Court refused to 
 entertain the action for libel brought by a jobber for being called a " lame duck." In 
 other cases it has been laid down that where the imputation was cast upon one appearing 
 on the face of the count to be unworthy of the protection of law, in libel he could not recover. The 
 learned counsel then went on to remark upon the law of libel as regards an alien. It had been 
 at one time held that an alien cannot sue on ground that he had no local allegiance, and 
 was a resident abroad ; but now it has been held that he can but that he ought to show 
 that he has some ground to invoke the protection of law. These cases, said Mr. Anstey, would 
 apply strongly to the present case in one of H. M.'s Chartered Courts, because it has 
 been so decided by the highest authority, viz., Lord Brougham's judgment in the case 
 of Mayor of Lyons vs. The E. I. Co. We have possessed India, and especially Bombay, 
 for a period of 201 years by right of conquest and free gift, and during that period 
 no action of this sort has ever come before the Court, which furnishes a cogent argument 
 that no law existed to warrant the bringing of it, and this law of defamation of a 
 spiritual man was never communicated to the Natives by the Crown. Mr. Anstey now 
 came to the objection that the words " improper conduct," &c., were insensible and 
 ambiguous, which therefore constituted a good ground of demurrer. In Evans vs. Hutton, 
 6 vol. 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, what was improper, what was heterodox, 
 and according to what doctrine, for there were a thousand sects of Hindus, each hating 
 the other. A Reverend friend (Dr. Wilson) had very properly asked, how can we 
 define what is " heterodoxy," — that is " the other opinion," until we know what " the 
 opinion" (or " doxy") is ? How could his Lordship, prevented by common law from 
 enquiring into heresy as respects the »Scotch, the Irish, the Protestant, &c., determine 
 the imputation " heterodox" in this case ? He (Mr. Anstey) submitted that on the face of the 
 plaint, it seemed that it was a mere matter of discipline that there was no malice on part 
 of the defendants, who were merely actuated by a motive to perform a public duty. 
 Those inuendoes were not justified by the language of the libel. In support of this 
 statement the learned counsel cited at length the cases of Ilem vs. , Solomon vs. 
 
10 
 
 Laicson, Goldstein vs. Hurst, and Clement vs. Fisher. The only libel tangible can be 
 divided into two heads, the one imputing the orthodoxy of the doctrines of the sect of 
 Maharajas, and the other denouncing their immoral practices. The plaintiff' alleges that 
 these imputations have brought him into contempt, but he does not say in what manner. 
 These inuendoes have no meaning at all. Mr, Anstey urged that the utmost indulgence 
 and license should be accorded to a fair criticism, and that the alleged libel was a fair 
 and a liberal criticism of a book written some years ago by one Goculnathjee Maharaj, 
 and of a commentary written thereon by the plaintiff" himself. There was not a single 
 Protestant or a Eoman Catholic journal which would not be made the subject of an 
 action at the instance of the other for imputing heresy to each other, if it be allowed 
 that the so-called heresy is a libel. The alleged libel was a legitimate denunciation of 
 a faith not partaken of by the writer for the purpose of protecting the innocent from 
 being led into a path of immorality and wickedness. Every Protestant writes a polemic 
 against the Catholic, and every Catholic against the Protestant, and they will do so 
 until the 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 
 plaint. When preceptors of religion neglect their duty they become unfit for their post, 
 and hable to criticism, which could not be construed into a libel. If these inuendoes 
 be construed as libel, then St. John must be held liable for that offence when he said, 
 "■ Come ye out of her, &c." There was one ground of demurrer which Mr. Anstey 
 insisted upon, which was that the translation of the article contained in the plaint was 
 improper, and not an official translation. In conclusion Mr. Anstey urged that the Court 
 ought not, on ground of pubUc policy, to interfere in religious matters of the Hindus, 
 and submitted that the demurrer ought to be allowed. 
 
 The following is the extract of the case of Attorney General vs. Wilkinson, before 
 Sir Knight Bruce, reported in the London Times of the 18th March 1844 : — 
 
 {Froyn the " Times" of the 18th March 1844.) 
 
 Attorney General vs. Wilkinson. 
 
 " il/>-. SimpJdnson, and Mr. Rolt moved for an Injunction to restrain three persons 
 of the names of Wilkinson, Monk, and McPhall, from interfering or meddhng with the 
 affairs of the Meeting House belonging to the Society of Protestant Dissenters, called 
 the Particular, or Calvanistic Baptists, at Huncoat, in the county of Lancaster, and 
 from acting as Trustees under the Indentures of Trust, under which the meeting-house 
 was held and regulated, and to restrain McPhail in particular, from officiating as minister 
 of the same meeting-house. 
 
 " The information and bill were filed at the relation of George Lawson, who was 
 one of three surviving trustees ; — (of whom the two defendants, Wilkinson and Monk, 
 were the others), alleging various acts of misconduct on the part of the three defendants, 
 particularly in making use of the meeting-house as a debating room for political pur- 
 poses, allowing their adherents to express their opinions of the preacher, by applause, 
 during the serivice, conversing loudly, and even smoking, during the same time, and, 
 •particularly (with regard to McPhail) that he had of late preached Chartist doctrines, 
 and had denied one of the most material religious doctrines held by the congregation, 
 namely, the eternity of future punishment for sin. 
 
11 
 
 " Mr. Roll read several affidavits, in which it was sworn, that McPhail, had on one 
 occasion, called on such members of the congregation present, as were of Chartist opinions, 
 to hold up their hands, for the excommunication of such members, as were not Chartists ; — 
 that he had admitted to the deponents that he did not believe in eternal future 
 punishment ; that McPhail had been in the meeting-house, in the pulpit, smoking, 
 while there were, in the body of the building, large numbers of colliers, wearing their 
 hats or caps, and smoking short black pipes, and all this on a Suuday, when Divine 
 service ought to have been performed ; and that McPhail had read extracts, (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 meeting- 
 house should believe in the doctrine of eternal punishment in a future state for sin 
 committed in this. He said he did not see, as matters stood, and on an interlocutory 
 proceeding, and as the information did not pray anything in the nature of a receiver 
 or manager, that he could make the order as to "Wilkinson and Monk. He had no 
 means of judging, what, according to the peculiar doctrines and habits of their sect, 
 amounted to indecency or scandal, whether smoking, or reading a newspaper, in the 
 pulpit or meeting-house was so. What might be indecent, or scandalous in the Catholic 
 Church, might be viewed in a very different light, by many sects ; and this His Honor 
 said, with all respect to the congregation now in question. On the point of doctrine, 
 as regarded McPhail, the case seemed tolerably clear ; without saying what he might 
 do, on another application, and an amended record, he thought, it would not be safe, 
 under present circumstances, to act against the two gentlemen, Wilkinson and Monk. 
 His Honor was not satisfied that there was a case, in which, looking at the whole 
 evidence, it would be right to act against McPhail, except on the point of doctrine. 
 
 " Mr. Russell, having addressed the Court on that point, asserted that, if Mr. McPhail 
 did not believe in the doctrine of eternal future punishment, he had forsworn himself. . . . 
 He swore, " that it is not true that he does not believe," and that was equivalent, 
 for all purposes, (and particularly when uttered by a man, under, in fact, a charge 
 of perjury,) to his saying " he does believe " so and so . . . 
 
 " His Honor said, that he expressed neither approbation nor disapprobation, in a 
 religious or moral point of view, of what had been said on either side. The case on 
 the bill, answer and affidavit, as to the trustees, was not, with sufficient plainness, 
 established to warrant the Court in making an order as to them. It was, however, 
 otherwise as to the minister. If there were an officiating minister, holding doctrines, 
 not in conformity with the provisions of the deed, it would be a plain and manifest 
 breach of trust. . . Comparing the general with the particular charges, coming from 
 such a quarter as they did. His Honor, upon the evidence before him, felt bound to 
 come to the conclusion, that, on the point he had last adverted to, the minister did 
 not hold the doctrine that the deed of trust required. His Honor felt, that, so far 
 as the minister was concerned, he was bound to grant the injunction." 
 
12 
 
 Second Bay, Thnrsday, ^ih Jul// 1861. 
 
 Mr. Baijieij, with whom was Mr. Scoble, stated that he appeared to argue the 
 case on behalf of the plaintiff, and that he was taken by surprise at the great 
 quantity of irrelevant argument addressed to the Court by his learned friend, Mr. 
 Anstey, and in answer to a sentence to which he gave utterance, he would merely 
 say that as this was a demurrer not on any matters of substance, but purely of form, 
 the rule has been violated, and the Court could not allow any of those eleven points 
 without overturning the rule which has been in vogue for centuries in England and 
 here for many years. The learned Couusel would address a few observations to shew 
 his learned friend had no locus standi and no right to go into general demurrer and 
 the cases cited thereon. Where a party files a special demurrer he is bound to it, and 
 therefore could not, and has no right whatever to argue poinsts on general demurrer. 
 As to this point he referred to what is invariably relied on by lawyers, — Comyn's 
 Digest and Stephen's Pleading, in which it is laid down that in special demurrer a 
 party waives all points, and adheres to the particular points specified. The cases cited 
 by his learned friend under the title of inuendo were not applicable here by the laws 
 of pleading, and every point taken by him in that respect was frivolous. The EngUsh 
 Common Law Procedure Act, vvhich was passed in 1852, and had not been introduced 
 here, merely restored the simpHcity of old pleadings, brushed away the superfluous 
 growth of technicalities and abolished special demurrers. He would refer to the language 
 of the clause by which the modes of procedure in Common Law are pointed in the 
 Charters of the Supreme Courts in India, and from that he would be justified in 
 saying that special demurrers are not allowed. 
 
 Chief Justice. — Mr. Bayley, you need not trouble yourself about that. It has 
 been the practice here for a long time to take special demurrers, but the Court 
 discountenances them by not allowing costs. It will be useless your arguing the point, 
 for I am not going to change that rule of the Court. 
 
 Mr. Bayley, however, would still say that the English technical points are not 
 incorporated here by the Charter. In the case of the Queen vs. Alloo Paroo, reported 
 in Sir Erskine Perry's Oriental Cases, p. 551, the Chief Justice decided that 
 the technicalities ot English law and pleading are not to be applied to India ; and the 
 point to be decided here was not merely what the law here was, ■ but what would 
 ultimately be decided in the Privy Council. Mr. Bayley 's contention, of course, was 
 that the plaint was sufficient, for there was no such thing as a declaration in the 
 procedure here, and the learned counsel called the attention of the Court to what was 
 a plaint (reading the definition of " Plaint," from Comyn's Digest, and Wharton's Law 
 Lexicon, Edition of 1860). The mode of procedure at common law adopted here was 
 analogous to that in the English County Courts, but in the latter the technical system of 
 special demurrers does not exist. The matter to be discussed was whether the plaint 
 contained the cause of action, and he ventured to assert that it was sufficient. His 
 learned friend was tied down to the points mentioned in the special demurrer, and he 
 could not therefore digress from them, and attack the plaint in substance. His argu- 
 ment had branched out into a point whether certain parts of the plaint were or were 
 not contrary to public policy. If a man demurs specially, be waives all points and is 
 tied down to the special ones, and Mr. Bayley had shown by authorities that his 
 
13 
 
 learned friend had no rlglit to argue general points, they not having been set down 
 on the margin. In Parker vs. Reilb/, 3 M. & W., the Court expressed an opinion 
 that a party could not go beyond the points mentioned in the margin, and in Arbowin 
 vs. Anderson, 1 Q. B. Reports, it was decided that the paper books must state the 
 points intended to be made on each side, and that counsel could not go out of them. 
 That had not been done so in this case. Therefore on both these grounds, the 
 defendant was not entitled to go into the question of public policy, and he could not 
 be heard. This Court cannot, nor can any Court travel one inch beyond what has been 
 laid down in the demurrer book. Turning to another part of the argument, he (Mr. 
 Bayley) said that having admitted all the facts of the plaint, his learned friend could 
 not argue that the translation of the article was incorrect. 
 
 Cliipf Justice. — But suppose there is a repugnancy between the translation and the 
 original document, how is the Court to come at that f One of the rules of the Court is 
 to recognise only the official translation. Suppose the original Guzeratee document differs 
 from the translation of it, and if one of the grounds of the demurrer is that there is 
 that difference, then the defendant cannot admit such translation. 
 
 Mr. Bayley said it was not necessary to set out the translation or copy of a 
 document, although the original must be set out {Zenobio vs. Aktell 6 T. R.), (Craft 
 vs. Boyd, 1 Wi7is. Saunders.) The rule of this Court as regards official translations 
 alluded to by his learned friend was a fallacy ; as the rule only said that no document 
 shall be given in evidence without a translation signed by the Chief Translator, which 
 had been done here, as the translation in the plaint was made and signed by Mr. 
 Flynn, the Chief Translator, and the language of the plaint was " which being 
 correctly translated," and the demurrer admitted that. 
 
 Chief Justice. — That may be good law in England, but it would not apply here, 
 where the practice has been to have documents translated. Surely that document must 
 be read in Court, which cannot be done without its being translated. 
 
 Mr. Bayley observed that it was not open to his learned friend to take that objection 
 at that stage, it was quite premature ; he now sought to traverse the point, and 
 therefore he could not demur at the same time. The rule of pleadings in force in 
 Bombay did not justify his learned friend to traverse and demur at the same time. 
 The learned counsel next called the attention of the Court to what the action was 
 for, viz., that it was for libel. The demurrer admitted the whole of the plaint, the 
 introductory averments respecting the plaintiff and the peculiar sanctity in which as a 
 Maharaj he was held by Brahmins and others, — the publication of the libel, that the 
 publication was a false, scandalous, defamatory and infamous libel, the special damage, 
 &c. His learned friend, however, argued that it was not a libel, but Mr. Bayley 
 contended that it was, to determine which he read the definition of Libel in Wrongs 
 and Remedies by Addison, p. 576. One of the eleven points of the demurrer was 
 that the plaint did not impute any specific offence, but that was a frivolous objection, 
 for an action of libel can lie, and the libeller is punishable for slandering another m 
 his protession. After admitting on the face of the demurrer that the libel was 
 published, and that it was false, scandalous &c., it was idle and frivolous for the 
 defendant to rebut it, and say that it contained no offence. Mr. Bayley then said he 
 had no desire to shrink from answering the objections raised on the ground of public 
 policy, if the Court deemed it was necessary for him to do so. 
 
14 
 
 Chief Justice. — I have simply the plaint in libel and the demurrer that the 
 plaint is informally treated. I do not know how the question of public policy comes 
 before me in this demurrer. 
 
 3fr. Bayley. — I understand your Lordship does not ask me to answer the points 
 raised on ground of public policy. 
 
 Cliief Justice. — So far as the grounds of special demurrer embrace those points, I 
 
 am bound to give consideration to them, but I am not bound to entertain the question 
 
 of public policy in a separate form. If Mr. Anstey had shewn any authority 1 would 
 have been bound to hear it. 
 
 Mr. Baijley then being relieved of so much argument, proceeded to remark in 
 answer to an ojection, that however obscene and disagreeable might be the character 
 of tlie evidence which would be brought forward at the trial, there was nothing ta 
 prevent the Court from hearing the action. He referred to the case of Sudasundseii 
 vs. hoknath Mulh/, Morton's Cases, decided in the Supreme Court at Calcutta, which was 
 an action of crim. con. between two Hindoo parties, and the Court held that the 
 action was sustainable ; and in the case of Queen vs. Dr. l^ewman, 1 Vol. Dearsly's 
 Crown Cases, there were twenty-two charges of libel brought against Dr. AchilH by 
 Dr. Newman ; one of the pleas was justification of every fact stated in the libel and though 
 the circumstances of the case were of a most indecent character, it did not prevent the 
 criminal information from being brought to trial, and the defendant was fined £100. 
 Now what was the libel here ? The chief part of it charged the plaintiff and his 
 brother Maharajas with being in the habit of defiling the wives and daughters of their 
 devotees. Looking at the improper character of the evidence which will come out, 
 said Mr. Bayley, Dr. Newman's case is a precedent that such obscene cases can be 
 heard. Keferring to the first ground of objection in the demurrer, Mr. Bayley said, it 
 was unnecessary to state more than this, that the plaintiff has a cause of action. It 
 was said that the doctrines of the Hindu Keligion should have been set out. In actions 
 professedly grounded on custom it is not usual to set out what the custom is. (Wentworth 
 on Pleading, Edition of 1797, 1 Vol., p. 230). Bill of Exchange and Marine Policies 
 derive their origin from the custom of merchants, and no custom used ever to be set 
 out in declarations in such actions. In an action founded upon a custom of bankers, 
 it has been held not necessary to set out the custom. Bellamy m. Marjoribanks, 6 Exc. 
 Supposing we were setting out a libel by setting out the doctrines of Christianity, how could 
 that be done ? No two persons can agree as to what those doctrines are ; it is impossible 
 to state them ; who is say what the doctrines of Christian religion are ? They are 
 different in Rome, Geneva, England and Scotland. With the Hindoo religion the 
 difficulty increases a hundredfold. Supposing that the doctrines ought to be set out, how 
 was that to be done with a religion which is so mysterious, which is older by centuries 
 than the Christian Eeligion, and has so many ramifications ; and how could an 
 unfortunate barrister, whether an old practitioner here or a new arrival, set out what the 
 Hindu religion is. None but Brahmins study it, and some thirty years are required 
 for that purpose. The learned counsel would show that, according to the strict rules 
 of law, it was not necessary to set out such matters in the plaint. He cited cases 
 from Stephens on Pleadim/ and passages from Comyn's Digest, shewing that it is not 
 necessary to state what the law presumes. Irrespective of this, the learned counsel 
 contended that the libel can be understood without the setting out of the doctrines, inasmuch 
 
15 
 
 as it charged the phiiiitiff with breaches of the moral law. The numerous cases cited by his 
 learned friend to impeach the plaint of introductory averments, gave the Court but little 
 assistance, and did not support the argument to the desired extent. The arguments 
 founded upon by the other side upon the case of Solomon vs. Wright, are cut away 
 by the case of" Lofann vs. Malcolmson, in the House of Lords two years afterwards, 
 wherein it is decided that though defamatory matter apply to a class, if the inuendo 
 point to a particular person, that person can bring an action for libel. In the pre- 
 sent case the libel unquestionably points to the class of Maharajas, and if the plaintiff 
 satisfactorily shews that he was one of them, and that it applied to him, he can 
 bring an action. The case of Goldstein vs. Fox and other cases cited by Mr. Anstey, 
 are those of oral defamation or slander, and did not apply to a case of libel. The 
 argument that the plaintiff and his sect have no locus standi, and that they are not 
 entitled to the protection at law, seemed to Mr. Bayley to be a strange conception of 
 the law administered in this country. 
 
 Chief Justice. — The 3 and 4 William IV. puts that to rest, for there is a clause 
 there which bestows upon the people here equal rights. 
 
 3fr. Bajjleij then went on to argue the objection that the plaintiff must be 
 treated as an alien. He said that if any persons were to be treated as aliens, it 
 must be he himself and his learned friend as foreigners in this land, and not the 
 plaintiff, descended from the original inhabitants of India, who describes himself to be 
 a liege subject of Her Majesty the Queen, and a resident in Bombay for a number 
 of years. To shew how Her Majesty's Courts lend their assistance to foreigners, he 
 cited the well known case of the Emperor of Austria vs. Louis Kossuth, decided in 
 May last, reported 7 Jurist N. S. by V. C. Stuart and also K. vs. Peltier, where 
 the libel was on Napoleon Buonaparte when First Consul, and E. vs. Lord George 
 Gordon for a libel on the Queen of Spain. It had been urged that the denunciation 
 of the conduct of the Maharajas, who under the cloak of religion, defiled the wives 
 and daughters of their devotees, was not a libel. In answer to this, he (Mr. 
 Bayley) need only say that the plaint spoke for itself, and that the argument was too 
 premature, and not worthy the consideration of the Court at this stage of the proceed- 
 ings, and he cited the case of Thorley vs. The Earl of Kerri/, 4 Taunton, where the 
 introductory averments were similar to the present case, and where the Earl had been 
 charged with practising hypocrisy under the cloak of religion and that was held by the 
 Courts of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas to be a libel. Again it had been 
 argued that there was no allegation in the plaint, — that abstinence from women was 
 the profession of the Maharaj ; but the learned counsel deemed it unnecessary to notice 
 such a monstrous argument, which bore absurdity on the face of it, for abstinence 
 from women is no man's profession, and much less in a climate like this, where the 
 passions are warm, where children arrive at puberty at a much earlier age than in 
 the cold countries, and are by Hindu law of age at IG. Again it was said that it 
 was free to all people to cast imputation upon people in illegal profession and obnoxi- 
 ous to law ; but he contended that the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of a legal 
 profession, and the argument therefore bears contradiction on the face of it. There 
 was no authority for Mr. Anstey saying that during the period the English have 
 been in possession of Bombay there has been no case of this sort on record, for 
 Morley's Digest bears evidence of many cases of actions of libel brought in the Zilia 
 
16 
 
 vSudder Courts. Even supposing that there are no precedents, that does not preclude 
 plaintiff seeking redress for a grievance on the established principle of law, that where 
 there is a wrong there is a remedy. AsJdet/ vs. White ; Embrey vs. Owen 7 Exe. 
 Another argument was that the law of defamation in spiritual cases has not been 
 granted to the Natives here, but (Mr. Bayley contended) this was a libel against the 
 plaintiff, not in his spiritual capacity, but in his private character, and the mere fact 
 of his being a Brahmin, a Maharaj, or a member of the sect of Wallabcharya, did not 
 disentitle him to seek protection at law. If such a doctrine were allowed, no Brahmin 
 in the land would be safe ; he could be slandered and libelled with impunity, and 
 redress denied to him because he happened to be a spiritual person. The Institutes 
 of Menu and other sacred books of the Hindus shew that a Brahmin was considered 
 as a powerful Divinity. Another objection was that the words " improper conduct" are 
 unknown to the English law ; but the learned counsel denied that to be so, for if a 
 libel is libellous without an inuendo, it can be rejected (cited several authorities). 
 
 Taking the whole article from beginning to end it 'was a libel upon the character 
 of the plaintiff, and all that the Court had to do, was to determine whether the 
 special points were allowable. It had been complained that no specific offence was 
 attributed to the defendants, but Mr. Bayley urged that it was not necessary to lay a 
 specific charge. The case of the Quakers, alluded to by his learned friend with regard 
 to the discipline of the sect, was not applicable to this. The other complaint was 
 that there was no allegation of malice, but he answered that that was unnecessary as 
 malice is implied in the libel. It was said that the latter part of the article was only- 
 tangible as libel, but he would say that the whole of the article from beginning to 
 end was so. It was not necessary to state how the plaintiff was disgraced by the 
 libel. This was an article in a newspaper, and it was only necessary to set out the 
 whole of the article, if as in this case the article was complete in itself. As to the- 
 translation being not official, he said it was quite correct, and bore the signature of 
 the head translator of the Court. As to the clerical errors, the learned counsel was- 
 not satisfied that there were any such errors in the copy of the plaint, although: 
 there might be some slight errors which inevitably occur in copies written by native 
 clerks imperfectly acquainted with the English language, and not a single certified copy 
 that issued from the offices of the Master and Prothonotary that he had seen, had been 
 free from them. If the argument were allowed, the omission of a dot to an"i"or a 
 cross to a single " t " would be fatal. On the whole he submitffed that the demurrer was 
 frivolous, and should be dismissed with costs. 
 
 Mr. Anste'j, in reply, said he bowed to the decision of his Lordship overruling his 
 objection raised on the ground of public policy, and therefore confined his observations 
 to the points of special demurrer. Before entering upon the arguments of his learned 
 friend, he read the clause of the 3 and 4 William IV., to show that his Lordship was 
 right in principle, though the modus operandi was different. He then proceeded to say 
 on authority, that without a good inducement the inuendo is nothing, and that his 
 arguments had turned not upon the formal passages in the plaint, but upon material 
 passages. Erom the plaint it did not' appear in what way the defendants were guilty 
 of the alleged offence, and which of the two defendants, on record. It was material to 
 know which of them committed the alleged grievance, because one was a Parsee and 
 the other a Hindu, and the former might claim more freedom of criticism than the 
 
17 
 
 latter would, and sice -versa. It was not stated in what their offence consisted, and 
 here was nothing specifically charged. He illustrated his argument by the suppositious 
 case of a Christian bringing an action against another Christian, in wliich case the 
 Court would take it as matters affecting the Christian religion. The morality of the 
 West is known to the law, while that of the East is left very vague, and therefore it 
 is necessary that the imputations on the moral character of the people of the latter 
 must be specified. If the doctrine that no such specification was required was adopted, 
 there would be no end to the inconvenience and difficulty in which the Court would 
 be thereby involved, for in the eyes of the Maharaj the defendants might be guilty of 
 blasphemy in taking his godly name in vain in such a manner. It has been urged 
 that it is not necessary to allege a custom in pleading, but Mr. Anstey contended that 
 where parties sue on a case involving custom, that custom must be alleged, though it 
 might not be set out at length. The plaintiff ought to have stated that chastity is a 
 virture according to the tenets of his sect. The argument that it would be difficult 
 and not safe for a pleader to set out the doctrine in case of a Christian clergyman, 
 or ground that no Christians agree on it, applied, said Mr. Anstey, with reversed force 
 to the case of Hindus, where from their religion, or rather many religions, it was 
 necessary that there should be averments of the doctrine. The Court is not the proper 
 tribunal to determine a suit where a self-styled god or Maharaj seeks to enforce the 
 discipline of his sect. He never denied the difference between a written and an oral 
 slander as to the liability of the slanderer, but what he said was that both written 
 and unwritten defamation agree in this — if it has been uttered or published concerning 
 a man in his profession, then it becomes necessary for him by clear averment to connect 
 that slander not only with the special damages, but with the conduct of his profession. 
 The Maharaj had chosen to declare that he had been slandered in his profession, but 
 he ought to have shewn the connection between the imputation and the profession, and 
 that he was liable to a censure from his superiors. Suppose the Court was sitting in 
 Madras to try an action of crim. con. among the Nairs, a sect on the Malabar Coast, 
 where the custom prevails of two or three brothers having one wife in common, would 
 it not be necessary for the Court then to enquire what religion the parties belonged 
 to, and, under an Act of Parliament, to respect their usages. This Court could not 
 entertain an action for crim. con. where the parties are Hindus, because by the Hindu law the 
 offence is made subject to a criminal jurisdiction. The very book — Morley's Digest — alluded to 
 on the other side, is full of cases in which the Zilla Courts have refused to entertain 
 questions of caste and those partaking of a spiritual character. It was urged that the 
 malice must be presumed, but he (Mr. Anstey) said there was nothing in the alleged 
 libel to warrant the Court in presuming malice. The alleged hbel amounted merely to 
 this. A book has been published since many years by one Goculnathjee Maharaj 
 promulgating a doctrine, the plaintiff followed suit, and, in commenting on the doctrine, 
 the defendants used terms of reproach within the bounds of legitimate criticism. In 
 reviewing these books, the defendants denounced their doctrines, that is the true con- 
 struction of the alleged libel, and Mr. Anstey said this was no libel. The whole of 
 the matter in the hbel is speculative, with the exception of a tangible point which 
 might be observed from looking to the inuendo. It may be divided into two parts, 
 one impugning the orthodoxy of the doctrines of the sect, and the other impugning their 
 offensive and immoral practices, and the learned counsel contended that it was a fair 
 and legitimate criticism of the sect. The criticism referred to a historical fact, viz., the history 
 
18 
 
 of the Hindu religion from the 1 6th century, and to the philosophy of the doctrines of a sect, and 
 on the authority of opinions expressed by Lord EUinborough and Lord Campbell, the 
 learned counsel maintained that such criticism could not be held a libel. He believed 
 that his case was not in the least affected by the arguments of his learned friend, and 
 he fully relied on the eleven grounds of the demurrer. 
 
 Thursdai/, \Wi July 1861. 
 
 The Chief Justice this day delivered his judgment to the following effect : — -It 
 was open to the defendant under the Statute to raise any question of general demurrer 
 besides those specified, but by the Court's rule No. 90 he is confined to such special 
 grounds as are stated. The defendant was limited to the eleven grounds of special 
 demurrer exhibited by him, and it was with these alone the Court had now to deal. 
 By the rules of pleading irrelevant matter might be rejected and cannot be made 
 ground of special demurrer. The principle Utile per inutile non vitiatur was applicable 
 to all those grounds of demurrer. 
 
 Now as to the first ground of the special demurrer, which is that there was no 
 allegation that improper conduct is contrary to the doctrines of Vallabhacharya, &c., his 
 Lordship said that this portion of the plaint containing the averment of character was 
 clearly to he held mere surplusage by Chitty (Vol. 2.) from whom the precedent is 
 evidently taken (Styles 11 Precedent 1. M.S.), so the words "By means whereof," &c. 
 were shewn to be not traversable according to the authorities in the same book. No special 
 demurrer could therefore lie on this ground, and consequently in His Lordship's opinion 
 the first ground failed. His Lordship would not hold it necessary for plaintiff to 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 opinion, sufficiently indicates what it relates to. It is clearly 
 stated there that certain sects are heterodox by the Hindu Shastras or sacred books, 
 and it is admitted that plaintiff is one of that sect. On that ground alone Hia 
 Lordship would not allow this point of the special demurrer. This was made abun- 
 dantly clear by the libel which goes on very much to identify the " heterodoxy" with 
 " heresy." 
 
 The second ground of the demurrer that there was no allegation that improper 
 conduct was contrary to the religion of the sect, &c., must be overruled on the same 
 principle. A great deal was said and it was very much insisted on that this was a 
 libel against the Maharaj as a high priest alone. Now that was a mistake. Looking 
 to the libel itself it is charged against the plaintiff, as a Maharaj, as a Brahmin and 
 »s a member of the said sect of Vallabhacharya. The case of May vs. Brown, 3 B. 
 
19 
 
 &nd C. 138, is a 'direct authority to shew that when a libel is of and concerning 
 the plaintiff in various characters, it is a libel against him individually, so that it 
 appeared to the Court, this was a libel against the plaintiff in his individual capacitj'-, 
 segregated from his character of priest. (Levsis vs. Walter 3 B. and C. in notes to 
 May vs. Brown?) If the Court were to hold the plaintiff bound to make such an 
 averment as was here demanded, that would be to hold him prima facie guilty of the 
 conduct imputed to him. A Hindu is not more bound to do so than an European. 
 This Court is bound to treat both upon an equality and to administer the same law 
 to every one. This Court has no judicial cognisance of any peculiarities of moral 
 conduct if there are such, but must leave the defendant to come in and allege them 
 in his ovm defence by way of plea. The plaintiff is not bound to anticipate what is 
 merely matter of defence. 
 
 As to the third cause of the demurrer the same rule applied which his Lordship 
 had applied to the first two. Also this usage was sufficiently pleaded for the purpose 
 of the inducement where the same strictness is not required as in the rest of the plaint. 
 
 For the same reasons his Lordship overruled the fourth cause of the demurrer which 
 stated that there was no allegation that it was contrary to the practice of the Maharajas 
 to enjoy the tender maidens, wives, and daughters of their devotees. His Lordship did 
 not think that the plaintiff was bound to exculpate himself from these imputations. 
 
 The fifth ground, which alleged that no specific offence was charged, arose in this 
 way. There are two defendants named in the plaint ; yet throughout, the word " defendant" 
 in the singular number was used. There was a rule no doubt that accuracy must be 
 observed, and a case in point (Walford vs. Anthony, 8 Bingh.) was adduced by Mr. 
 Anstey. His Lordship was reluctantly obliged to allow that cause of demurrer ; it was, 
 however a small point. 
 
 As to the sixth cause of the demurrer, the observations his Lordship had already made, 
 applied to it and it must be overruled. The " heterodox opinions" are sufficiently defined 
 by the libel and so also the words " offences and improper conduct," because these are 
 levelled at certain specific acts charged to have been done by the plaintiff. 
 
 The seventh cause which complained of certain expressions being insensible and 
 ambiguous, was also overruled, as the expressions clearly appeared in the libel. 
 
 The eighth cause stated that the several inuendoes alleging that the plaint/ff and 
 other Maharajas are guilty of rascality and shameful conduct, and defile the wives and 
 daughters of their devotees and other Hindus by criminal intercourse with them, &c., 
 are not warranted by the words of the libel, nor supported by any inducement or 
 introductory averment to which the inuendoes refer. This cause, his Lordship said, 
 forced on the Court the consideration of what the libel itsel was. His Lordship was 
 of opinion that the learned Counsel (Mr. Anstey) for the defendants had very 
 properly divided the libel into opinions and facts. Now, if on looking to this part of 
 the libel the Court found any one of the inuendoes not supported by the Hbel, it would 
 be the duty of the Court to allow the demurrer as to that. His Lordship had 
 atttentively gone through them all and must say that it did appear to him that the 
 first part of the article was an attempt to argue upon historical facts brought to 
 bear upon the opinions of a particular class of people at the present day. It is law- 
 
20 
 
 ful for any person to take up the history or the historical opinions of any sect or 
 class, and to reason upon them, and if he fairly and honestly produces opinions not 
 in unison with what others would form, yet if there be no malice he would not be 
 guilty of libel. Now thus far it appeared to his Lordship that the libel was levelled 
 against this sect, — its opinions, — and the writings of its members. The reasoning and 
 logic might not be perfect, but so far there was nothing to shew personal mahce 
 against the plaintiff. (Reading a portion of the article) His Lordship remarked that 
 that was arguing in a historical point of view, — a comparison of the ancient Hindu 
 religion with the new. The words were coarse and vulgar, but his Lordship was not 
 prepared to say that they were libellous as against the plaintiff. His Lordship after 
 alluding to the case of Lefanu vs. Malcolmso7i cited by the plaintiff's counsel, said he 
 knew of no authority for holding that any one sect of hundreds, thousands, or millions 
 of people accused (because of their members) of subtlety, immorality, rascality, immodesty, 
 &c., has a right to bring his action on that ground as for a libel on himself. The rest of the 
 libel, his Lordship observed, was of a diflterent character. In it the plaintiff was singled 
 out and apostrophised, and was charged with acts alleged to be committed by himself. 
 (Reading the last portion of the article). That, it appeared to his Lordship, was a 
 direct charge against the existing body of Maharajas, it points out the plaintiff as 
 one of them, and it tells him to desist. The two grounds charged here as hbellous 
 come within the case of Tabail vs. Tepper before Lord Ellenborough, which was cited 
 in argument. Again in Carr vs. Mood that Chief Justice held the same doctrine. 
 This after part of the libel, however. His Lordship said, would come before the Court 
 on future occasion, and he would therefore express no further opinion on it now. 
 Then there was another inuendo which relates to "as long as the preceptors of religion 
 &c." but the Maharajas are not stated in the inducement to be " preceptors of religion." 
 Therefore according to the rules of pleading, the plaintiff had no right to sustain this 
 inuendo, and this cause of the demurrer. His Lordship said, must be allowed. 
 
 As to the ninth ground of demurrer, it had been abandoned by Mr. Anstey, 
 and His Lordship merely stated therefore that the learned counsel for the . plaintiff 
 was wrong in saying that in England a translation is unnecessary (Zenobio vs. Axtill 6 
 T. R.) It is a rule of common sense and of law. 
 
 As to the tenth ground of the demurrer, if the clerical errors were considerable, the 
 Court would not yield to them. But they did not appear considerable, and as some 
 must occur in this country, the point taken must be overruled. 
 
 ^ As to the eleventh and last ground referring to omissions of books &c.. His Lordship 
 thought it must be overruled. The office of a special demurrer is to point out to the 
 plaintiff what amendment he should make in his pleading. Now this the defendant 
 had not done, but his Lordship did not think that either of those books was at all 
 necessary to be further set forth. 
 
 The special demurrer was on the fifth and eight points allowed. 
 
 Mr. Bayley. — As we have virtually succeeded we ought to have the costs. 
 
 Chief Justice.— 1 cannot allow that. There is no authority in favour of giving 
 costs to a plaintiff of a demurrer allowed. 
 
21 
 
 3f)\ Bayky asked leave to amend the plaint on the fifth and eighth points. 
 
 Chief Justice. — The plaintiff will have liberty to amend, on amending defendant's 
 copy. 
 
 The Defendants to have a fortnight to plead. 
 
 THE PLEAS SET FORTH BY THE DEFENDANTS. 
 
 The defendants, by Samuel Lavvford Acland, their A.ttorney, say that they are not 
 nor is either of them guilty of the said supposed grievances above laid to their charge 
 or any or either of the same or any part thereof in manner and form as by the 
 plaintiff above in that behalf alleged, and of this the defendants put themselves upon 
 the Court, &c. 
 
 And for a second plea in this behalf the defendants say that the persons in the 
 said plaint alleged to be called Maharajas were not nor are the preceptors of the Hindu 
 religion therein mentioned in manner and form as by the plaintiff above in that behalf 
 alleged and of this the defendants put themselves upon the Court, &c. 
 
 And for a third plea in this behalf the defendants say that the said persons were 
 not nor are the chiefs or heads of the class of Hindus in the said plaint alleged to be 
 called Brahmins in mannner and form as by the plaintiff above in that behalf alleged 
 and of this the defendants put themselves upon the Court, &c. 
 
 And for a fourth plea in this behalf to the said plaint the defendants say that 
 the plaintiff hath noc always been nor is 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 
 behalf alleged and of this the defendants put themselves upon the Court, &c. 
 
 And for a fifth plea in this behalf the defendants say that the supposed religious 
 sect by the said plaint alleged to be called the sect of Vallabacharya or the sect of the 
 Maharajas, and of which sect the plaintiff is by the same plaint alleged to be a member 
 is a sect of persons holding professing and observing religious opinions and practices of 
 a very modern date to wit of the date of the 15th century of the Christian Era, and 
 altogether repugnant to and at variance with the religious doctrines and practices of the 
 ancient Hindu religion in the introductory part of the said plaint mentioned, and the 
 usage custom and practice therein also mentioned, without this that the plaintiff is a 
 member of an ancient Hindu religious sect in manner and form as by him the plaintiff 
 above in that behalf alleged and of this the defendants put themselves upon the 
 Court, &c. 
 
 And for a sixth plea in this behalf the defendants say that so much of the 
 alleged libel as is next hereinafter set forth in the Gujerati language and character 
 
22 
 
 that is to say ^ £[^A >i^>il^ >ll^Rl^l ^\i{\^ ^Idl'll mhr{[ H^ ^i;^^l'^ 
 
 being literally and accurately translated into the English language was and is to the 
 tenor and effect following that is to say " (Oh) Maharaja's acting up to that commen- 
 tary, defiling the wives and daughters of your devotees desist from that and destroy 
 at once immorality such as that of the company at the Rns festivar without this 
 that the said alleged libel being duly or correctly translated by James Flynn, Esquire, 
 the sworn Chief Translator of this Honorable Court, into the English language was 
 or is according to the tenor in the said plaint alleged in manner and form as thereby 
 alleged, and of this the defendants put themselves upon the Court, &c. 
 
 And for a seventh plea to the said plaint as to the printing and publishing and 
 causing to be printed and published the following part of the said supposed libel 
 that is to say [here follows a great portion of the libel in the Gujrati language]. 
 Which words are by the said plaint alleged and surmised to be therein duly and 
 correctly translated into the English language, and to be according to the tenor following 
 that is to say [here follows English translation of the above portion of the libel]. 
 The defendants say that before and at the time of the committing the said supposed 
 grievances there was .at Bombay and at divers other places in India a certain sect 
 of Hindus called the sect of Vallahacharr/a and also called Yaishnavas and in the said 
 supposed libel, and also in the said plaint and hereinbefore named and holding professing 
 and practising certain opinions as to religions and morals opposed to the ancient religious 
 and moral laws of the Hindus, and more particularly to such of the said religious and 
 moral laws as prescribe to the Hindus, the observance of piety towards their Gods, and 
 of chastity, sobriety and virtue towards and amongst themselves for that, whereas by 
 the said last mentioned laws all good and true Hindus are bound to believe and to 
 hold that the Gods and their laws are eternal and unchangeable and that the Godhead 
 is not capable ot being procreated or begotten by man, and that it is a wicked and 
 impious thing for a mere man to pretend to be a God or to be capable of begetting 
 a God or to practise impostures in that behalf on any people, and that it is altogether 
 against religion and morality for maidens before marriage to have carnal intercourse with any 
 man, or for wives to have such intercourse with any man but their own husbands, yet 
 nevertheless before and at the time aforesaid, the said sect then did hold, profess, and 
 practise, amongst other impious, wicked, and anti-social opinions, the opinions following, that 
 is to say — that the leaders of the said sect and the naturally begotten and adopted sons of such 
 leaders are the Incarnations of the Gods Brahma and Kristna and themselves Gods and are 
 and ought to be worshipped implicitly obeyed and served as Gods by the members of the said 
 sect with all the minds, bodies, and properties of such sectaries, and that the neglect of 
 any such to perform the said worship implicit obedience and service, is a sin of the 
 gravest character and that it is the duty of the female members in particular of 
 the said sect to love the said leaders with adulterine love and sensual lust and 
 perform the said worship, implicit obedience and service with their bodies by submitting 
 to have carnal intercourse [with any of the said leaders] whensoever called upon or 
 required by any of the latter so to do, albeit such female members are or may be 
 unmarried maidens or wives of other men and in no wise married or betrothed in 
 marriage to the said leaders ; and the defendants aver that before and at the time of 
 the committing of the said grievances, the said leaders of the said sect pretenend to be 
 such Incarnations and Gods as aforesaid and to have such capacity as aforesaid, and 
 
23 
 
 entitled to be so vrorshiped, implicitly obeyed, and served as aforesaid, and permitted 
 or sanctioned the performance in manner aforesaid of such worship implicit obedience and 
 service, thereby practising great impostures on their said sectaries and on the Hindu 
 people in that behalf. And the defendants aver that before and at the time of the 
 committing of the said supposed grievances the leaders of the said sect were dispersed 
 over the Presidency of Bombay and other parts of India and were in number about 
 70 in all and were called indiscriminately Gurus, Achari/as, Gossains, Vandravun 
 Gomais and also Maharajas and in fact were the said Maharajas in the said supposed 
 libel and plaint and hereinbefore mentioned, and that the plaintiff was one of the 
 said Maharajas, and the defendants aver that in and by the religious books of and 
 received as of authority by and among the said sect and in particular in and by a 
 certain book called " Vitha lesha Katna Yivema," and the commentary thereon, every such 
 leader is described as the husband of many women (to wit his devotees) even although 
 himself may have no wife or only one wife and as the ocean of wanton amorous 
 sport with many women (which is the sea of licentiousness in the said supposed libel, 
 and in the plaint hereinbefore mentioned) and also as one whose sole aim is wanton 
 amorous sport with many women ; And the defendants aver that before and at the 
 time of the committing of the said supposed grievances the said religious books of and 
 then received by the said sect contained many passages of the like indecent and immoral 
 character, and whereby in direct terms adultery and fornication are encouraged and com- 
 mended, and also whereby the said sectaries were then taught and instructed to gratify 
 their passions in this life, and they do so gratify them, and especially at Ras festival 
 in the said supposed libel and plaint mentioned as the surest way of pleasing the 
 Gods, and procuring eternal happiness in a future life and other false and heretical 
 and immoral opinions were then inculcated without any opposition from the said leaders 
 and with their connivance and acquiescence, And in particular in and by one of the 
 said books to wit the said commentary of the said Gokulnathjee in the said supposed 
 libel and plaint, and hereinbefore respectively mentioned and also in and by another 
 of the said books to wit called " Sidkant Rakasya' and also in and by another 
 of the said books, to wit called " Kavi Charitra," and in and by others of the said 
 books it is mentioned and professed to the effect that among the principal laws, 
 doctrines and commandments of the said sect of Valabhacharya were the following, that 
 is to say — to secure the firm support of some one of the said leaders and to worship 
 the God in^ him incarnate are the only principal means of the deliverance of the soul 
 from the body and the salvation thereof, and the re-absorptlon thereof into the Divine 
 essence, and that it is the duty of every member of the said sect to forsake the sense 
 of shame with reference to public opinion and the commandments of the said sacred 
 books and laws of the Hindus and to be suppliants to some of such leaders for salvation, 
 and to be humble before him and to believe that he tlie said member is not a 
 man, but a woman servant of such leader, and to praise always his — the said leader's 
 virtues and the greatness of his name, and to obey his commands and to put faith 
 in all his acts and words and to be ever associate unto his service and to consider 
 himself the said sectary and his wife and children and all that is his as the property 
 of his said leader and to offer them and present every thing and even the said sectary's 
 wives and children to the said leader for his enjoyment and use and for the trans- 
 formation thereof into the nature of the great God Brahma before he the said sectary 
 shall himself presume to use or enjoy the same, and that by acting otherwise the said 
 
24 
 
 eectary shall and will become guilty of sin, and incur the Divine punishments appointed 
 to the same, And the defendants aver that before and at the time aforesaid in and by 
 others of the said books of and received by the said sect as aforesaid to wit one book 
 called " 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 
 Annay Samshay chedak," (and which last mentioned book was and is printed, published, and 
 circulated in Bombay aforesaid by and under the authority of the plaintiff himself, and by 
 and under the authority of a certain society of the said sect for the propagation 
 of the doctrines of the same sect to wit a society then and now called to wit the 
 Vaishnav Dharma Prasarak of which Society the plaintiff was and is a member and also 
 founder, and president,) and also in and by other books it was professed, stated, and 
 maintained to the effect that it is the creed of the said sect that God of whom the 
 said leaders so pretend as aforesaid to be the Incarnations doth abide in the houses of 
 and in union with the members thereof by or with adulterine love like unto that in the 
 excessive affection whereof an adulteresss makes abandonment of body, mind, and wealth, 
 to her adulterer. And that when God is displeased with any sectary his or her said 
 leader saves him from that displeasure of God but that when the said leader is 
 displeased with the said sectary none can save him or her from that displeasure of the 
 leader, and that therefore the said sectary ought to serve the said leader with 
 his or her body and wealth and please tlie leader aforesaid, and also ought 
 necessarily to worship in an equal manner the said leader and God only and that 
 he or she can only by worshipping such leader go to the heaven appointed as a 
 reward for the worship of God and that the said leaders are manifestly God, the 
 excellent Being himself. And that the punishment of him or her who holds his or 
 her leader and God himself to be different or distinct beings shall be that of being 
 born again in the condition of a bird called Sichana, and the punishment of him or 
 her who sits with legs folded in front before his or her leader shall be that of being 
 born again in the condition of a serpent, and the punishment of him or her who 
 displays his or her learning before his or her leader shall be that of being thrice again 
 born dumb and thrice again born in the condition of a dog or ass, and that the 
 punishment of him or her who displays activity before his or her leader shall be that 
 of being born again in the condition of a bird called Jarakh and the punishment of him 
 or her who shows the soles of his or her feet to his or her leader shall be that of 
 being born again and for ten years remaining in the condition of a serpent and the 
 punishment of him or her who disobeys the order of such leader shall be the going 
 to Asepatra and other dreadful hells, and the forfeiture of all merit before God and 
 that the punishment of him or her who performs worship without seeing and paying 
 his or her respects to his or her leader shall be the sterility of such worship, and 
 that the punishment of him or her who divulges the secrets of his or her leader or of 
 God shall be that of being thrice again born in the condition of dog, and that in the 
 Kalliyug in the said supposed libel and plaint and hereinbefore mentioned there is no 
 means of salvation similar to worship to wit the worship of one of the said leaders 
 and therefore that the said sectaries should regard each his or her leader as God nay 
 and as a being greater than God and that all people and all things are God's own 
 and that consequently the sin of adultery and dishonesty does not affect him (to 
 wit incarnate as aforesaid) but is ordained only for the world to wit the followers of 
 
the said sect, and that if any persons shall say that it is sinful to entertain adulterine 
 love towards God, such persons are ignorant fools ; for in God all relations abide, and 
 the two species of man and woman do not exist, but that both are the spirit of 
 God, and that C' nsequently when he (to wit incarnate as aforesaid) commits adultery, he 
 is at play with his own spirit and in that no sin is incurred either by God to wit 
 incarnate in the said leaders or any of them or by this world to wit the female 
 members aforesaid and that God himself had granted to the Veds to wit religious 
 preceptors of the Hindus at their request permission to entertain adulterine love for the 
 God Krishna to wit the God of whom the said leaders pretend to be Incarnations as 
 aforesaid, and in the form of sheperdesses to be adulterously and carnally known and 
 enjoyed by the said God and that in like manner at the request of 16,000 sages 
 who were enamoured of another God, the same became and were in the forms 
 of shepherdesses carnally known and enjoyed by the said God to wit incarnate 
 as aforesaid, and all the shepherdesses aforesaid loved God as their adulterer 
 and he became an adulterer and made them happy, and that God to wit incarnate as 
 aforesaid is all form and that he is in the form of father and of husband and of son 
 and of 'adulterer and sustaining the life of devotees by adulterine love, and that they 
 who say that this is sin are iynorant and not devotees, but wishing for the love of 
 hell, and as it were asses feeding on the dunghill but knowing not the pleasures of 
 the garden and to whom to eat sugar is death and to feed on the rubbish of dunghills 
 is life ; And that bj experience it is clearly known that there is no love in any thing 
 like adulterine love for that by day and night and amid the engagements of the 
 adulteress in her household work, her mind is directed to the object of meeting her 
 adulterer and for that during her separation from him and by reason thereof, she loaths 
 her food and precious attire and dies of excessive grief, And that they are fools who 
 say that such love is loathsome to wit before God. And these, the defendants aver 
 that the several matters aforesaid, are more fully and at large set forth in the said 
 several books of and received by the said sect and that they crave leave to refer to 
 the same books respectively when produced and shewn unto this Honorable Court. And 
 the defendants aver that the said sect is in the premises according to the said 
 ancient Hindu laws and religion a new heresy and disorder and altogether a false 
 and heretical sect and withal a sect delusive to_ simple people and that in par- 
 ticular it is a heresy, a sham and a delusion and a doctrine not written in any 
 ved or puran or shasira or sacred books of the said Hindus or law book as 
 aforesaid that one's married wife should be made over to a Maharaj or to a religious 
 preceptor before being enjoyed or that one's daughter should be so made over. But the 
 defendants further say that nevertheless it is a necessary consequence of the aforesaid 
 commentary of the said Goculnathjee, so received by the said sect as aforesaid that 
 before a member thereof has enjoyed his own married wife, he should make her over 
 to his leader to wit to the Maharaj and that he the said member should also make 
 over to him his said member's sons and daughters and that after having got married 
 and before having himself enjoyed his wife, he the said member should make an offering 
 of her to the said leader to wit the Maharaj aforesaid ; after which he the said member 
 should apply her to his the said member's own use ; and the defendants aver that by 
 reason of the said heresy, sham and delusion they were as orthodox believers in religion 
 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 the name and under the pretence of religion to assert the right 
 of the said leaders to enjoy the tender maidens and wives and daughters of the people 
 30 blinded as aforesaid, and the defendants aver that not only the said Goculnathjee by 
 his heavy composed commentary abovementioned, but also the composers and compilers 
 of all the said other books had before the committing of the said supposed grievances 
 thereby attached to the said Vaishnava pursuasion to wit the said sect a great blot of 
 ink and reproach, and that in acting according or up to the said commentary the 
 Maharajas who did so act were necessarily guilty of defiling the wives and daughters 
 of their devotees, and themselves appear to be immersed in the sea of licentiousness, 
 and by so appearing and so long as they do so appear and do not desist from so 
 acting up to that commentary for so long they necessarily shall not be competent to 
 convey religious exhortation nor can give religious admonition and propagate their own 
 religious faith. And the defendants aver that before and at the time of the committing 
 of the said grievances, the said Maharajas were commonly worshipped and obeyed and 
 served as Gods and Incarnations of the great God Brahma by their male and female 
 devotees in the said supposed libel and plaint and hereinbefore mentioned with such 
 adulterine love and in mann-er and form as in and by the said books of and received 
 by the said sect as taught and inculcated and as hereinbefore in that behalf is set forth, 
 and that thereby and in consequence thereof great crimes and scandals were committed 
 and occasioned, and great discredit and dissertion brought upon and into the said sect. 
 And in particular the defendants aver that it was then the common practice and then 
 commonly and as well in the said sect as without the same, reputed and believed to 
 be the general practice of, by and for the most part of, the said Maharajs to act according 
 to the aforesaid teachings and instructions of the said commentary and such other books 
 as aforesaid, and to obtain and have in right of their said pretended incarnations 
 and godships and in the name of the said religion carnal intercourse with and 
 to defile their said female devotees being such wives or daughters as aforesaid. 
 And the defendants further aver that according to the Hindu Laws and religion aforesaid 
 before and at the time of the committing of the said supposed grievances it was and 
 still is unlawful and criminal for any person to handle the breasts of any woman not 
 being his wife or lawful concubine or to throw goolal upon the same or to take indecent 
 liberties with her person, and that such offences then were and still are by the said 
 law and religion accounted and deemed to amount to adultery, and that nevertheless it 
 was before and at the time of the committing of the said supposed grievances and still 
 is the practice of the said Maharajas publicly as well as privately to lay their hands 
 upon and hold and handle the breasts of the female devotees of their said sect albeit 
 neither wives nor lawful concubines of them the said Maharajas and to cast and throw 
 goolal upon the breasts of the said devotees And the defendants aver that before the 
 time of the committing of the said supposed grievances, the plaintiff himself then being such 
 Maharaja as aforesaid confessed and declared to two merchants of the said sect as the 
 fact was that adultery was then and theretofore practised among the said Maharajas 
 thereof, and he then further alleged that they had been corrupted thereunto and to other 
 evil manners through or by reason of their having come into contact and intimacy 
 with the pilgrims who eschew marriage and are called Varkats. And the defendants 
 aver that shortly before the committing of the said supposed grievances it had been 
 also recently stated and declared by a Maharaj of high station in the said sect to wit one 
 Jevanjee Maharaj to drivers respectable members of the said sect, that he the said Maharaj was 
 
27 
 
 unaole to prevent his said brothers from committing adultery or fornication with the 
 said female devotees of the said sect. And the defendants aver that both before and 
 at the time of the committing of the said supposed grievances the licentiousness of many 
 of the said Maharajas was a matter of notoriety in the said sect and generally among 
 the said followers and had frequently been denounced by some of the latter in 
 Guzerathee pamphlets, newpapers, handbills and placards and by other means of 
 publication amongst the natives of this presidency, and that in particular at the end 
 of the Christian year 1855 the Bhatias, who then were members of the said sect 
 incensed at the number of instances of the defilement of women of the said sect by 
 Maharajas at the temples where and on the occasions when the said women were 
 assembled for the purpose of worshipping the Gods and Maharajas aforesaid in conformity 
 with the teachings aforesaid, convened and met together in a public meeting and there- 
 at came to a resolution and did resolve to the effect that for the future none of 
 their wives or daughters should be ever allowed to resort to the said temples or to 
 the said Maharajas for worship except at and during certain stated hours in the 
 morning at end during which hours they the said Maharajas would to the knowledge 
 of the said Bhattias be entirely occupied with certain daily exercises of their religious 
 retical, insomuch that they would be then wholly unable to have any intercourse with 
 any of the women last aforesaid, and the defendants aver that the plaintiff himself 
 as such Maharajas aforesaid some months before the time of the committing of the 
 said supposed grievances did, in the course of a conversation with a Bhattia of the 
 said sect, assert and undertake the defence of the adulterous debauched conduct 
 of the said Maharajas or to excuse the same, and did then and to that end 
 profess and maintain to the said last mentioned Bhattia in effect ihat there was no 
 crime or sin in the practice of adultery, and that on the contrary the same was whole- 
 some in itself and effectual to sustain and increase the vigor and strength of man, and 
 that he the plaintiff had so found and known the said practice in fact to be from his 
 own experience thereof as well as from that of the athletics of the Court of the Guicowar 
 each of whom as the plaintiff then asserted was in the habit of keeping four or five 
 women as concubines and of preparing themselves for a wrestling or other athletic 
 exercise by a preliminary coition with one or more of the women last aforesaid. And 
 the plaintiff then also defended and extolled promiscuous coition and professed that by 
 the enjoyment of divers females the blood of the man enjoying the same becomes and 
 is greatly heightened and improved. And these defendants further aver that before and 
 at the time of the committing of the said grievances the plaintiff was commonly 
 reputed and known in Bombay and in Surat and elsewhere in India to be addicted 
 to the society of women of loose and light life and to be himself a man of debauched 
 morals and to be in the habit of receiving women and amongst others female devotees 
 of the said sect into his private apartment and to chambering and wantonness and to 
 taking indecent liberties with women of his said sect but not being his wives or 
 lawful concubines, and in particular that about 8 or 10 years before the committing 
 of the said supposed grievances to wit in a certain room at Beyt in the Presidency 
 of Bombay aforesaid in which room certain of the said women then were, the plain- 
 tiff scattered, threw and cast upon their persons cfoolal until the said room was 
 filled and darkened with the same, and that he the plaintiff then in the said room 
 60 thereby darkened as aforesaid took indecent liberties with a y»ung person there being 
 one of the said women of his sect but not being his wife or lawful concubine to 
 
28 
 
 an extent which by Hindu Law is deemed to be and in fact is highly criminal 
 and in fact equivalent and tantamount to the crime of adultery to wit the indecent liberty 
 of laying hold with his hands her breasts and handling the same, and further in the 
 course of the Christian year 1860 the plaintiff did in a certain conversation to wit at 
 Bombay aforesaid with a certain member of his said sect confess and admit the pre- 
 mises in this averment set forth, and further that in the course of the same year 
 last aforesaid the plaintiff did retire into and for the space of one hour or thereabouts 
 remain in his private apartment to wit at Bombay aforesaid alone with a certain 
 female of his said sect but not being his wife or lawful concubine and then and there 
 have carnal intercourse with her. And that on another occasion in the course of the 
 Christian year 1860 before the committing of the said alleged grievances the pkintiff 
 in his private apartment to wit at Bombay aforesaid had carnal intercourse with a 
 female of his said sect and not being a wife or lawful concubine of him the plaintiff. 
 And lastly that within th.. course of the last year and before the committing of the 
 said supposed grievances the plaintiff became and was by reason of his debauched 
 conduct affected with a certain disease called the Great or French Pox otherwise the 
 venereal disease. And the defendants aver that the defendant Karsandass Mooljee was 
 before and at the time of the committing of said supposed grievances a member of the 
 said sect and that being such member thereof and being greatly zealous for the honor and 
 well being thereof and much affected and grieved by reason of the crimes and scandals 
 aforesaid and anxious to promote a reform of the said sect and of its said leaders 
 in the premises, he then being the editor of the newspaper mentioned in the said plaint, 
 and in which the said supposed libel is by the said plaint alleged to have been pub- 
 lished did cause and procure to be printed and published by the defendant Nanabhoy 
 E,ustomjee Eanneenah therein certain articles and writings which were by him the 
 first-named defendant designed to promote and which did in fact promote a reformation 
 of the said sect in the premises amongst other matters. And the defendants further 
 aver that before and at the time of the committing of the said supposed grievances the 
 plaintiff 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 called the Ghabook for the purpose of assisting, defending, 
 and maintaining, and in fact the plaintiff did in and by the said book, newspapers, and 
 papers respectively assert, defend, and maintain the cause of them the said Maharaja's 
 in the premises and the truth of the doctrines of the said sect and the morality thereof 
 and of the said Maharajas and in a portion to wit in the first number of the said a 
 small Guzerati book or work the plaintiff by an article or essay therein by him inserted 
 or caused so to be publicly notified to the readers of his said small book or work to 
 the effect that any person who was or might become or be desirous of entering into 
 any controversy with him the plaintiff on any subject must enter into the same accord- 
 ingly 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 religion aforesaid. And that the plaintiff before the time of the committing of 
 the said supposed grievances had also in his said book or work caused to be printed 
 and published a profession and declaration on his part to the effect that it was the 
 doctrine of the said sect and of the plaintiff as such Maharaj thereof as aforesaid, that 
 r.he said sect ought to lay aside and act in c':^ntravention of the uaid Yeds being sacred 
 
29 
 
 books of the said Hindus and containing the said laws of the said ancient Hindu 
 religion as aforesaid. And that before the committing of the said supposed grievances 
 to wit on the 29th day of September in the Christian year 1860 the plaintiff in and 
 by the said newspaper called the Chabook caused to be printed and published a statement 
 or declaration on his the plaintiff's part to the effect that in the same way as some 
 one goes from the gates of the Fort (to wit of Bombay aforesaid) to proceed to 
 Walkeshwur and some one from the same Fort to Byculla so exactly the original 
 courses of the said Ved and the said Purans in the said supposed Libel and plaint 
 and hereinbefore mentioned and wherein the said ancient religious laws of the said 
 Hindus are contained having gone forward had diverged into different ways to wit ways 
 of a different religion and of a different morality from the ancient Hindu religion and 
 morality. And the defendants aver that the said last mentioned, publications or any or either 
 of them in no wise exculpated the plaintiff in th6 premises but on the contrary confirmed the 
 said repute and notoriety of his immorality and proved him and the said other Maha- 
 rajas to be heretics from the said ancient religion and morality. And the defendants 
 say that it is true as stated in the said supposed libel that no other Hindu sectaries 
 have ever perpetrated such shamlessness, subtlety, immodesty, rascality, and deceit as have 
 the said Maharajas, and that they by their practices aforesaid thrown dust into the 
 eyes of simple people and that the said Maharajas have written in their books about 
 enjoying the tender maidens, the people's wives and daughters and have enjoyed them 
 accordingly, and that great flames of zeal have sprung up within the hearts of the 
 defendants thereat, and that the defendants have had to grieve over their Hindu friends 
 and the weak powers of reflection of those friends, and that the plaintiff's ancestors 
 have scattered the dust of falsehood in the eyes of simple people and thereby made 
 them blind, and that if the plaintiff wishes to propagate or spread abroad religion he 
 ought personally to adopt a virtuous course of conduct to admonish the said other 
 Maharajs to do the same. Wherefore they the defendants published and caused and 
 procured to be published the said supposed libellous matter in the introductory part of 
 this Plea set forth as they lawfully might for the causes aforesaid and this the defend- 
 ants are ready to verify, &c. 
 
 8th. And for a eighth Plea in this behalf the defendants say that the said 
 supposed libel and all and every statements and matters therein alleged is and are 
 true in substance and effect, wherefore they the defendants published and caused and 
 procured to be published the said supposed libel or they lawfully might for the caus^ 
 aforesaid and this the defendants are ready to verify, &c. 
 
 15th August 1861. 
 
30 
 
 THE CONSPIRACY CASE ARISING OUT OF THE PLEAS 
 PUT IN BY THE DEFANDANTS. 
 
 (Soon after the above pleas were put in by the defendants, Parbhoodass, the 
 manager of the Maharaja's case, obtained a copy of them, and visited several Bhattias, 
 and informed them that if the pleas put in by the defendants were proved, Jadunath- 
 jee Maharaja would lose the case. In consequence of this, several Bhattias held three 
 or four private meetings, in the last of which it was resolved that the whole Bhattia 
 caste should be invited to subscribe their signatures to a document intended to frustrate 
 the inteniions of the defendants. In pursuance of this resolution, a general meeting of 
 the Bhattia community was held in the Mahjan oart, close to the Elphinstone Institution 
 on 6th September 1861. In this meeting it was resolved that whoever gave evidence 
 against the Maharaj, should be called to account according to the rules of the caste. 
 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 pre- 
 liminary examination of this charge, commenced on the 11th of September 1861, in 
 the Fort Police Court, before W. Crawford, Esquire, Senior Magistrate, and terminated 
 on the 16th November 1861, after being heard for nine days. The Magistrate com- 
 mitted the case to the Sessions. On the 3rd of December when the Sessions opened, 
 the 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 
 only, 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 
 well lie against the parties concerned. The facts were these. The Editor of the Rast 
 Go/tar — Karsandass Mooljee was the name of the gentleman, His Lordship supposed — 
 published an article containing certain charges and imputations against the Maharajs, 
 one of whom has brought an action of libel against the Editor and publisher. The 
 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 
 necessary for him to summon a number of witnesses at the trial of the cause, on the 
 Civil side of this court. It appeared then that, with the view of preventing those 
 witnesses from giving evidence in favor of the Editor, Goculdass Lilladhur and others 
 met in a body to concert measures to secure their object, in other words, to obstruct 
 and 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 
 they were properly brought up to stand the trial. His Lordship might mention that 
 the case was in no way against the Maharaj ; it was one in which 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 
 this court, they would be guilty of obstructing and defeating justice. The question 
 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 
 such as it was." 
 
31 
 
 THE TRIAL OF THE BHATTIA CONSPIRACY CASE. 
 
 SUPREME COURT.-Crown Side. 
 
 FOURTH CRIMINAL SESSIONS OF 1861. 
 
 (Before Sir Joseph Arnould Kt.,) 
 
 Thursday, \2f.h Deaunber 1861. 
 
 His LoRDsbiP took his seat on the bench precisely at ten o'clock when the 
 following gentlemen were empannelled on the 
 
 Petit Jury. 
 
 Mr. .John Chatten. — Foreman. 
 
 Mr. J. Ross. 
 „ W. Maidment. 
 „ S. Train. 
 ,, J. M. Gillighan. 
 „ C. F. Heycock. 
 ,, C. Henderson. 
 
 Mr. J. A. Men esse. 
 ,, C. D. Viegas. 
 ,, Nusserwanjee Byramjee. 
 ,, Anundrao Babajee. 
 
 and 
 „ Fazulbhoy Noor Mahomed. 
 
 Messrs. Bayley and Barton applied to the Court to allow their clients to sit outside 
 the dock. The request was complied v/ith. 
 
 The names of nine defendants, Goculdass Lilladhur, Luckmidass Darajee, Adut 
 Kirpall, Canjee Shamjee, Mooljee Moorarjee, Damodhur Hurjee alias Damjee Heera, 
 Ragoo Shamjee, Dyal Jairaz, and Bhugwanjee Dwarkadass, were then called, and the 
 prisoners answered. The indictment was read over containing five counts. The prisoners 
 pleaded not guilty. 
 
 Messrs. Anstey and Dunbar instructed by Messrs. Acland and Prentis for the prosecution. 
 
 Mr. Barton, instructed by Mr. Sangster for Adut Kirpall and Dyal Jairaz, 
 
 Mr. Bayley, with Messrs. Green and Connon instructed by Mr. Collier and Leathes 
 and Messrs. Bickersteth and Cleveland, for the seven other defendants. The jury were 
 sworn when 
 
 Mr. Anstey opened the case by stating that there were several counts in the 
 indictment which charged the defendants with conspiracy and that conspiracy was not less 
 conspiracy for being directed against the public. There was a certain action which was yet 
 to be tried on the plea side of this Court, and that it was for preventing persons from 
 giving evidence for the prosecutor in this action, and preventing them likewise from appearing. 
 Every one of the counts in the present indictment will be supported by evidence. The 
 first witness that will be called in this case is the prosecutor, who is the editor of a 
 
.32 
 
 Native newspaper, and is likewise the defendant in the libel case, and the printer of 
 that paper is also a party in that action. There were certain articles which appeared 
 in the newspaper in question, advocating the views of the Reform party, that term being 
 applied to Eeligion and not to Politics. The prosecutor in the performance of his literary 
 labours considered it to be his duty to point to the truism, which is admitted by 
 learned men and scholars of all countries, that all that is good in religion is ancient, 
 and that that which tends to break up those time-honored institutions are of modern 
 innovation, all these impediments are of recent date — such as " Suttee" and " Infanticide." 
 There is nothing sacred in these practices. The prosecutor belongs to the Reform party, 
 because his family have belonged to that party. He believes that if he was to violate 
 his principles, he would lose all social privileges. What he desired was to restore 
 that which was traditionary in all its pristine purity, and to expose the rest. In respect 
 to the action pending against the prosecutor, he was prepared to abide by the conse- 
 quences, and pleaded the justification of the publication of the alleged libel, he would 
 retract nothing. In that action it was most material for him to secure the Bhattia witnesses. 
 As soon as it became known that he required their evidence, every means of intimidation 
 had been employed, so much so that it became necessary for him to seek the protection 
 of the law. On the first day that the conspiracy broke forth, there was neither more 
 nor less than a rout or riot, which would be proved by witnesses. There would be 
 witnesses ca%d to speak fiom the commencement of the conspiracy. There were caste 
 meetings held at which hand bills had been distributed, and an influential member of 
 the caste had been tampered with to prevent him from assisting the prosecutor in his 
 case. It would be proved that the defendants took an active part in those meetings. 
 
 (1.) Karsandass Mooljee, examined by Mr. Anstey — lam the Editor of a newspaper 
 called the Rast Goftar and Satya Prakash. The name of the sect to which I 
 belong is Vallabhacharia, and the Maharajas are at the head of that sect. There are 
 about sixty or seventy Maharajas in India. I am the defendant of a libel action on 
 the plea side of this Court. The action was brought for an article which appeared in 
 my newspaper. I have put in a plea of justification. In that article I stated the 
 doctrine and discipline of the sect, and the conduct of the Maharajas. I am prepared 
 to call witnesses at the trial on my plea of justification. The evidence of those wit- 
 nesses will be oral and documentary evidence. One of those documents used in 
 this trial is used in the plea of justification — a document regarding the interpretation 
 of a Guzerati verse by Goculnathjee Maharaj. I have subpoenaed many witnesses, 
 Bhattias, and have invited many. If the names of some of those witnesses should 
 transpire before the trial, it would do harm. I have no right to attend the caste 
 meetings of the Bhattias. In consequence of information I received from Bhattias, I 
 took out summonses for the prisoners on the 9th of September, and on the 11th 
 of September I made a statement in prisoners' presence before Mr. Crawford. There 
 were many Bhattias present in Court — about 2,000 or 3,000. As I was going away 
 I was assaulted. I left without n:aking any disturbance. [Mr. Bay ley objected to 
 witness saying by whom he was assaulted, as this was after the conspiracy had taken 
 place. Mr. Anstey said, there was no evidence yet as to the date of the conspiracy ; 
 but if so, then this question was permissible. This indictment was " of conspiracy with 
 others unknown" — and the witness had said he was assaulted by other Bhattias. The 
 indictment did not say that the conspiracy had ended yet, but found that the action 
 was still pending. He had a perfect right to give this new overt act which had occurred 
 
33 
 
 before the finding et' this indictment, and would cite authority for the right. Mr. 
 Bayley objected on the ground that the defendants were not present. Justice Arnould 
 said that made no difference. Mr. Bayley begged the Court to take a note of that objec- 
 tion. Mr. Anstey said the witness had already sworn that the defendants were 
 present.] I was assaulted by Bhattias. Nothing was said by myself or by the defendants. 
 I returned to the Court, and obtained the protection of the Magistrate. I never assaulted 
 any of the defendants. 
 
 Gross-examined hij Mr. Barton. — " I am 28 years of age. I belong to the 
 Keform party. I do not consider myself under the influence of the Maharajas. This 
 alleged libel I did not consider filth. It was in no way filth. I did not consider it filth 
 to let it be known throughout the world that the Maharajas had connection with our 
 wives and daughters. (His Lordship threw out as a hint to Mr. Barton that there was 
 a book which we all respected, where very foul things were spoken of in the very 
 plainest language. Mr. Barton said it was not a newspaper. He thought the matter 
 entirely different.) 
 
 Witness continued : — " I consider that publication would conduce to public mor:i!ity. 
 The defendants do not belong to the Eeform party. There is a split in the caste — a 
 difference of opinion. It is not a caste row. I am a full member of my caste. 
 
 » 
 
 Cross-eramined by Mr. Bayley. — " It was in the Satya Frakash, this libel was pub- 
 lished. My co-defendant in that action was the printer of it. I have been connected 
 with the press for five or six years. I was editor of the Satya Prakash in June 1858. 
 I had on several occasions previous to this, published and written against the Maharajas. 
 I have not abused them right and left. I have for some years shown up their practices. 
 I have not become more abusive as time rolled on. I remember that a meeting was held in 
 the year 1858 on account of my attacks. I don't know that persons were then appointed 
 to take proceedings for libel. I don't recollect if there was a report of the proceedings of 
 that meeting published in the Satya Prakash on the 28th of June 1858. There are about 
 10,000 Bhattias in Bombay, and all look upon the Maharajas as their spiritual guides. I 
 look upon the Maharajas as spiritual guides, not as God. The Bhattias have looked upon 
 the!h as more than God for 150 years. The Banyas have always done so, so far as I 
 know. I decline to say if I am worth Es. 1,000, or any less sum. 1 pay the expenses 
 of this prosecution. I am the sole member of my family who has taken this independent 
 line of conduct. Not more than fifty Banyans have taken the same view as myself. I 
 have subpoe-naed about thirty-five witnesses in the libel action. About four or five Bhattias 
 have told me that they were intimidated. Two of those men were called before the 
 Police to give evidence. A third, Khatao Muccoondjee, was called but did not answer to 
 his name. Goculdass Tezpall is not paying the expenses of this prosecution. I don't 
 know that Goculdass Tezpall has set apart a fund for that purpose. I have already 
 received Es. 600 in two anonymous letters. I don't know who sent it. The defendants 
 were in the police court when I was assaulted. No other assault ever took place, though I 
 attended the police court on several occasions. 
 
 Re-examined. — " The Magistrate took proper precautious lo prevent a repetition of 
 5 
 
34 
 
 the assault. Mr. Crawford addressed the Bhattias on the following day. Mr. Forjett was 
 subsequently present in person, and only a certain number of Bhattias were allowed to 
 enter the court. I decline to answer whether I am worth Ks. 1,000, or any less sum, 
 because it is an irrelevant matter and nothing to do whatever with the case. There 
 are not more than fifty of those who worship the Maharaj that take the same view as 
 I do. I make a distinction between worshipping the Maharaj as God, and worshiping 
 him as a spiritual guide. I presented the facts of those practices of the Maharaj in the 
 least filthy manner possible consistent with my duty as a journalist." 
 
 Mr. Anstey said that the first plea is of denial that the Maharajs were the preceptors of 
 the Hindu religion ; the seventh plea, is a plea of justification ; the eighth plea, a plea that 
 the publication was true in fact and effect. Issue had been joined on the seventh and 
 eighth plea. 
 
 (2.) Luckmidms Kkimjee, examined hij Mr. Dunbar. — " I am one of the leaders or 
 head men of the Bhattia caste. It is necessary to take my consent before a meeting of 
 the caste is called. No application was made to me to convene the meeting of the 6th of 
 September. I first heard that a meeting was to be convened two or three days before. I 
 had a communication with Luckinidass Damjee about the meeting before it took place. He 
 sent for me. He said to me, ' Come let's go to Mahajun's Oart where the meeting will 
 assemble.' I said ' Why is the meeting Jo assemble there ?' He said ' A commentary 
 that has been published in the Satf/a Prakash about Goculnatlijee is incorrect, and on 
 account of that the caste are going to assemble ' I asked him if he had shown that com- 
 mentary to any Shastri, and he said ' No !' I said ' Let us assemble fifteen or twenty 
 Shastris, and take their opinion upon the commentary published in the Satya Prakash on 
 the verse of Goculnathjee.' Gocu'nathjee was a writer, a Maharaj, who lived some 200 
 years ago, and his books are looked on as authority in the sect. I said, ' We should take 
 the opinion of the Shastris in writing, take their signatures to the writing, and affix ours.' 
 Luckmidass said, ' No, let us go there, they are all assembled there.' I said, ' How can we 
 g,ffix our signatures till we know the meaning of the writing.' Luckmidass had informed 
 me that the meeting was to sign a document ; it was then that I proposed we should 
 send it to the Shastris. Luckmidass said, ' They will ail sign — we shall sign.' I said, 
 I have received a summons from the Supreme Court to give evidence on behalf o^the 
 defence, and if I go to the meeting I will raise this objection I have just mentioned. 
 He then said ' You must not give evidence in the Supreme Court against the Maharaj. 
 You are a man of family, and your children will have to be married.' I repeated 
 that if I went to the meeting I should raise that objection, and he repeated what he 
 had said. I then declined to accompany him. He said to me further that our arrange- 
 ments would be made in the Mahajun Oart by which any per'^ons who might give 
 evidence against the Maharaj would be punished by the caste [Mr. Barton objected to 
 witness stating what he interpreted from Lukmidass' remark. Mr. Ans'ey argued that 
 the question was a fair one. Question allowed.] I understood by that, that if I gave 
 evidence I wou+d be expelled from the caste. The consequences to my children would 
 be that I could not then get them married. On the following day I saw Dyal Jaira? 
 and Goculdass Tezpal. The conversation with Luckmidass Damjee was on the day of 
 the meeting. The conversation with Dyal Jairaz was at Goculdass' office, opposite the 
 Secretariate I asked Dyal Jairaz what took place at the meeting of the caste in the 
 
35 
 
 Oart, and if any arrangement had been made to furnish tivjde persons who m'ght give 
 evidence in the Supreme Court on the side of the Safya Prasask and against the 
 Mnharaj. I said, before this arrangement was made they ought to have made an 
 arrangement to prevent the Maharaj committing adultery. Dyal said, ' I am aware 
 what the Maharaj does, but if any arrangement to prevent his doing so were made 
 now, the Maharaj would lose his cause.' Dyal then informed me that two or three 
 private meetings had taken place before the 6th ; he said that one meeting had taken 
 place at Byculla, and another at Gumma Ramjee's place, and that a writing had been 
 drawn up to the effect that no one should give evidence in favor of the printer or 
 publisher of the Satj/a Prakash. He said that a third meeting had taken place at 
 Chimun Lalljee's temple. Dyal said he was present at those meetings, and he men- 
 tioned the names of other persons who he said were there. He mentioned as being 
 present at the meeting at Byculla the names of Goculdass Lilladhur, Adut Kirpal, 
 Bhugvvanjee Dw^rkadass, and others. He did not mention the names of the persons 
 present at Chimun Lalljee's but said they were all there. By that 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. He said, ' I will tell an untruth for the sake of religion, and the 
 other 10,000 persons who have signed will do the same.' I said, ' If you had received 
 a summons as I have received it in the libel case of Judoonathjee Maharaj vs. Karsandass 
 Mooljee ?' Muthooradass Lowjee's name was mentioned. Dyal said that Mathooradass was 
 assisting Karsandass Mooljee. Dyal said that those who gave evidence against the Mahraraj 
 would be turned out of caste. I am on good terms with the defendants — particularly with 
 Luckmidass Damjee. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Barton. — " Goculdass was present when the witness had the 
 conversation with Dyal Jairaz. I wrote to Mr. Forjett about the meeting." 
 
 (3.) William Henry Crawford examined. — " I am a Solicitor of this Court. I saw 
 the prosecutor one day at the police court, and I believe the Magistrate saw him also. 
 When I went to the window, the street was as full as it could be. I saw the prosecutor 
 hustled about in the crowd, and saw him take refuge in a house on the opposite side of 
 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 
 Lukmidass Goculdass & Co. I remember a meeting of our caste on the 6th of September 
 last. I attended that meeting. I arrived there at about five o'clock. I saw all the defen- 
 dants there — they were all there when I arrived. I went away about eight o'clock, or a 
 quarter to eight. Proceedings commenced at about a quarter before six, 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. Xo one shall make speeches. Those 
 who want to sign, sign ! Those who do not, need not sign !' That was all. Jetta told 
 that to the people. Where the Setts were sitting carpets were spread. The defendants and 
 about twenty-five or fifty others were sitting on the carpets. About 2,000 or 3 000 persons 
 were present. Of those sitting on the carpet, twelve or fifteen besides the defendants were 
 Setts. The floor was an even floor all round, and a way in the middle to go on 
 to the raised floor. About 1,500 or 1,700 persons were sitting on the oatla. 
 About 500 or 700 were sitting below. Mooljee and Damjee were going about 
 arranging for the audience. Mooljee and Damjee are not Setts. A book was read out by 
 Adut Kirpall. Goculdass said to him, " Adut, read out of this book," and Adut read. I 
 heard some part of what was read, and some I did not hear [Mr. Bayley objected to the 
 admission of this hearsay evidence. The Court said it was admissible. It did not matter 
 whether the matter was written or spoken.] I heard that those who were of opinion that 
 the commentary on Goculnathjee's verse was correct should not sign ; and that those who were 
 of opinion that it was not correct should sign ; and that those who did not sign should be punished 
 by the caste. Canjee Shamjee also was reading from a paper, and I heard him say, ' If 
 any one gives evidence in favour of the printer, he will be punished by the caste.' Can- 
 jee said, ' If any one does not sign this he will be excommunicated.' Cries outside 
 ' Sign ; sign ! affix your signatures,' I heard. After the reading was finished the book 
 was handed to sign. People were told to sign then. It was said that no one should leave 
 the meeting without signing. Every one who loved his religion would sign, was also said. 
 Mooljee and Damjee said, " Brothers, affix your signatures." Then people began to put their 
 signatures. I saw nobody leave after signing, I left without signing. I don't know who signed 
 the book first. I saw Goculdass sign, Lukmidass, Adut, Ragoo and others took the signatures. 
 All the defendants assisted in it, some were standing with ink, and some with pen. People were 
 coming into and going out of the oart. When I went near the gate I found a bench 
 placed across in front, and Ragoo was sitting on it — Damjee and Mooljee were also there. 
 Ragoo and Damjee said, ' Do not go away, brothers, without putting your signatures.' 
 I attempted to go out, and Ragoo asked me if I had put my signature : I said, no. 
 Then he asked me if I would sign to-morrow, and I said yes. I have never signed it. 
 I told him I would sign it, because I wanted to go out ! After I got out of the gate I 
 lingered for a short time outside, when I heard a person say, ' Shut the gates. Do not 
 let any one go out !' and I saw the gates shut. Ragoo was distributing handbills. I was 
 going to take one from Ragoo, when a man present gave me one. I read a portion of 
 that, and then put it by. Afterwards I gave the handbill to Luckmidass. [Mr. Barton 
 said the handbill could not be put in as evidence against the defendants unless the hand- 
 bill was signed by, or contained the names of some one of them. Mr. Barton cited authority 
 for that argument. Mr. Dunbar said that when the case was before the Magistrate he 
 (Mr. Dunbar) had offered one in evidence, and the Magistrate had refused to admit it 
 notwithstanding he (Mr. Dunbar) quoted the Queen vs. O'Connell. The Magistrate held 
 its identity must be proved before it could be read. His Lordship said he could not 
 admit the justness of such a ruling. It would be well to have the handbill put in. Mr. 
 Anstey said there were tsvo notices. He read them to the 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. 
 
 All the Bhatia Setts and all the Chief men among the Vaishnavs are informed 
 as follows : At present iShri Judunathjee Maharai has brought an action of libel 
 against Karsandass ]\Iooljee. This man has written in his Satiia Prakash as follows : — 
 " 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 
 to marriage and even before enjoying her himself. In this manner Shri Goculnathjee 
 has made a comment on the work treating of the connection with Brahma.* And 
 accordingly the Maharajas enjoy the tender maidens, wives and daughters of their 
 followers." In this manner it is written and published in the Satija Prrtkask. And 
 in his plea to the action this man has also stated as follows : " In the year 1855 
 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 com- 
 nmnity 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 above- 
 mentioned 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 
 up. This is the sole representation. The 4th September 1861. 
 
 Written by several Bhatias who have affixed their signatures to the former 
 Document (or Documents.^ 
 
 (A True Translation) 
 
 (Signed) J. Flynn, Chief Translator. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 Be it known to all the 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 case cf shri Kunshorji 
 Maharaj have, it is rumoured here; sent a Bhatya from this place to [Mandavi that 
 
 * [i. f. the Supreme. Being.) + {Meaning ihix is what we ham heard that he ha^ allege'^. 
 
 X (Won^hippm oj Ynnlirm.) I (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 
 the case. Such is the intention cf tlie reformers. 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 
 Runshorji Maharaj and the Vahooji Maharaj of shri Chotaji 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 be pleased to read. 
 
 (Signed) 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 Mr. Bayley : — " I would not know the book again if I was to see it. It was bound 
 up like this one now shown me (a foolscap -sized day book is produced in Court.) I heard 
 Adut Kirpal read from the book." 
 
 (5.) 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 than- 
 naye went round and warned the people. I had heard at Jewunjee's temple that the meeting 
 was to be held. It was a matter of notoriety among the caste members that the meeting 
 of the 6th of September was to have been held, and the object of the meeting was also a 
 matter of notoriety. Some members of the caste knew that some secret meetings had been 
 previously held. The object of the meeting was a matter of notoriety throughout the caste. 
 The object, which was a matter of notoriety, was to make an arrangement respecting the 
 Ubel case, and to prevent persons from giving evidence against the Maharaj. I met two of 
 the defendants — Dyal Jairaz and Bhugwanjee Dwarkadass — before the meeting in the oart 
 took place. It was about one or two o'clock in the afternoon. I met them at Jewraz 
 Balloo's place of business — in Bazar Gate Street, within the Fort. Eight or ten persons 
 were silting there — Goculdass Tezpal, Khuttaoo Muccoondjee, my two brothers, and others. 
 Dyal Jairaz spoke to others about the meeting. Khuttaoo Muccoondjee asked Dyal Jairaz 
 why the people were going to assemble to-day. Dyal and Bhugwanjee both spoke, and said 
 it was to make up an arrangement. Khuttaoo Muccoondjee asked Dyal Jairaz if any arrange- 
 ment was to be made about the Maharaj committing adultery, and Dyal said it was true 
 the Maharaj committed adultery, but if we made any noise about it now, the 
 Maharaj would lose his cause in Court : he said we would speak to the Maharaj about 
 
 * {Wife of Maharaj) 
 
39 
 
 that afterwards. Cyal said, ' if we are called to give evidence, and all put upon our oaths, 
 we will state that the Maharaj does not commit adultery.' I went to the meeting at 
 five o'clock in the evening. (His Lordship said as the case would likely last sometime 
 it was not advisable to sit longer. The Jury were allowed to retire to their homes for 
 the night.) 
 
 Friday, \dtk December. 
 
 Witness continued — " When I went there, there were 200 or 300 persons present. 
 Several persons came afterwards. The defendants were all there when I arrivt^d. Damjee 
 Heera and Mooljee Morarjee made people sit. Before the proceedings commenced, 
 Gociildass Liiladhiir, Dyal Jairaz, and Bhugwanjee Dwarkadass went aside and consulted 
 together. Proceedings commenced at about half-past six o'clock. After they went aside and 
 consulted together I saw a book with Bagoo Shamjee. It was about half an hour after. 
 He took the book from a cloth in which it was wrapped up. Goculdass said, ' Read 
 this to the meeting.' Adut read it. I was as far as from the witness-box to Mr. Barton 
 (about five paces). I could hear what was read. I know the purport of it. [Mr. Bayley 
 objected to witness stating the purport of what was in the book. The book itself could he 
 produced. Mr Anstey said he must reply to the objection with the same statement he had 
 made use of yesterday. They had no means of knowing whether the bock produced in Court 
 was the book or not. Mr. Anstey believed it to be a forgery. The book was not produced 
 in the Police Court. Mr. Bayley said he only took the objection, and wished to continue the 
 objection. His learned friend had no right to let the jury know in an indirect manner that the 
 book was not produced at the Police Court. Mr. Anstey said, Mr. Bayley had himself yesterday 
 mooted that question, and had given unsworn evidence on behalf of his clients. Objection recorded 
 and overruled.] So far as I remember, it said the commentary on the verse of Goculnathjee 
 by the printer or publisher was incorrect ; and those who may not consider it incorrect 
 will not sign this book, while those who may consider it incorrect will sign this book : and 
 those wlio consider their religion is the true religion should sign this book. And those who 
 may consider that the present Maharajahs do not commit adultery should sign the book. 
 And, as for the printers and publishers, and their abettors and aiders, they will be called 
 to account according to law. They did not say what law, but I understood it to mean the 
 law of the caste. The members of the caste were to call them to account, as I understood. 
 That is all I remember, as it was a long time ago. After that had been read Canjee 
 Shamjee made a speech. Canjee was standing behind Adut Kirpal when he spoke, and 
 about five paces distant from me. When Canjee was speaking he had a paper in his 
 hand. Canjee said, ' Our religion is the true one. and our religion inculcates bathing, the 
 worship of the gods, and pilgrimages to holy places. These are unholy comments upon 
 our religion ; and whoever may assist those printers will be punished by the caste.' Then 
 Can ee sat down. After that Adut Kirpal called the crier, Jetta, and said to him, * Do 
 you ask the members of the caste whether they approve this speech, or not ! And whether 
 they would sign the book after the Setts had signed- it ?' The majority said ' yes, we 
 will sign.' Then the crier put another question to the meeting. TTc said ' it will be 
 
40 
 
 necessary to write letters abroad, and will you assemble again if desired by the Setts ?" 
 That was by the direction of Adut Kirpal. Then the meeting approved, and said they 
 would attend. Luckmidass Damjee or Goculdass Lilladliur signed first, then all the defen- 
 dants signed ; other leading Setts then signed. Then Kagoo Shamjee took the book and 
 went to the gateway — Damjee Heera and Mooljee Morarjee went with him. I think the 
 gate was open then — it was shut afterwards. The gate was not entirely shut — a wicket was 
 left open. They were taking signatures. Kagoo Shamjee was sitting on a bench placed opposite 
 the gateway. The bench was not before the gate when I went in. I did not see who 
 placed it there. It was quite close to the gate. Those who signed the book, went out. 
 Only one person at a time could go through the wicket. Ragoo and the two defendants, 
 who were sitting close to him said, those who consider their religion the true religion should 
 not leave without signing. For three or four days, till the 10th of the month, signatures 
 were taken on the verandah at Goculdass Lilladhur's. Members of my caste signed the 
 book there ; some men, and some boys. A loy who lives in the house where I live, ten 
 years of age, said he signed it. After the tkannaye put the question at the meeting, no 
 one raised any objection. All remained silent. I was present at Walkeshwur at a con- 
 versation between Goculdass Tezpal and Dyal Jairaz. I was not near enough to hear well. 
 Euttonsee Callianjee was there. Corjee Ludha, Callianjee Ludha and Khuttaoo Muccoondjee 
 were also present. Euttonsee Callianjee and I v/ere sitting apart. We were conversing 
 together and looking at some object. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Barton. — " That object was a Bhattia going into the house 
 of a courtezan near by. I am a Cutchee, and not a Halaee. I did say before the police 
 that the Halaies had excommunicated me. There was no leather on the bench near the 
 door. It was made of wood, and those who sat upon it must know whether it was soft or hard. 
 
 By Mr. Bayley. — "I did not sign the book. I saw the book well when it was open. 
 Lights were lighted at the time the book was read. The book was a. book bound like this 
 now shown me (same as described by a former witness). I heard all that was read. (Mr, 
 Bayley examined the witness upon a paper held by himself). 
 
 Ee-examined. — " I worship the Maharaj as a spiritual guide. [Mr. Anstey asked that 
 the document which Mr. Bayley had examined upon should be put in for the purpose 
 of re-examination upon. Mr. Anstey cited a case to the point. Mr. Bayley objected 
 to it. He submitted that IMr. Anstey had no right to it. The case cited by Mr. 
 Anstey was not to the point. Mr. Anstey said that if the learned gentleman 
 chose to cross-examine from his brief, lie (Mr. Anstey) was entitled to see the 
 brief. Mr. Anstey cited Taylor in support of his argument. His Lordship was under the 
 impression that the prosecution were entitled to see the document. He would look into the 
 authorities, and in the meantime examination should be resumed.] Adut, when he read the 
 paper, said that religion, religious preceptors, and reputation, were to be protected ; but I 
 don't remember if he said how. As Adut read I understood him to say that the printers 
 accused the Maharaj ahs of adultery with our wives and daughters, and that there was 
 nothing of that kind in our religion. The meaning of the printers was said to be this : 
 that the wives of the members of the caste, should be offered up to the Maharaj before 
 being enjoyed by us. Our caste proceed against persons offending by the law of the caste : 
 the chief law is expulsion from the caste. T can't say that book shown me by Mr. 
 Bayley was the book I saw at the oart. 
 
41 
 
 By the Court. — " The Sett is an hereditary title. Among the Bhattias Jewraz Balloo 
 is considered the principal Sett, as his forefathers were chief Setts." 
 
 (6.) Cliarhs Forjctt, examined. — " In my official capacity (Deputy Commissioner of 
 Police) I received a letter. I produce it. I acted upon it. In consequence of something 
 in the letter I issued au order to a constable to be in attendance with a small party of 
 policemen to see that no disturbance took place. I think the prosecutor was present when the 
 letter was delivered. The letter was signed by Luckmidass Khimjee, Muthooradass Lowjee 
 and two others. I was not applied to, to the best of my recollection, to 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 — "I did not hear that any threat or intimidation was 
 offered there." 
 
 By Mr. Bay ley. — " I saw Goculdass Lilladhur with reference to the meeting, and told 
 him that he had better be careful and not let his party create any disturbance. Goculdass 
 said that there was no intention on the part of his men to create a breach of the peace. 
 He said the object of the meeting was to ascertain who were the Maharajah's friends, and 
 who were not It was at five, half-past five, or a quarter to six, when I rode past. 
 I don't think I have any Bhattia sepoys. The gate was open when I went by." 
 
 (7.) George Gahac/an, examined — " I am a constable of Tolice, and do duty at the 
 Picquet. In consequence of instructions from Mr. Forjett I went to the meeting on the 
 6th of September, at about half-past six o'clock. I took two sepoys inside with me, and 
 lefl a sepoy and a trooper outside. The two sepoys I took inside, were put outside by 
 the request of Dam.ee Heera. He said there was no tear of a row. I recognize eight of 
 the defendants as being present. Six of the defendants were sitting on a bench. Damjee 
 Heera and Eagoo Shamjee were walking about. Goculdass Lilladhur appeared to be at 
 the head of the meeting. Proceedings commenced immediately a'ter I went in. Jetta 
 called the meeting to order — told them to keep silence. After that a book was read by 
 Adut Kirpall ; the book was handed from a bench where they were all seated. I don't 
 know which of the defendants handed the book. After the defendants signed the book, 
 people standing about came and signed. Then it appeared to me an objection was taken 
 to signatures being taken there at the bench, and the book was taken outside the gate. 
 I went out about eight o'clock. The gate was then shut — the wicket was open. 
 Signatures were then being taken by Ragoo Shamjee and Damjee Heera outside the gate. 
 The people who had the book were standing at the corner of the gateway. People, I 
 think, might have passed out behind them without being seen. I had a conversation with 
 Eagoo Shamjee and Damjee Heera. Eagoo said the meeting was to ascertain who was 
 for 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. Damjee said the same as Eagoo, and added that 
 there was an action of lihel in Court on account of some of the caste. Also he said that 
 there were missionaries mixed up in their caste the same as there were in ours. Then 
 Eagoo asked me to show him the paper I had got from Mr. Forjett, as he wanted to see 
 the signatures attached to it. I had the letter with me, but did not show it to him. 
 Handbills were distributed in the street by Eagoo Shamjee. The wicket is about two feet 
 and a half wide. I ara not sufficiently acquainted with the language to tell what was 
 6 
 
42 
 
 read or spoken. They spoke 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 book as, after the former was read, they all shouted. There was no 
 shouting after the reading from the book. I do not think all the persons present could hear 
 what was read, only those immediately round the spot, from the low tone of voice in which 
 it was read. I heard the words "contrary to caste" and that "the Maharaja has been 
 served with a summons" read from the paper, which made me think that the, most important 
 of the two. The paper was a slip about six inches wide about eighteen inches long, and 
 light yellow paper. The book was half-bound. 
 
 Cross-examined — " I should think there were 2000 people present. I ventured there 
 without any fear. So far as I could see there was no intimidation. I judged the people 
 were anxious to sign it, from their action. I saw no force used, or pressure of any kind." 
 
 (8) 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 
 Fort. 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 was to take place. I was 
 at a fair at Walkeshwur when I heard that. I asked Dyal what all the noise was about, 
 and he said, ' Let's go aside and speak together.' Then we went to the dkurrumsalla, 
 where Khuttao Muccundjee and others were. Dyal then said, ' Bhugwanjee has received 
 a note from Goculdass Lilladhur.' Dyal said that the letter called for a meeting at once. 
 I asked what was the subject, and Dyal said, it refers to the commentary of Goculnathjee 
 and to the action between Judoonathjee Maharaj vs. Karsandass Mooljee. I asked Dyal 
 if he had referred to any Shastree, and he said he had not. He said fifteen or twenty 
 persons had assembled at Gumma Ramjee's and mentioned the names of three or four of 
 them. He said that Canjee Shamjee read a paper and after that said some arrangement 
 should be made to prevent our religion from being upset. He said that a meeting took 
 place that day at Chimun Laljee's temple, and that he with others went there. Bhug- 
 wanjee sent for Goculdass Lilladhur, inviting him to come there with his other friends. 
 Dyal mentioned the names of Goculdass, Lukmidass, Adut, Ragoo, Canjee, Bhugwanjee, 
 and others as being present. Dyal said a discussion took place there regarding the comment- 
 ary on Goculnathjee 's verse, and that it was resolved a full meeting should be held. 
 
 " The following morning about 7 o'clock I was sitting at the shop of Jewraz Balloo 
 with Khuttao Muccoondjee, when Jetta, the crier, came there, and said Luckmidass, 
 Petamber and two others had desired him to ask my permission for a caste meeting. 
 He came two or three times that morning. I did not give my consent. I am in a 
 position that my consent should be obtained. Bhugwanjee and Dyal came to my house at 
 half past twelve o'clock, and we three went to the house of Jewraj Balloo. Khuttao 
 Muccoondjee came there. We went upstairs ; I asked Bhugwanjee what the object of the 
 meeting was, and he said it was about the commentary of Goculnathjee, and a paper was 
 to be drawn out, and the commentary refuted (or falsified). The writing was to be 
 prepared in the Mahjun oart. Djral asked me what my opinion was. He said, ' you 
 have received a summons on the part of Karsandass Mooljee. What evidence will you 
 give ?' I said I would say nothing that was false. Dyal then said, ' It is true that the 
 Maharaj commits adultery, but as this question is connected with religion it would be as 
 well to say nothing about it.' Bhugwanjee also said that. Dyal said, ' Those who as- 
 BiBt KarsandasB will be punished by the caste.* I did not attend the meeeting. On the 
 
4S 
 
 following day I saw Dyal again in my office. He came of his own accord. I asked him 
 what resolutions were passed at the meeting of the 6th. He said a writing had been 
 prepared, and it was written there that if any one should give evidence for the publisher 
 he should be punished by the caste. I said ' Pid you assemble in Goculdass Lilladhur's 
 oart, at Matoonga ?' He said, ' No in Goculdass Lilladhur's oart at BycuUa.' Dyal said 
 there were fifteen or twenty persons at that meeting. He mentioned the names of some 
 of the defendants as being present. He said that Purbhoodass brought the plea put in by 
 Karsandass in the libel action and explained it ; and said that our religion was about to 
 be destroyed, and that no one must go and give evidence on behalf of Karsandass. Dyal 
 did not say on what day that meeting took place. It was on the 7th that I heard of it. 
 I saw Luckmidass Khimjee at my office on the 7th He came there while Dyal and I 
 were speaking together. At the meeting at Walkeshwur Khuttao Ludha was present. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Barton — " I was fined seven or eight years ago by the 
 Magistrate for making a false return of carriages. The prosecutor of this case was a school- 
 master employed by me. When at Walkeshwur, and we were conversing, Khuttao went 
 to look at a holy woman ! That " holy woman" lived in a house opposite. I never went 
 to look at that " holy woman" myself. I don't know the character of that woman. Khuttao 
 went to see who that Bhattia was that went into the house where the woman was. I have 
 known the Maharajas committed adultery for seventeen or eighteen years past ; and yet I 
 worship them. No man can be expelled from caste unless a majority of the caste decides 
 he shall be. The nine defendants have not the power of expelling me from the caste. 
 There are only two Setts among the defendants. 
 
 Re-examined — " My 7nehta appeared for me when I was fined." 
 
 (9) Hemraj Khetsey, examined — " I am a broker, and live in the Fort. I attended a 
 meeting of the caste on the 6th of September. I arrived there about seven o'clock. The 
 nine defendants were there. Adut Kirpall read from a book. I did not hear well. I do 
 not remember what it was Canjee Shamjee read from a paper, and after he had finished 
 reading, he said, " Brethren will question persons who give evidence for the publisher." 
 After that the crier was called. I have not been subpoenaed as a witness in the Supreme 
 Court. I have not been threatened in case I give evidence in the Supreme Court. All 
 that was stated was, that he who assists the printer or publisher will be questioned by the 
 brethren. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley — " I did not sign the book. I was not asked to sign 
 it. I was at the meeting the whole time. I remember a part of what was read. — A 
 part of what was read from the book — I don't know of any other object of the meeting 
 than to express an opinion upon the commentary. I heard no threat. 
 
 Re-examined — " I was about thirty paces distant from the spot when the paper was 
 read " 
 
 ("10 ) Nanjee Morarjee examined by Mr. Anstey — " I am a Muccadum residing in 
 Hunnooman Lane. I was present at the meeting of the 6th of September. I was aware 
 that meeting was to be held one or two days before. I was aware that handbills had 
 been issued on the 4th of September, I saw one of them ; I should recognize them. One 
 of those handbills (one produced) is not the one distributed on the 6th of September. 
 (Witness here recognized a second handbill shown him as one of those disti-ibuted on the 
 6th September. It was read to him by the Interpreter, and witness said it was the same) 
 
44 
 
 Kagoo distributed ten or twenty, and said the rest were to go to Cutch." (The official 
 translation of this handbill was read, to the effect that all people in Cutch should take 
 care and communicate no intelligence to the reformers' emissaries who had been sent to 
 Cutch to obtain information.) 
 
 (11.) Purshoturn EemraJ called by the prosecuting counsel, and examined by Mr. 
 Bayley. — " I am a poor man and I cannot give any evidence. I was greatly alarmed, and 
 could not give evidtnce. I don't want to name anybody. I am very much afraid. I 
 don't want to name anybody. 
 
 By the Court — " I am a Bhattia; The whole world abuse me. 
 
 By Mr. Anstey — " I do know some, but I am afraid to tell what I know." 
 
 (12.) Bhanjee Bhurriinisey, called by prosecuting counsel for cross-examination. 
 This witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 [On 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- 
 bles, and others, to shew increased activity. Quiet was very soon restored. The Court 
 was densely crowded, and made the duty of keeping order consequently not a light one.] 
 
 Mr. Anstey, when quiet had been restored, read the defendant's answer in the libel 
 action, which revealed the most abominable doctrines ever heard of as guiding the Bhattia 
 caste, or that sect of it to which the conspirators belonged. Mr. Anstey read for more 
 than half an hour, when he was stopped by the Court. Sufficient was read to inform the 
 jury of the materiality of the pleas. 
 
 (13.) John Doming Rozarto, a clerk in the Prothonotory's Office was called, and 
 swore to the answer. 
 
 (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 — " 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 — " The cause of Jud- 
 oonathjee Maharaj vs. Karsandass ]\Iooljee is set down for trial." 
 
 Mr. Anstey said that was the case for the prosecution. 
 
 Mr. Barton asked if his Lordship was of opinion there was any caee to go to the 
 jury ? His Lordship said there was. 
 
45 
 
 Saturday, I'it/i December. 
 
 (The Court-room was more carefully guarded than on previous days, and but few 
 natives wrere admitted. The considerable number of European gentlemen in Court manifested 
 the great interest which has been felt in this case ) 
 
 Mr. R. B. Barton, on behalf of two of the defendants, addressed the jury in a most 
 able and eloquent speech. 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 
 been adduced and that little so forced and perverted as to create a difficulty even by its 
 own obscurity. The jury must be aware of the extraordinary interest the case had excited, 
 and still continued to excite amongst the native community of this vast and densely populated 
 town ; and that for reasons that must be obvious to every one — first, on account of the 
 novelty of the accusation, this being the first case of the kind ever presented before a 
 Bombay jury ; secondly, from the known and well established respectability of the accused ; 
 and, thirdly, from the nature of the charges trumped against his clients, and laid out in 
 that cloudy and overgrown indictment they had all seen in the hands of the Clerk of the 
 Crown, when the defendants were arraigned. Mr. Barton did not consider that there would 
 be any difficulty in upsetting all those charges, or that there was any thing in them worthy 
 of remark, conspicuous and remarkable as they were in nothing but their vagueness, and 
 peculiarly in their want of precision, unworthy of comment, were it not for the dangerous 
 precedent sought to be established by the prosecution should a conviction be obtained. The 
 opening address of the learned counsel for the prosecution in itself betrayed a knowledge of 
 the weakness of the case ; 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 Italy, back to England in the time of our Harry the 
 Eighth as he called him, fit man to name in a case connected with so much blasphemy 
 and filth ; and then with a peculiar and eccentric roll we were taken, said Mr. Barton, to 
 Strange's Hindu Law, and the horrors of excommunication, seasoning his weak and tottering 
 statements with grains of Attic salt and classic pepper, utterly forgetful of the charge of 
 conspiracy, most carefully kept in the background ; and when they were at the end of that 
 opening address as far as proof was concerned there they were now. The men for whom 
 he (Mr. Barton) appeared were charged with an infamous and wicked crime, if it were 
 legally crime at all, and he trusted the jury would, as men who had a solemn duty to 
 discharge, look carefully into the case with all its bearings, motives, and peculiarities, ere 
 they ventured to return a verdict of guilty against all or any of the prisoners, now for the 
 first time in their lives arraigned at the bar of a criminal court. The case he would 
 endeavour to make on behalf of his clients would be a simple one because it would be a true 
 one. 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 prejudice against 
 the plaintiffs in the action now pending on the plea side of the Court, and to create a 
 money interest on behalf of the defendant in that action and the prosecutor in this most 
 miserable and oppressive " prosecution." Before entering on the demerits of this extraordinary 
 case, Mr. Barton said he could not help animadverting upon the course pursued by the 
 prosecution from first to last, and he considered that means had been used and intimidation 
 shadowed forth by application to the Court to set aside a few seats for members of the 
 
46 
 
 caste to which prisoner belonged, and application for a force of European police to keep 
 order. The effect of this application, although apparently made in good faith, had had its 
 effect, and the Court had never been half filled upon any day of this trial. He (Mr. 
 Barton) protested against this Court being any but an open one to all Her Majesty's Indian 
 subjects without distinction of creed or caste. 
 
 His Lordship here interrupted the speaking, observing that the request preferred to 
 the Deputy Con^.missioner of Police was simply to have a body of men to prevent the 
 overcrowding of the Court. The request did not go beyond that. 
 
 Mr. Barton continued — He said as long as he had life and power he would protest 
 against a hole and corner conviction being obtained, and undue means of any kind being 
 used to turn the machinery of this honorable Court into an instrument of torture. After 
 some further comments on the conduct of the prosecution, and the nature of the evidence, 
 Mr. Barton entered very fully into his own case, which was a statement of the meetings 
 held since June 1858 to take into consideration the disgraceful publications in a Guzerati 
 newspaper, the SiUia Prakash, against the Bhattia religion and community, and to adopt 
 measures to prosecute the pubHshers and to have them punished by the laws of the land. 
 Mr. Barton told the jury they were brought to give a verdict on the libel action pending on 
 the plea side of this Court. The defendants had only done what they had a perfect right 
 to do. Mr. Barton concluded his address with a very able appeal on behalf of his clients. 
 
 Mr. Bayley, on behalf of six of the defendants, followed in a very able speech, holding 
 the attention of the jury for nearly three hours. He stated what it was that constituted a 
 conspiracy, and how the present trial was constituted. He argued that this trial could not 
 be supported, and cited several passages from Smith's speech in the trial of O'Connell and 
 seven others, in Dublin, in 1843, in support of the argument, passages which were laid 
 down as good law. Such an indictment as this, Mr. Bayley said, was never before framed 
 — it was an old law indictment, {Russel on Crime). There was not a modern case like 
 it. The defendants were indicted on a common law ofFence, and the learned counsel (Mr. 
 Anstey) had asked the jury to look at the case through English spectacles. 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. The defendants, the learned gentleman would have the jury to bear in 
 mind, were not the scum of the streets. The jury were trying the highest men in the 
 Bhattia community — two of them the highest Setts of the caste ; and his learned friend's 
 (Mr. Anstey 's) language, calling them " most ignorant and degraded," ought not to 
 have been used. These men were living almost the same as they did centuries ago, so far 
 as we knew ; and the English would never know more of them. This matter was wholly 
 a caste matter, said the learned gentleman : the East India Company had always made it 
 a point not to interfere with the natives in their religion and matters connected with it ; 
 and the same freedom was held out to the natives by our present good and wise govern- 
 ment. The learned counsel here entered into the history of the Indian Press from the 
 time of the publication of the first newspaper in Bengal in 1780, when it was so closely 
 guarded as to be but a mere receptacle of advertisements, fetes, balls, etc., down to a 
 recent date when it first enjoyed and 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 Lordship", in summing up the case, made a few general observations upon 
 the charge preferred against the defendants. The essence of conspiracy was a combination 
 for an unlawful purpose, and it was immaterial whether or not the measures taken by the 
 persons entering into such combination ensured, or were the best adapted to ensure, the 
 object aimed at. The 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 to give their evidence. The defendants were thus charged with unlawfully 
 combining to defeat the administration of justice in this Court — in fact, to turn it into an 
 instrument of injustice. In had been remarked by one of the brightest of English intellects 
 that secr^sy was a necessary ingredient in a charge of conspiracy, and that where the 
 proceedings were conducted openly they would not come under this office. Though this 
 might be correct according to poetic justice. His Lordship, as an administrator of criminal 
 law in this Court, felt bound to say that such a doctrine was not correct in criminal justice. 
 The essence of conspiracy was combination, no matter if the object was pursued openly or 
 secretly. Secrecy is not an essence of the charge. Much stress. His Lordship went on to 
 say, had been laid upon the argument of counsel that the principles of English 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 
 imputations cast upon his private character or upon his high office of spiritual guide and 
 preceptor. This was an attempt in a combination, to turn into an instrument of in-justice the very 
 tribunal for the adjudication of justice, to which the Maharaj himself had applied for redress, 
 for imputations cast upon his honor and authority. And if the evidence satisfied the jury 
 that these persons entered into the combination, as the agents of the Maharaj, they were 
 amenable to the charge of conspiring to defeat public justice ; therefore the principles of 
 English criminal law were as applicable to this as to any other case. There was this 
 remark to be made, which did not apply to other criminal cases, viz., that the law held as 
 liable to punishment all parties privy to the combination and its objects, though they might 
 be present or absent at any particular meetings of the conspirators. In a case of this kind 
 secondary evidence was admissible as to the object of the conspirators : the general effect 
 produced upon the mind of a hearer by any speeches made or by 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. His Lordship proceeded to 
 read the evidence in extenso, during which he observed that the language of the plea was 
 perfectly unobjectionable when taking into consideration the occasion calling it forth. It was 
 a false delicacy introduced only into modern society which named such articles in a bad 
 b'ght. The truth is, said his Lordship, nothing less than hard terms will answer in des- 
 cribing hard practices ; and in answer to a serious charge in a court of justice it is better 
 to 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. 
 
 Mr. Anstey, as soon as the verdict was pronounced, appealed to the Court not to be 
 too severe in the sentence. Justice has been vindicated, Mr. Anstey said, and the puny 
 efforts of the defendants had failed. He (Mr. Anstey) would appeal to his Lordship, if 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 till Tuesday next. Defendants were admitted 
 to bail in their own recognizances. 
 
 His Lordship, in dismissing the jury, said that it might be satisfactory to them, as 
 there was great interest excited in this case, to have his opinion. He could sa}'^ that he 
 entirely concurred in the verdict at which they had arrived. 
 
 Tuesdaij, 11 th December 1861. 
 
 Before a Full Court. 
 
 (Their Lordships having taken 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 
 justice, were arraigned. The Court room was early crowded with people of all classes, so 
 great was the interest to know the result of this peculiar case.) 
 
 Mr. Bayley moved the Court that judgment should be arrested, or that a new trial 
 should be had. Addressing himself first to the cause of arrest of judgment he said no 
 criminal offence was set forth in any count of the indictment. If set forth at all, it was 
 in the first four counts. The charges contained in those several counts were charges which 
 were perfectly unknown to the law of England and of India, and in point of fact no legal 
 offence was 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. The indictment was for con- 
 spiracy, and in the first four counts several overt acts were set out, and in the description 
 of the offence the word used, " intimidated," had no legal signification. The first count, 
 after certain introductory remarks, states that " the defendants on the 6th September did 
 among themselves conspire to intimidate persons from giving evidence." Then the indictment 
 set out six overt acts, one of which was that the defendants would punish all persons who 
 should come foward to give evidence ; another, that they called a meeting on the 4th of 
 September for conspiring to prevent persons from giving evidence ; another, that they next 
 Dalled a meeting on the 5th of September for intimidating persons ; another, that they 
 called a meeting on the 6th of September for providing for the expulsion of all persons 
 from caste who should appear and give evidence against the Maharaj ; and another overt 
 act was, that the defendants compelled all persons to sign a book. It was a count framed 
 on some supposed common law offence. In the first four counts the word " intimidate" 
 was used. Now, there was no authority for such an indictment. The learned counsel 
 referred their Lordships to a case 2 Strange's Reports, p. 904, and others, all of which 
 sustained the argument. The learned counsel cited a case decided in the 4th year of the 
 reign of George the 2nd, where the indictment was for persuading a witness not to give 
 evidence in a case of forgery, and said it was no doubt highly criminal to persuade persons 
 from giving evidence where the Queen was prosecuting ; but the case before this Court was 
 for intimidation in a ci\il suit, and no case whatever could be found where an indictment 
 had been drav,'n under such circumstances. The cases were entirely different ; one was a 
 case where the King or Queen was prosecutor, and in the other it was a case of civil 
 
49 
 
 right. In this case there was no ground of criminal proceeding. Mr. Bayley cited (13 
 East) the case of The Khvj vs. Tamer and others ; and The Queen vs. Rowlands and 
 others, which was a recent ca;e in the Queen's Bench, in which it was held that the 
 defendants conspired unlawfully to intimidate, and the Court held that the indictment was 
 bad. The workmen conspired unlawfully to intimidate their master, and that was a more 
 active case than the present one. He (.Mr. Bayley) submitted that it lay upon his learned 
 friends for the prosecution to show that the indictment would lie. In Kussel on Crime, 
 page 557, it is stated in the third paragraph on conspiracy, to be a misdemeanour to per- 
 suade a witness not to give evidence, and the note appended to that referred to 2 Strange, 
 which he had already cited. The learned gentleman said it was only a case for damages 
 on the civil side, and cited Commyn's Pigest Action on the case 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 this Court would be guided by the law as laid down, and 
 that it would not now be making a case by its 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 one legal authority referring to anything 
 like the present case favoured his (Mr. Ba, ley's) argument. Assuming that the Court was 
 against him he submitted that tiie first four counts were incorrect, the words ' intimidate" 
 and " prevent" being used in all, and unless those two words described a legal offence, the 
 indictment would not lie. Now as to the word " intimidate" two counts in the indictment 
 in O'Connell's case were held bad ; Chief Justice Tindal's judgment on that point delivering 
 the unanimous judgment of nine English judges was, that the word " intimidate" was not 
 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. 
 
 Justice Arnould. — " Maliciously to intimidate and prevent" are the words. 
 
 Mr. Bayley. — Well, that states no offence whatever. If your Lordships declare that 
 to be an offence in the statute, you declare that to be law which no judge in England or 
 here ever before has declared law. If your Lordships will admit the validity of the 
 argument against the indictment, I will move for a new trial on the following grounds. 
 
 Mr. Ans ey said, that up to this 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 ad- 
 journed 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 
 his learned friend, Mr. Bayley — The Queen vs. Rowlands — was such a case ; the 11 and 
 12 Vict. ch. 78, stated how a question of law might be stated, and the case of The Queen 
 vs. Miller, cited, in the last edition of Archibald, illustrated it. Now what he (Mr. 
 Anstey) submitted, was this : we are now before the Court of General Sessions of the 
 Peace for the Town and Island of Bombay, and not before a Ci'urt of Queen' Bench, and 
 therefore this Court could not hear a motion for a new trial. 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 did not apply here. If their 
 Lordships were to refuse the motion, they would take away from the defendants convicted 
 of rnisdemeanour, a right which belonged to them to have a new trial, In. all cases of 
 7 
 
50 
 
 misdemeanour, after conviction the Courts may grant a new trial. And as to the present 
 not being a Full Court, he (Mr. Bayley) referred to a case which came on before Justice 
 Arnould some months ago, in which he (iMr, Bayley) appeared for the prosecution, and in 
 that case his Lordship, the Chief Justice, gave judgment, and the prisoner was now 
 suffering the imprisonment. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse said he generally expressed his opinion. He was sitting as an 
 Assessor merely, and where he coincided with Justice Arnould, it 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 of get- 
 ting the case from the Court of Sessions to the Court of Queen's Bench in order for the 
 motion for a new trial. The only consequence of deciding in favour of Mr. Anstey's 
 argument would be that the Court would suspend the Court of Sessions, and would constitute 
 a Court of Queen's Bench for the time being for the purpose of the motion. 
 
 Mr. Bayley called for their Lordships to adjourn the Court of Sessions, and to proclaim 
 the sitting of the Supreme Court through the Court crier. 
 
 Justice Arnould said supposing the Court to be sitting as a Full Court of Queen's 
 Bench, could it at this time take notice of the motion for a new trial without a certiorari ? 
 
 Mr. Bayley argued that the difficulty lay in the variety of jurisdictions pertaining to 
 this Court. By the charter the Supreme Court held Criminal Sessions, but it was still the 
 Supreme Court. The very indictment before them was held in the Supreme Court of 
 Judicature at Bombay. But if the objection taken by the learned counsel on behalf of 
 the prosecution be allowed, it might have the effect of depriving the defendants of that 
 right which unquestionably they have to a new trial. This case was not a case in an 
 inferior Court, but in a branch of the Supreme Court. AVould a certiorari have the 
 effect of bringing into Court that which was already in the Supreme Court ? 
 
 Justice Arnould referred to the constitution of the Supreme Court. There was no 
 special commission given the Judges for the Court of Oyer and Terminer. 
 
 Mr. Bayley thanked his Lordship. He was aware that the constitution of the 
 Courts here was different from those in England. In England there were five special 
 commissions for the Circuit Courts. Mr. Bayley referred to K. vs. Gompertz, vol. 9 
 Queen's Bench Reports, p. 824, where in a trial for conspiracy before Lord Denman 
 a rule was made absolute for a new trial ; and to K. vs. Whitehouse 1 Dean C. C. 
 1 wliere a new trial in a case of conspiracy was granted on the ground of surprise, 
 and the Court would see that none of these motions for a new trial were made before 
 the judge who tried the case. 
 
 Justice Arnould — In the case of King vs. Mawhey the question of new trials was 
 very fully argued. 
 
 Mr. Bayley — Yes, and sustains my argument that every man convicted of misde- 
 meanour is entitled to a new trial. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse — You lay it down as an abstract proposition that every mis- 
 demeanant is entitled to move for a new trial. 
 
51 
 
 Mr. Bayley laid It down as a general rule, when the case was either originally 
 in the Court of Queen's Bench, or removed there by writ of certiorari. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse said he only sat here at present as an Assessor. He knew 
 ■nothing of the case except as he heard it from counsel. The matter must be brought 
 before the Court in some way if the Judges sat as a Court of Queen's Bench. 
 
 Mr. Bayley thought it neeil not be by a writ of errtiorari. In England the 
 proceedings could only be brought to the superior from the inferior Court 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 ? 
 
 Mr. Bayley — Certainly not. There was no more difference between this Court and 
 the Supreme Court, than there w^as between the Supreme Court on the plea side and 
 equity side. This Court was a Supreme Court on the criminal side, and is expressly 
 so stated in the charter," and their Lordships had the full power which the Court of 
 Queen's Bench in England had. 
 
 Mr. Anstey, with regard to the remarks of the learned counsel moving for a new 
 trial said, that their Lordships' attention had been directed solely to the charter. Now 
 the charter had nothing to do with it. Their Lordships had five special jurisdictions, and 
 when they were exercising the jurisdiction of the Court of Oyer and Terminer they 
 were not exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Queen's Bench. The motion for a 
 certiorari ought to have been made before, and as it was not made, and as it was 
 now too late for a writ to issue, motion for a new trial could not be made. If 
 the trial had taken place before their Lordships sitting as a Court of Queen's Bench, 
 then motion for a new trial might have been made in Queen's Bench. His learned 
 friend (Mr. Bayley) had moved the Court in arrest of judgment, as he had a perfect 
 right to do, but he was not competent to go beyond that. In the case of The King 
 vs. Maicbey in vol. 6, Law Reports, it will be seen there must have been a writ of 
 certiorari. The case of The King vs. Oxford was similar. If the writ were now granted 
 in this case, he (Mr. Anstey) could foretell no end of litigation at future criminal 
 sessions when every prisoner, either personally or through counsel would apply for 
 a new trial. 
 
 Justice Arnould. — A certiorari was issued according to practice only the other day 
 by a single judge sitting as a Pull Court. It was simply a writ from a superior to 
 an inferior Court. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse was of opinion that every person who was convicted of 
 misdemeanour at the Assizes at home, here at Oyer and Terminer, was entitled to a 
 new trial on good grounds. 
 
 Mr. Bayley had stated several grounds. He had been told that a certiorari was 
 never applied for here. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse. — The other day a writ was applied for in case of a corporation. 
 The law compels defendants to appear in person, and as a corporation cannot be personally 
 present, it was therefore thought necessary to bring the case where the defendant might 
 appear by attorney or counsel. 
 
52 
 
 Mr. Bayley said there was a clause in the cliarter which gave the defendants the 
 privilege of appealing to the Privy Council ; and certan objections taken by him had 
 not been decided by the Judge, and had not been argued so fully as they would have 
 been if the points had not been reserved by the learned Judge for further consideration • 
 in case of a conviction, The defendants were greatly prejudiced, and it was little else 
 than a fraud upon them to reserve certain points of law and afteawards refuse to have 
 them argued ; and he and his learned friends were convinced that evidence had been 
 most improperly received at the trial and that the conviction could not be sustained. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse. — The Judge who hears the trial has the right of ruling 
 different parts of evidence as it appears before him. 
 
 Justice Arnould said he took a note of the objection, and at the end of the Court 
 
 gave leave to counsel to apply for a new trial in general terms. There was a 
 
 concession given which ought not to have been given — that was all. The motion for ft 
 new trial must be disallowed. 
 
 Motion in arrest of judgmeyit resumed. 
 
 Mr. Green, who appeared with Mr. Bayley, offered a few arguments in addition. 
 The only case of obstruction of justice was such that from the nature of the case 
 justice might be obstructed by the conspiracy. The learned gentleman s -id that the 
 conspiracy to prevent, if sound at all, ought to be to prevent persons from giving evidence 
 who had been lawfully summoned to appear and give evidence ; he cited Queen vs. 
 Turner, 13 East ; Queen vs. Epworth, and other cases. !Now in this case there was 
 no lawful summons — only a personal request to persons to appear and give evidence. It was not 
 stated that those persons were liable to appear and give evidence in this Court ; and 
 it must be made to appear that such was ihe case. There was high authority in 
 support of this point. (The learned gentleman cited King vs. Pywell, Kivg vs. Bellinger, 
 and other cases.) Keally there was no case parallel to the present to be found in 
 the law regarding persons conspiring to prevent a person from giving evidence. There 
 might be an action as every one Knows against the witness himself for damages, should 
 he refuse to appear and give evidence. In vol. 7, Law Journal, New series, p. 1028, 
 there was a case of conspiracy to abuse a process of the Court by putting it in 
 motion ; and in that case there was no summons, and therefore no damages. On those 
 two points the use of the word " unlawful," and the second, the absence of a summons, 
 the learned gentleman left the case to their Lordships' consideration. 
 
 Mr. Connon followed and said that he had a substantial ground for moving for 
 an arrest of judgment. He was of opinion that the evidence did not disclose a criminal 
 offence ; he cited the case of O'Connel, when judgment was arrested, and he gathered 
 from what Lord Campbell said on the occassion, that when the parties indicted had done 
 what they had been conspiring to do, they could be charged with obstructing the course 
 of public justice. It was the first time in his Hfe, continued Mr. Connon, that the 
 editor of a native paper sought to be dignified by the publication of a libel, a suit for 
 which is pending on the plea side of this Court. These parties, the present defendants, 
 could have no direct interest in the settlement of a dispute between those two individuals. 
 
53 
 
 The only case which he remembered and which he thought bore a somewhat resem- 
 blance to this, was a conspiracy to hiss in a public assembly : but as that partook of 
 a civil character it was only a civil injury. It had also bt-en suggested, observed Mr. 
 Connon, that if the parties subpoenaed to attend did not attend, then there would be an 
 injury, and an action may be maintained. He submitted to their Lordships that it 
 did not appear by the indictment that the parties charged, were within the jurisdiction 
 of this Court, and he hoped that the Court would take judicial notice of this obiection. 
 The Bhattias were a class of people numbering large, and the Court could only have 
 jurisdiction over such of them as were within the town and island of Bombay, and 
 therefore the indictment was faulty in this respect. He submitted that the Maharaj, 
 the prosecutor in the plea suit, had just as much a chance in being bribed as any 
 witness, and concluded his remarks by stating, that the evidence adduced for the 
 prosecution did not bring home to the defendants a criminal offence. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse. — The present is a motion to arrest judgment, and you cannot 
 travel out of it. You are treating with the evidence brought before the Court at the 
 trial, but which is not before the Court now. 
 
 Mr. Connon. — I may ask your Lordships, what would be the consequence of finding 
 these men guilty ? It would only tolerate abundant prosecutions of this character, arising 
 out of civil suits. There is not a case pending in this or any Court in which parties 
 are not asked to give evidence one side or the other. It were better if each washed 
 his dirty linen at home than come here to do so. 
 
 Mr. Anst(y. — I shall confine myself, my Lord, to the motion for arrest of judg- 
 ment. Before I enter upon it, I must ask your Lordship's leave to point out the 
 fallacy of Mr. Bayley's and the other learned gentlemen's arguments. The indictment 
 would have been perfectly good had it omitted the overt acts altogether. It was only 
 out of grace and favour that I did not press them to be made out stronger. The 
 cases of Queen vs. Brown and others, and Queen vs. Sap'eton and others, reported in 
 6 Weekly Reporter 1861, are in point. The Court on the occasion makes remark, 
 that although it is not necessary to mention overt acts in the indictment, it may, 
 however, be done. The defendants are not charged with tampering with witnesses in 
 giving evidence, but they are charged with intimidating witnesses to give evidence. Away 
 goes the objection just raised upon this subject. An offence to obstruct justice is not 
 an offence in law ! a witness cannot be a witness unless he is subpoenaed ! he cannot 
 volunteer to be a witness ! why cannot the witness be voluntary ? why is not the 
 prosecutor prohibited in giving his evidence ? I'he absence of a subpoena cannot affect 
 the quality of the crime charged ! My Lord, I think I have said sufficient against 
 this frivolous objection. I now proceed to the other objection — a specious one. I find 
 in that book, that conspiracy is a harmless word, but may be taken by the commentary 
 in an ill sense. Objection has been taken by Mr. Bayley to the word " intimidate" 
 in the indictment. What are words ? They specify the meaning — they specily the 
 purport, and they specify what is laid down. The introduction of the word " intimidate" 
 does not affect the meaning of the word " prevent." (Here Mr. Anstey read the 
 indictment.) The defendants attempted by certain overt acts mentioned in the indictment, 
 to punish those members of their caste by excommunication on their giving evidence in 
 the plea action. Your Lordship is bound to take judicial notice of this fact. Now 
 comes an answer to another objection which is entirely frivolous. It is not for conspiring 
 
54 
 
 amongst themselves, but for deterring others from giving evidence, especially of persons 
 who are invited to give evidence. They are threatened with expulsion from the caste, 
 also with the loss of certain privileges. The indictment says, " then and there witnesses." 
 Another count of the indictment says, that the parties were to be prevented from giving 
 evidence by a caste meeting. The overt act was, they did call a caste meeting, and 
 the next overt act was, that at the meeting they proposed to take measures to expel 
 from the caste any person who should give evidence on behalf of Karsandass Mooljee, 
 the defendant in the libel action. The next overt act was, that they induced divers 
 Hindu persons to sign a certain book by which they bound themselves to suffer ex- 
 communication in the event of their giving evidence against the Maharaj. This is a 
 motion for arrest of judgment which cannot be entertained by the Court. As the verdict 
 was a general one, and which I must ask your Lordships to infer from the very fact 
 that the jury appeared satisfied on their returning their verdict. Strange's Hindu Law 
 states the consequences of excommunication, and which is very severe ; they are not 
 only expelled from their caste, but they are prohibited from contracting the marriage 
 of their sons and daughters. In the case of O'Connel the charge of conspiracy was to 
 alter the law by intimidation and physical force : in this case the law was different and 
 the charge was framed upon it. Now look at the word " prevent" ; it has been 
 used by pleaders since the earliest time The objection that applies to intimidate, does 
 not apply to prevent. Intimidate, it is argued, has no content, the counts all say 
 " prevent from giving evidence." (Here Mr. Anstey read from the 2nd vol. of Russel 
 on Crime and cited a case.) Where a person is charged with conspiring to prevent 
 
 a tailor by indirect means from carrying on his trade, the presiding Judge held 
 
 that the indictment was good. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse. — I do not think, Mr. Anstey, that it was suggested that the 
 word " prevent" in the 5th indictment was not good. 
 
 Mr. Anstey here read the 5th indictment and said. — Every overt act charged m 
 the indictment was proved in the evidence at the time of trial ; the jury found guilty 
 on the word " prevent." There is no ground for criticism in the way the jury found 
 the verdict, or in the way the Clerk of the Crown framed the indictment. We are 
 not living in an age when a trifling error of law can destroy an indictment. Assuming 
 all, however, to be true, there is no defence whatever to the four corners of the in- 
 dictment. (The Judges were consulting and Mr. Anstey stopped his address.) 
 
 Justice Arnould. — I was drawing his Lordship's attention to Lord Campbell's Act 
 which empowers the Judge to couple hard labour with the sentence if convicted of preventing, 
 perverting and defeating the ends of justice. 
 
 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 of intimidators. Since the star chamber 
 has been done away with, we have had charges of perjury, subornation of perjury. In 
 the present case we have had, as your Lordships know, rich men as the defendants : 
 the prosecution has been costly to the prosecutor and laborious to ourselves, and it will 
 be dangerous to Government to let such go unpunished. In the case of King vs. Mawbey 
 there was no distinction of a penal character, and it was the only way in which the 
 
55 
 
 jury understood it ;" the case was a trial for a conspiracy to obtain a false certificate. 
 In the case of King vs. Mawhey these parties did conspire together to obtain a false 
 certificate : the second count was with intent to deceive the Court by producing a false 
 certificate, and the third count was somewhat similar. Lord Kennyon says that the 
 
 offence may be an indictable one [Mr. Anstey referred to the following 
 
 cases,' Queen vs. Roebuck, Qveen vs Roberts, p. 129, Queen vs. Eagkion, p. 80, and 
 others] ...... 
 
 Assuming that a man can commit a fraud which could be tried only on the civil side, still there 
 are cases (the present is one) which are indictable and punishable. Defamation, libel, conspi- 
 racy may be made the subject of an action at law, and they may consistently be put on the 
 criminal side of the law. What do we know but that the prosecutor is gaining by this act of the 
 conspirators ? In a criminal action, the injury done is done to the Queen. She has no right 
 of action in a case of tort. 1 page of the state trial. In the case of Haines it was contended 
 that a defaulter to the Queen could be actionable at criminal law, but of a private person or 
 company he cannot be Assuming the indictment to be true, there has been an 
 attempt to impoverish him — an attempt to dissuade others from giving evidence, and an 
 attempt to get witnesses to swear to what is false. The very case cited by my learned 
 
 friend in Strange's Hindu law is against him absence of all precedent 
 
 in dealing with men at the bar ; prisoners are called upon to answer. 
 
 Mr. Dunbar — My argument is in reference to the argument of Mr. Bayley. In 
 O'Connel's case the jury tound a verdict upon some of the counts, and as it was a 
 special verdict a new trial was allowed ; but in this case the verdict was general, and 
 therefore no new trial can be had. 
 
 Mr. Bayley then replied and said, there was no authority to support these various 
 counts. The counts in the indictment in O'Connel's case all relied on the same matter : 
 the same words were used in all by means of " intimidation" ; and all were upheld 
 by the judges, though they found fault with the jury. (The learned gentleman cited 
 cases). The Court's attention had been called to the word " intimidate" and " conspire." 
 Now the word " intimidate" only meant an improper action. The word " conspire" 
 no doubt meant an illegal action. The nine judges were unanimously of opinion that 
 there was no techincally bad meaning to the word " intimidate." ]Mr. Anstey had 
 said that the purport of the word was the essence of the word. That was mere 
 quibbling. The opinion of the judges was that " intimidation" was not an illegal word. 
 
 Justice Arnould. — The defendants are here charged with intimidating by means 
 which are set out following ; there is a great difference. 
 
 Mr. Bayley said one count in the present indictment was a conspiracy to intimidate 
 the whole world — to prevent all members of the Bhattia cast from giving evidence ; 
 it was too general. The indictment did not even state that these persons were in 
 existence — no averment of that : it says, " certain" persons. Now it assumes that 
 there are " certain" persons. The arguments taken by his learned friend, Mr. Green, 
 were good, and had not been answered. These persons had not been summoned : then 
 the indictment did not state that those witnesses were alive or were within the jurisdiction 
 of the Court, or were willing to come forward and give evidence. The indictment 
 raised up a certain class of people as existing in order to charge them with being 
 intimidated by the defendants. Now the persons may be at Poona or in England, 
 
56 
 
 There was no averment that any other supposed witnesses were within the jurisdiction, 
 or that they were summoned or able to attend, and it was consistent with the averments 
 thait not a single witness could or ought to attend. He cited K. vs. Stevenson, 2 
 Hast. 362, where the witness intimidated had been duly summoned according to law. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse. — The conspiracy, as the counts allege, occurred within the 
 jurisdiction ; and it don't matter where the persons are. 
 
 Mr. Bayley said it did with his argument. Supposing there were 10,000 people 
 in Cutch, and there was merely a meeting in Bombay to try to persuade those people 
 from coming here, surely the calling of that meeting would not be an illegal act. The 
 count did not state that that evidence was material. And there had not been a single 
 text-book or decision shewn to make the act an illegal act. Then much had been 
 said of the word " prevent," which he (Mr. Bayley) contended in some cases meant 
 " assist !" We have a collect, said Mr. Bayley, beginning with " Prevent us, Lord" 
 &c. &c., which plainly had this meaning, and surely those good men who composed it 
 had as good a knowledge of English as we ourselves have. 
 
 Justice Arnould — Do you mean to say that " intimidate" and prevent" in that 
 collocation the word" prevent" means assist ? 
 
 Mr. Bayley did not argue that. He thought some other word ought to have 
 been used. The word had not that comprehertsive meaning that " murder," and such 
 other words, had. As " conspiracy," as his learned friend had said always had a bad 
 meaning. Now, in this charge, there were four words used — combine, conspire, confe- 
 derate, and agree together, that the case should not, if possible, slip through. Now 
 the indictment should have gone on and stated the overt acts and damages done. For 
 argument, he would assume that an action in the nature of a conspiracy would lie if 
 damages had accrued : it followed that a person would have a remedy for years before 
 the time when he might have a right of action, which right of action might be 
 successfully defended. It is perfectly consistent to say that no injury has been done 
 to the prosecutor, public justice, or any thing else. It was not shown that what the 
 defendants did in any degree affected the case, or that a single witness had been 
 intimidated. No harm had been done — it was an abstract proposition laid in the 
 indictment, and not supported by any authority. There was a verdict, and their 
 Lordships could not alter that verdict. He thought judgment had not been received here. 
 
 Chief Justice Sausse said he understood the present motion was in arrest of 
 judgment. 
 
 Mr. Bayley said the verdict was general, and therefore the Court could not alter 
 the finding. The jury had been discharged without being asked on which count they 
 convicted. Judgment was bad, and should be arrested. 
 
 Justice Arnould said the Court did not consider that sufficient grounds had been 
 shown for an arrest of judgment. After enumerating the counts, and the overt acts 
 which were to carry them out, the learned judge said this appeared to him to be an 
 offence at common law. There was an action brought before Her Majesty's Supreme 
 Court for redress of a wrong, it was necessary that the Court should proceed in a certain 
 way, among other things have the evidence of witnesses, to 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 for the rei^ress of 
 what he felt a wrong, and then intimidation is offered to those witnesses by his devotees to 
 prevent them from appearing in Court and giving evidfnce. Kow, it would be a very great 
 injustice, to hold that a m n who has to defend himself against a serious charge in the 
 Supreme Court has not the right to defend himself. It clearly did not make any difference 
 wt ether the defendants carried out their filnn or not. or whether the present prosecutor 
 had a remedy at civil law. 'I'he parties suffering had a right to call upon the aggressors 
 to account for their misconduct. With regard to the mere technical oljectioiis which 
 had been taken, the learned judge said there was nothing in them. The whole gist 
 of the case was in the word •' combination.' In a case cited it was not clearly shown 
 what the meaning of the word was, but the case here was totally different — it was to 
 intimidate and prevent by means which were set out, so that there was no possibility 
 of vagueness. It also appeared to the learned judge that it did not matter though 
 the witnesses were not summoned. The essence was the combination for a common 
 object. The quality, kind, and nature of the offence was the same, though the degree 
 might be mitigated. 'I he verdict was general. In his Lordship's opinion each count 
 was good. Judgment had not yet been entered up. 
 
 Mr. Anstey asked that judgment might be entered up on each count, 
 
 Mr. Bayley requested as 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. 
 
 Mr. Bayley asked the Court merely as a matter of form preliminary to further 
 proceedings. He had understood that the question of a new trial was not fully decided, 
 
 Mr, Anstey pleaded for judgment on the defendants, 
 
 Mr. Bayley said he wished to call a few witnesses as to character. 
 
 Mr. Anstey took some objection, when 
 
 Justice Arnould asked if he (Mr, Anstey) had not asked for mercy for the 
 defendants on Saturday when they were convicted ? 
 
 Mr, Anstey said he !iad, and although he would not retract, yet the prosecutor 
 and all concerned in the prosecution had received nothing but sneers from the defendants 
 in consequence of the appeal. 
 
 Messrs. J. Cassels, M, II. Seott, T. F. Gray, J. Bevis, K, Hannay, merchants 
 of high standing, were called on behalf of the defendants. Most of them spoke to an 
 acquaintance with the defendants for terms of ten, fifteen or twenty years, and to the 
 high character they bore in the mercantile community. 
 
 W. Crawford, Esq. Senior Magistrate of Police, was also called, and said that ho 
 had known Hagoo Shamje<j he believed for twenty-two years. Defendant was one of 
 the mildest mannered men, and one of the gentlest men, he ever dealt with. 
 
 Mr. Bayley made a few remarks in mitigation of punishment, on the position of 
 the defttudants, the novelty of Uie offence, the absence of any proofs that the defvudaati 
 8 
 
58 
 
 most of whom only spoke their native tongue, knew they were doing wrong ; and with 
 all deference submitted that a very light sentence would meet the ends of justice. 
 
 Mr. Anstey said that after this he would retract every word he had said on Saturday 
 in favor of the prisoners (Sensation and strong expressions of dissatisfaction.) 
 
 Justice Arnould in sentenciny the prisoners, said : Gentlemen of very high 
 respectability in this community have just been heard to give you a high character, 
 and of the perfect truth of their evidence I have no manner of doubt. From the 
 beginning to the end of this trial there has been no imputation upon your character 
 as peaceably disposed and orderly persons. The charge against you is this : that a 
 person whom you hold in the highest regard has brought an action in this Court for 
 damages on account of the publication of an article charging him with adultery and 
 other immoral practices. The editor of that journal, when the action was brought 
 against him, as one of Her Majesty's subjects, he had a clear right to do, put on the 
 records of this Court a plea to defend himself at this trial. I have no doubt but that 
 you have been put up to do what you did do, by Paroo (das) who was managing 
 this case. That plea has been represented as an attack — it is not an attack, but a 
 defence, as you were perfectly well aware of. And you, being men of respectability 
 as you are, could not have been so perfectly ignorant as not to know that bribing a 
 witness was an offence ; it was then endeavoured to prevent truth and justice from 
 being done by another course. But although in Courts the allegation of belief cannot 
 exclude or mitigate punishment, I am not going to exclude human nature in the 
 sentence I shall now pass upon you. In passing sentence I have two extremes to 
 guard against : on the one had I am not going to pass a sentence which will seem 
 vindictive, while on the other hand I must avoid the appearance of overlooking the 
 facts as it would seem to exclude the whole truth of the prosecution. It is fitting that 
 you should know the law of England on this offence as applicable here, and I will 
 read it by way of a warning against any future crime. (His Lordship read from Lord 
 Campbell's Act, the law empowering judges to couple hard labor with imprisonment for 
 the whole term of sentence). That is the law. I don't intend on this occasion to 
 avail myself of the power given. The sentence of the Court upon the two leading 
 men, you Goculdass Lilladhur, and you Lukmidass Damjee, is, that each pay a fine 
 of Ks. 1000 ; and the seven other defendants each a fine of Rs. 500. [The fines 
 were immediately paid and the defendants left the Court with their friends.] 
 
 There was great confusion in Court when the sentence was proclaimed, but the 
 noise was suppressed without trouble, when 
 
 Mr. Anstey apphed to have the costs of this case from the Fine Fund. Mr. 
 Anstey stated that the costs already amounted to about Rs. 4000. Mr. Anstey was 
 told to make the application to the Full Court. 
 
 The application was accordingly made on Thursday, the 19th December, and 
 the Court ordered Rs. 1000 to be given to the prosecutor out of the Fine Fund. 
 
59 
 
 THE miAL OF THE SLiHARAJ LIBEL CASE. 
 
 SUPREME COURT.— Plea Side. 
 (Beeore a Full Court.) 
 
 Judoonathjee Brizruttoiyee Maharaj vs. Kiirsandass Mooljee and another. 
 
 Mr. Bayley, with Mr. Scohle, instructed by Messrs. ColUer and Leathes, for the 
 plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. Anstey, with Mr. Danhar, instructed by Messrs. Acland and Prentis, for the 
 defendants. 
 
 First Day, Saturday, 2Dth January 1862. 
 
 Mr. Scoble opened the case by reading a portion of the pleas. 
 
 Mr. Bayley — " In this case I have the honor to appear with my learned friend 
 Mr. Scoble to ask your Lordships for damages for a most wanton and unprovoked 
 libel published on the 21st October 18G0 in a native Guzerathi newspaper, the Satya 
 Prakash. The plaintiff, your Lordships will see from the plaint, bears a high character 
 amongst a certain class of people, and as the case presents some circumstances of a 
 peculiar character, and as this is the first time that any one of the Maharajs have 
 sought redress in a court of justice, the plaintiff is subject to all advantages and dis- 
 advantages attendant upon it : also amongst others of being examined and cross-examined 
 on the part of the defendants. I^ow your Lordships will see that a person situated " 
 as he is, respected and revered among numerous followers in Bombay and other places, 
 it* becomes a matter of importance that the practice set forth in the pleas should be 
 proved. He, of course, would have abstained from bringing such an action, so confident 
 is he of the falsity of the allegations that he is disposed to risk every thing, but it 
 is important for him to vindicate his character. Your Lordships will see that he could 
 not well remain • silent. The case before the Court on the part of the plaintiff is a 
 simple one ; but before I proceed to the question of libel I may inform your Lordships 
 that the plaintiff is a person of thirty-four or tliirty-five years of age, and that he 
 resides for the most part in Suiat, occasionally coming to Bombay. Though not 
 educated in the European sense of the term, he is conversant with several native 
 languages ; he has always taken an interest in the cause of native female education, 
 which alone gives him respect and honor in this country, and speaks volumes in his 
 favor. He seeks redress through a proper channel, to which he is justly entitled. 
 With these few introductory remarks, let me call your Lordships' attention to the libel 
 itself. I shall not at first enter at all into the rebutting proof of the evidence which 
 may be brought forward, the burden will lie upon the defendants, as they are going, 
 I believe, to justify the libel. It is unnecessary to trouble your Lordships with the 
 case, as one of your Lordships is already cognisant of the particular facts and circum- 
 stances in the demurrer case. The authorized translations shewn in the plaint itself is 
 in these terms : — 
 
60 
 
 [Mr Bayley here read before the Court the alleged libel.] 
 
 •• Now your Lordships will see that tlie article divides itself into tvro parts. The 
 first part is to a certain extent liistorical ; in the fecond, the writer singles out the 
 plaintiff, and in conpiiny with other .Maharajs charfr.'s them with the most filthy and 
 obscene conduct ; now that that is a libel, I apprehend your Lordships will liave no 
 doubt. I will read AlJisoo. o>f Wrongs, p. 578, 579, fro n the chapter on libel and 
 slander. It is there shewn that every publication making a person's society shunned 
 and avoided is a libel. To pul)lish and say a man has insulted two females and 
 thereby to make his society shunned, is a libel. Tho=!e cases cited by me are merely 
 foot-notes, to show what constit tes libel in the opinion of learned judges in England. 
 The defendants have filed justification. I atn prepared with a certificate to prove that 
 Karsandas, one of the defendants, is the publisher of the libel. Hearing his admission 
 in a recent case that he was the publisher, and the other defendant the printer, I 
 need not put myself to the trouble of proving the printer and publisher. 
 
 " The sixth plea is as to so much of the alleged libel. I think a special traverse 
 as to its being properly translated will have no effect, as I am of opinion that it is 
 correctly translated by Mr. Hyim, the official translator. The seventh plea goes into 
 minute circumstances, and details a horrible character of the plaintiff. 1'hat disposes of 
 all the other pleas. I submit that unless my learned friend is [prepared with substan- 
 tive justification, this is clearly a case for damug<'S. 'J he burden of [^roving every 
 substantive jtlea of the allegations rests with iny learned friends on behalf of the 
 defendants. 'J'he plaintiff is not actuated by any viridictive feelings ; he dues not require 
 substantial damages ; nominal damages and an apology would satisfy liim, and save 
 trouble to the Court, and much annoyance to the feelin;;s by the recital if horrible 
 details. If the defendants do not choose to retract, I am prefiared to prove my client's 
 case, and to rebut at the proper time the allegations set up for the defence. I will 
 ask my learned friend if he admits the publication and printing of the libel, and also 
 that the publisher and printer are the defendants." 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — " I admit all No doubt there was a publication. I deny all 
 inuendoes ; I deny that it is a libel, and assert that it is a privileged, justifiable 
 communication." 
 
 (1.) Jamns Fli/nn, examined by Mr, Scoble. — " I am the chief translator and 
 interpreter of this Court. I jiroduce a copy of the Sii/a Pra\mh of the 21st October 
 1860, and an official translation of an article headed " the primitive religion of the 
 Hindoos and the present heterolox opinions." It is a paper in the Gujarathi lan- 
 guage and diameter, printed and published in Bombay. Tiie translation is correct, and 
 according to the best of my ability. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " T see the equivalent of a passage bracketted 
 in the original ' Mahanijs acting up to the commentary desist from the defilement of 
 the wives and d iight« rs of your devotees, &c.' (Witness was examined as to the 
 graramalind construction of the above piss;ige in t!ie vorua-ular language.) The word 
 Maharaj is used in the voiaiive case. The " Brig Bhasha" language is not court 
 language, and in uiy opinion it is not^ a language in wluch trauiiliiiio'is have to be 
 made. 
 
61 
 
 To the Court,^ — " The * IJrig Bhasha' language is an ancient dialect of India ; it 
 is not a spoken language now. but a written one. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Scoble. — " The article which I have translated is in the 
 •Gujarathi language, and not in the Brig Bhasha language. 
 
 To the Court — " The character of the Brig Bhasha is somewhat similar to the Sanscrit. 
 
 To Mr Scoble. — " The original seat of the Brig Bhaslia language is round A<Tra 
 in the North -West. In the native newspapers punctuation is « ot carefully marked. 
 Looking at tlie passage translated in the sixth plea, I think it forms two sentences ; 
 and I hold that view notwithstanding the omission of the f II -stop." 
 
 (2.) Gopallilas Mahadevsclasn, examined by Mr. Bayley. — I am the head of the 
 Mahajun or Banian caste of all denominations. They are numerous in Bombay. Ma- 
 hajuns are Banians assembled in a meeting. It is necessary to obtain my permission 
 to hold meetings of the caste. I know the plaintiff Judoonath Brizruttoiijee Maharaj, 
 who is about 40 or 42 years of age. lie occasionally resides in Bombay at intervals 
 of 10 or 20 years. He is a resident of Surat. The Banians and Bhattias consider 
 the Maharaj in very good liglit, and respect him. ^Mr. Anstey objected to the last 
 statement of the witness, and read the S55;h Section of Taylor on Evidence to show 
 that the plaintiff cannot give evidence of good character or conduct unless the contrary 
 has been offered or alleged against him. Tbe learned counsel alluded to some cases in 
 point, and remarked they were not to be got over by any explanation of his learned 
 friend. Mr. Bayley said the question was not as to character. He would call atten- 
 tion to the 4th plea, which stated " the plaintiff is not a high priest of high Caste" 
 Ac. Sir Joseph Arnold. — Taylor has laid down the rule in reference to aggravation of 
 damages. I understood the question in a spiritual light. I thought there was a mis- 
 und rstanding on the part of the witness, aud that's the reason I asked him if he 
 spoke of Maharajs in general. Mr. Anstey. — I have no objection as to his posit on 
 among the Maharajs. I object to his personal character being referred to.) 'J'he plain- 
 tiff is a Mahtraj : he is our gooroo or S[>iritual guide, who worships our iijols and 
 performs divine service. The .Maharaj is a Brahmin, and is above the ordinary run 
 of Brahmins. Some Brahuiins who receive a particular religious character from him 
 regard him as a gooroo. The Bhattias are worshipiiers of the Maharaj The Bhattia 
 caste is difK-rent from tiie B.mian. They both respect the Maharajs equally as their 
 gooroos. A gooroo performs divine service and worshijis the images. The .Maharaj miaht 
 preach sermons, but I am in the haliit of going to him only three or four times in 
 the year. 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 
 images. The Maharajs have temples in Bombay : there are sometimes two, sometimes 
 five, and some times ten, and perhaps more Maharajs in B nibay. Some permanently 
 reside here, as, for instance. Jeevunjee Maharaj. In India, I believe, there are now 
 about 60 or 70 Maharajs. The Maharaj at Sreejee is considered the chief ; he has 
 a temple at >'athdoovvar, near Oodeypore, in Northern India. 'J'he Maharajs are spread 
 over the cities of Ilindoostan. The rajahs and native princes respect the .Maharajs in 
 the same manner as the devotees do. I have resided all my life in Bombay. I am 
 a subscriber to the Sa't/a Prakash newspaper. I may have read the article upon 
 which tliis action is brought. The ^ati/a Prakash is now amalgamated with the East Go/tar. 
 
62 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — I have never been to the principal seats in India, 
 nor have I seen the Maharajs vi^orshipped by the rajahs, and v?hat I have said about 
 the Maharajs is what I have heard about them. I have recollection of an unpleasant 
 controversy which was going on in 1911-12 (1855) between the Maharajs and the 
 Brahmins. The controversy related to our religion ; I was engaged in it against the 
 Maharajs. I don't remember Lalmaneejee Maharaj issuing an order eight years ago, calling 
 upon members of his caste to repair to his house and to give him presents ; neither 
 did Lallmunjee Maharaj give such an order ten years ago. I do not recollect incurring 
 the displeasure of Lallmunjee for denying his right to ask for presents. I have not 
 heard of the complaints among the VuUabhacharyas of the adulterous practices of the 
 Maharajs with their wives and daughters, but I have read some complaints in the Satya 
 Prakash and Parsee Punch, which I first began to read about five or six years ago. 
 I have not signed a paper prepared by the Maharajs binding me, to implicit obedience, 
 especially with reference to these accusations ; but many persons have signed such a paper, 
 which I have heard was prepared by the Maharaj. I have heard from the Banians, 
 members of the sect, that an engagement has been entered into by Banians, Bhattias, 
 and all the sects to do their utmost to prevent the Maharajs from being called as 
 witnesses in a court of justice. This engagement has been designated the ' slavery bond' 
 by those printers and newspaper writers. I can't say whether others call it so. I have 
 not signed this bond. It is true that to get the bond signed, the Maharajs kept the 
 temple closed eight days. This was about four years ago. I do not know of any attempt 
 being made by the Maharajs to get Karsandass excommunicated from the caste of 
 Banians for writing articles against them. Such an attempt was made. Two persons 
 came -to me and said that as the Bhattias had made an arrangement we should make 
 it also : this was but a day or two after the signatures were obtained, to intimidate 
 witnesses to give evidence in this case against the Maharaj. One was Purboodass, and 
 the other Jaykissondass. They are both Banians, so am I, and so is the defendant. 
 Purboodass is the person who is managing the case for the plaintiff in this present 
 action, and is sitting down in Court behind the professional advisers on the part of the 
 plaintiff. He came to me once only about the business of excommunication. I said 
 that if what Karsandass had published is false, the Court will punish him, I refused 
 to interfere, as the Maharaj had brought an action against him : they went away. I 
 can't say that they knew whether I was going to give evidence for the defendant in 
 this action. The Maharajs are not the preceptors or spiritual guides of all the Hindus, 
 but only of the Bhattias and Banians and Brahmins. The majority of the Banians believe ia 
 the Maharajs. Some of the Banians are Jains. Jain Banians don't believe in the Maharajs. 
 I have not heard of any Banians regarding the Maharaj as Almighty God incarnate 
 in the flesh. I cannot say whether Bhattias regard the Maharaj as the incarnation of 
 the Deity, but some may believe in the Maharaj as the incarnation of God, while 
 others do not. [Mr. Anstey. — Do the whole sect of Vullubhacharya regard the Maharajs 
 as Gods f] I cannot say what they think. Some people do say that they are gods, 
 whi'e some deny that they are. (Mr. Anstey here read a portion of so much of the 
 first averment of a plea to the witness in which the doctrine of the sect was laid down.) 
 It is the opinion of the Vullubhacharyas, that the Maharajs and their descendants are 
 incarnations of Bramah and Vishnu, and deserve to be worshipped with the mind, 
 property and body of their followers. I believe it to be a sin ot the gravest character 
 to neglect this worship. I cannot say if it 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. 
 If such doctrine or passage was shown me in any of the books I call Shastras, I 
 would take it as good and true. Referring to the " bundobust" (arrangement) I meant 
 to refer to the Conspiracy Case of the Queen vs. Goculdass Leladhur and others. I 
 heard the arrangement was to prevent any person from giving evidence here on behalf 
 of Karsandass : and the " bundobust" I was asked to sign was to the same effect. 
 The Maharajs decide caste disputes, and also themselves fall into caste disputes. I do 
 not know if some castes have had to complain of the Maharajs seizing the property of 
 widows and orphans ; I have never heard such a thing. The Maharajs have 
 temples in Bombay : sometimes when there are marriages and such occasions, dancing 
 and singing go on in the temples ; but not in the part where the idols are kept. 
 Prostitutes are invited on such occasions to dance in the temple. Prostitutes are 
 also invited to the party. In those temples the jNIaharajs worship the idols, and 
 men and women worship, sometimes, the Maharajs. They prostrate themselves at the 
 Maharaj's feet. By worshipping the Maharaj, I understand applying to him scent and stuff, 
 and offering him fruits and flowers, in the same way as the idols are worshipped. 
 When we fall down before the Maharaj, he blesses us. One mode of worshipping the 
 idol is by swinging it, and our women worship the Maharaj by swinging him in a 
 swing. On certain occasions the Maharaj throws golal (red powder used during the 
 Holee holidays) on the person of men and women. It is thrown from a distance, and 
 it may fall upon the necks and breasts of women. It is not considered among our 
 people equivalent to adultery to throw golal on the breast of a woman. If any person 
 throw golal on the breast of a woman, our people don't consider it indecent or shameful. 
 I do not know if other people consider so. I have not heard of any Maharaj touching 
 the breast of any of my relatives or of any other female. The pan soparree thrown off by 
 the Maharaj is taken in hand and eaten by his devotees. The water rinsed and wrung 
 from the Mahara s dkotia (trovvser) is drunk by his devotees and is known as char- 
 namrut, ^. e., ambroisa or the nectar of the feet. Some portion of the remnants of 
 the food eaten by the Maharaj is eaten by the followers. The water with which the 
 Maharaj bathes is not drunk. I have been only three or four times in the year to visit 
 the Maharaj.' The Maharaj sees men and women in the same open space. I don't 
 know if there are rooms of the jNIaharaj to which females only have access. If the 
 Maharaj has a family, he keeps a separate " zenana" in the temple. I do not recollect 
 whether two or three years ago a meeting of the Bhattias was held with the view to 
 prevent females from going to the Maharaj in his private rooms. 
 
 Ee-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " Plaintiff was not in Bombay four years ago. 
 People of our caste follow the customs and usages of our ancestors ; while some others 
 follow the Shastres and religious instructors. They take their opinions from the gooroos 
 or Brahmins. I have never been to a dance at the Maharaj's temple. The Maharajs 
 usually reside in the Temple on one side, or in a separate dwelling-house, sometimes 
 in a place within the compound, and sometimes in a house opposite to the temple. 
 There are doors and entrances between the house and the temples. The dances take 
 place in the house on one side, and sometimes in the compound of the temple. All 
 nautch 'dancers in Bombay are prostitutes. Nautch- dances are frequently given by res- 
 pectable persons on occasions of the celebration of marriages and other events. The 
 plaintiff is married and has children. The Maharajs object to come and give evidence 
 in courts. They would not incur anybody's displeasure if they came here ; but as 
 
64 
 
 they might be detained two or three days, they would be prevented from the usual 
 ceremonies and practices in the temple. When I say " worship the Maharaj," I mean 
 that when we wish to invite the Maharaj to our house, we fetch him to our house, 
 we offer him flowers, wave a light round him, present him money, and prostrate 
 ourselves at his feet. We do not worship the God ; the Maharnjs do that. They bathe 
 the image in several ways : they wash it in saffron, flowers, &c., dress it, wave a 
 light round it, and then men and women go to worship before it. Kone touch the 
 image except tlie Maharaj and particular servants of his, who are appointed to the 
 office. The gnlal is thrown about during the Hoolee festival : it is a kind of powder 
 prepared from wood called " Patanghoe." It is usual among the Hindus to throw it : 
 it is an ancient custom, and I cannot explain it. Now 1 am an old man, and I 
 don't throw it : when I was young I used to do so. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — "AVhen I said two people of the caste come to me and 
 said '• the Bhattias have mnde bimdobust, and that we ought to make bundobust also," 
 I indended " we" to mean the Bania caste. 
 
 To Sir M. R. Sausse — " When I say " worship the Maharaj," I don't mean to say 
 it is the same thing to worship the Maharaj just as he worships the image : there is 
 a slight difference between the two The image is bathed and dressed, and food is 
 presented to it ; but the same is not done to the Maharaj. The Maharaj eats of the 
 food presented to the in.age, and also distributes it among the Vyshnavs. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " When the Maharaj worships the image, I consider him 
 to worship God. When I wave the light round the Maharaj and prostrate belore him, 
 I don't consider him as an incarnation of the Deity. 
 
 To Sir M. R. Sausse. — " I have said there are some of the Bhattias and Baniat 
 who consider the Maharaj as an incarnation of God. I cannot say if the majority or 
 minority of the Bania caste hold that cr ed. I cannot say if the number of persons 
 holding such belief has increased or diminished within the last few years." 
 
 (The Couri rose at 5 p. M. — Throughout the day the hall of justice was excessively 
 crowded by followers of the Maharajs, and peace was maintained by a select band of 
 Europeans of the Mounted Police Force.) 
 
 Second Day ; Monday, '11th January, 1862. 
 
 (3.) Jumnarlas SevaklaH, examined by Mr. Scoble.— I am a skmjf and a member 
 of the Laud Bania caste. I am not a shet of my caste. I know the plaintiff, who 
 is our Maharaj. He instructs us in our religion. I have read the article in the 
 Sa/ya Prakash containing the libel for which this action is brought. I was a subscriber 
 to the Salya Prakash. This is a copy of the 8atya Prakash of the 21st October 
 1860, in which I see an article about the primitive religion of the Hindus. I observe 
 in it the name of Jadoonathjee Maharaj introduced, the plaintiff in this case. I have 
 not heard of any other Jadoonathjee Maharaj. 
 
65 
 
 Cross-examined- by Mr. Anstey. — " I give as much respect to this Maharaj as to any 
 other ; but the love of the people towards him, since the pubUcation of this article, 
 has somewhat diminished. I remember his arrival from Surat about two years ago. 
 I have not heard of any complaint from Jadoonathjee, since his arrival that people 
 did not respect him and the other Maharajs as they ought to do. (Mr. Anstey 
 hands a paper to the witness, and repeats the question.) I don't remember to have 
 ever read this paper before. I have not heard of Jadoonathjee complaining of the 
 neglect of his followers towards himself and other Maharajs, previously to the year 
 1860, and before the arrival of plaintiff, I did not hear the Vyshnavs complain that 
 the Maharajs did not give them proper instruction and advice in matters of religion. We 
 used to go before the Maharajs, to prostrate ourselves before them, to go to the idol 
 and to return. They did not give any other instructions except those connected with 
 Brahma. Ihose instructions are given only once in a life time. Plaintiff used to say 
 that if the Vyshnavs came to him and asked him any thing, he would answer them. 
 Plaintiff did not, to my knowledge, complain that they did not come to him. I have 
 not heard him say so. I did not hear the plaintiff say that he would give instruction 
 to those only who came to ask him. I have not heard the Maharaj say that, according 
 to the Shastras, the gooroo should not give instruction without being asked by the 
 pupil, nor that, giving instruction without being asked is to give food to one who is 
 not hungry. The company or society of Vyshnavs, not the Maharaj, published a reli- 
 gious magazine. The Society is known as " the propagator of the Vyshnav religion." 
 Thev inserted my name and sent me message to the effect that I was made a member 
 of the Society. Plaintiff is at the head of the Society. I have not heard that 
 Jadoonathjee has called upon all the Vyshnavs to come forward and support the magazine, 
 nor have I read a handbill to that effect. I do not remember the name of the 
 magazine. I believe the name of the magazine is " Svadhurma Varkhak" (propagator of 
 our religion.) The Vyshnav families in Bombay are numerous. I cannot say if they 
 are ten thousand. The Marjadees (strict observers of ceremonies) are the Bhattias. I 
 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. I have not heard him complain so. The Maharaj does not 
 practise any tyranny, what tyranny is it ? By connection with Brahma I mean the chanting 
 of mystic verse relating to the worship of Brahma. I don't read Sanscrit. By God 
 I mean Krishna. The verse was not explained to me in Gujeratee. I believe the 
 meaning of the verse was once explained to me by some Brahmin. In my opinion, 
 the Maharaj is a representative of Krishna (This answer was extracted from witness 
 on the threat of a fine of Ks. 100 from the Bench.) It is not that I hesitate to 
 answer these questions against the Maharaj, for the fear that I may be born again in 
 the condition of a bird or dog. [Mr, Bayley objected to the Court being taken into 
 such excursive details. Sir M. Sausse remarked that the libel was of such an extemsive 
 nature, that the Court must go into the details. The objection was overruled. Mr. Bayley 
 again objected that this line of examination was not pertinent to the matter at issue. Sir 
 M. Sausse. — What is the question ? Mr. Anstey. — That Krishna is your protector, that 
 therefore you surrender to him your mind, body, wealth, wife, sons, children, and every 
 thing else ? The objection is overruled.] Yes, the sense of this Sanscrit passage is, 
 that Krishna is my protector, and that I, who am destroyed by internal misery and 
 pain, do surrender to Krishna my mind, body, my breath, my heart, my feelings, as 
 9 
 
66 
 
 also my wife, my house, my children, my relations, my wealth, and other worldly things, 
 together with my soul. Some five or seven thousand Banias assemble at a caste feast. 
 Besides these there may be five or ten thousand Jains. It is true that about half the 
 Bania caste (the Jains) don't believe in the Maharaj. There are two sects of Banias 
 — believers and unbelievers. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — Do some Banias believe the Maharaj to be a God ? 
 
 Witness. — " We consider him to be our gooroo. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — Tell witness if he does not answer the question, he will be 
 sent to jail. 
 
 Witness. — ""WTiat is the precise question ? (Interpreter explains) Some consider the 
 Maharaj a god in the shape of gooroo. 
 
 Mr. Anstey, — Is Gooroo a God ? 
 
 Witness. — " Gooroo is gooroo. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — Tell him if he does not answer the question, most indubitably 
 will he go to jail. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — Tell him he is asked what others believe, not as to his 
 own belief. 
 
 Witness.: — " I don't know if others believe him as God ; I consider him as simply 
 a gooroo. I don't know under what name others worship him. There is no " bundo- 
 bust" in my caste, to prevent witnesses from giving evidence in this case in behalf of 
 Karsandass. I was not asked to join in such " bundobust." I have not been to the 
 plaintiff's attorney to give instructions, — I went to him for my own case which is 
 pending. I am not a Marjadee. I don't know of my caste people going to the " Kas 
 mandalee." I don't know what sort of thing it is. There is no festival among the 
 Vallabhacharyas in which married men and women mix promiscuously in a room. I 
 may have read in the libel article a reference to the Kas festival ; but there is 
 nothing of the sort in my caste. I do not know anything of the history of the 
 Vallabhacharya sect. My only reason for believing the Maharajs to be of high 
 caste, is that even Brahmins believe them. I don't know if those Brahmins are 
 few or many. The Maharajs are originally Telinga Brahmins. I don't know if the 
 Maharajs, on account of their practices, were outcasted by the Telinga Brahmins for 
 Bome hundred years. I don't know if they are so outcasted at present by the Telinga 
 Brahmins. I have never heard of a Maharaj intermarr^^ing in a Brahmin family. 
 Males and females of my family visit the Maharaj. We worship him when he 
 comes to our house : we don't go to his house to worship him. I have not at any 
 time swallowed the spittle and leavings of pan soparee thrown out by the Maharaj ; 
 but I have sometimes partaken of the remnants of his food. My family may have 
 eaten the leavings of his food but not the pan soparee thrown out. In the month 
 of Sliraican, the image is swung in a swing ; if the Maharaj also sits therein, 
 we swing him. The females of my and other families have swung him. The Ma- 
 haraj has thrown golcd on thousands of females, not the females of my family alone, 
 By Thackorjee I mean Krishna. I don't think that throwing the golal makes women 
 
67 
 
 pregnant. It is not the fact that young men throw golal and not the old. Throwing 
 the goJal has no relation to sexual intercourse. I would consider it a great insult 
 for any other person, but the Muharaj, to throw golal upon my wife. Throwing 
 golal IVom a distance I don't consider as an outrage upon chastity. (Witness is fined 
 fifty rupees for not gi^'ing a direct answer.) 1 cannot explain why it is an insult 
 to throw golal on a female at any other time but the llolee holiday. I have not 
 heard any complaint of the Maharajs handling the breasts or necks of females in 
 playfulness. Complaints similar to this have been published in :he Safya Prakask. 
 I have not read the Parsee Punch, the Summachar, or the Summachar Durpun. 
 I subscribe to the Jami- Jamah ed, but don't recollect reading therein any thing of the 
 kind, (Mr. Anstey reads a list of all the vernacular papers.) I have not read any of 
 these papers. I subscribed only to the Satya Prakash and the Jami-Jamshed. (Mr. 
 Anstey hands witness an article published in the last-mentioned paper six or seven 
 years ago, containing an expose " which must put to shame the followers of the 
 Maharaj.") I don't recollect having read this article. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Scoble. — " T have been asked as to swinging the image and 
 the Mahara'. It is a ceremony performed on certain religious and festival days. It 
 is performed publicly, in the presence of men and women belonging to the Vyshnav 
 persuasion. Throwing the golal is also part of our religious ceremonies during the 
 Holee holidays. The golal which remains after throwing over the idol, is thrown over 
 the worshippers. [Mr. Scoble. — You are fined fifty rupees for not understanding why it is an 
 insult for a stranger to throw ^^rofo' upon your wife Sir M. Sausse. — Mr. Sci ble has misun- 
 derstood why the witness was fined fifty rupees. It was for evasion, prevarication, and delay. 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — The Court would not fine a witness for not understanding a question, 
 and your assuming that it did so fine him, is assuming what you have no right to 
 assume. Mr. Scoble offered an explanation, and the examination continued.] — " If the 
 Maharaj or Gosaei handled the breast or neck of a female, it would be considered 
 adultery — not so his throwing golal on females from a short distance. I have been 
 present at the marriages of Maharajs. It is not lawful for a Brahmin to marry out 
 of his caste. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — "As we cannot touch and swing the image of the Deity, we 
 swing the Maharaj. Wlien we do so, we regard him as our gooroo. The Maharaj is 
 the only gooroo of those of the sect who wear " Kantees" (necklaces of beads,) and 
 who are known as Vyshnavs." 
 
 (4) Vurjeevundass Mahdoicdass, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am a justice of 
 the peace of Bombay. I belong to the Bania caste. I know the plaintiff. I have 
 known the plaintiff these last two years since his arrival in Bombay. I am a shet of 
 my caste, and one of the members of the Mahajan. The Maharaj is a priest of the 
 Bhattias, Lohanas and lianias. The plaintiff is a gooroo or spiritual guide and Brahmin 
 by caste. He is in a higher position than the ordinary Brahmins. 'J he Maharajs are 
 looked upon as descendants of the Vallabacharyas. The plaintiff has no temple in 
 Bombay. Maharajs are looked up to with respect by the Hindus, particularly by 
 our sect. 
 
 Cross examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I deny that I was ever called upon to give 
 
68 
 
 evidence in a court of justice against a man charged with double murder. My name 
 was not mentioned in a native paper in regard to that matter. I have seen a paper 
 containing that charge signed by Mr. Forjett. That was about five years ago. I am 
 brother of the witness Gopalldass Madowdass. I do not know whether my brother wa» 
 in opposition to any of the Maharajs, except to Jeevunjee Maharaj, in respect to a 
 dispute between some Brahmins. I do not know the history of the sect of the 
 Vallabhacharyas, nor whether he was the son of one Luxmon Bhut. Maharajs were 
 originally Telinga Brahmins, but have not heard that they are outcastes. I have not 
 heard that Brahmins eat with them One-half of my caste are Jains ; they do not 
 worship the Maharaj ; they are Bhuddists. Some worship the Maharaj as well aa Shiva, 
 and those who worship Vishnu, have a reserved worship for Shiva. Some persons 
 when they abandon the worship of Shiva, worship the Maharaj. I do not know whether 
 the Kaja of Porebunder was disgusted with the worship of a Maharaj on account of hia 
 immoralities. I do not know why a Maharaj was flogged by the Portuguese autho- 
 rities at Damaun. An application was made for the release of a Maharaj who had 
 been imprisoned at Jaluapatan. The Maharajs adopt sons from their own sects, and they 
 become priests by adoption. It may be criminal in the eyes of the Hindu religion to expose 
 the vices of their parents, but I do not consider it so. The Maharajs wash their 
 own bodies on their birthdays or rehgious days, and we - throw saffron and other 
 Bcent on their persons. The image, too, is washed with saffron water on these sacred 
 days. The females also sprinkle saffron on the Maharaj's person and they consider 
 the touching of his feet as sacred. I do not know if the dust on which he walks is 
 regarded as sacred. If a Maharaj dies we do not say he is dead, but that he has 
 joined play or amorous love in heaven between men and women. I am not able to 
 state whether it is a part of our sect that Krishna had intercourse with 16,000 women, 
 and that they had salvation thereby. I do not know that the Maharajs are called 
 the Avtar of the Maha Prabhoo. The Maharajs have imposed a tax on the gains of 
 the Bhattia and grain merchants that fall on the community. There was a meeting 
 held at the plaintiff's house for considering the re-marriage question and opposing it. 
 I do not know when the Vishnu Punch was started. I have not drunk the water 
 wrung out of the Maharaj's lungotees after bathing, nor that with which his right 
 toes are washed. Some people drink such water. I have not sighed the bundobust to 
 help Karsandass in this action, nor do I know if my brother has signed it. I know 
 only from the newspapers that my brother was asked to sign it. I signed a document 
 by which we agreed that no members of the caste should call upon a Maharaj to give 
 evidence in a court of justice ; if they did so they would be expelled. We intended 
 also to memoriahze the Judges of the Supreme Court, and if this Court did not grant 
 us exemption we would appeal to the Privy Council to be relieved. The temples 
 were closed for 8 days in order that the followers should sign the document. Maharajs 
 visit the steamers, shops, and nautch parties, but do not like to come to this Court 
 as they have not done so from time immemorial. (Mr. Anstey. — How do you say 
 time immemorial, when your sect has been in existence only 400 years.) Our 
 sect has been in existence only 400 years. Goverdhunathjee Maharaj was a large 
 trader ; he received visits from and paid visits to Parsee and Mahomedan traders. I 
 know nothing of the Mahomedan mistress of Vachallaljee Maharaj. I do not know 
 if there is such a book containing verses written by the plaintiff. I have not read it. 
 There is a sepai-ate zenana where all the ladies go to visit the Maharaj's wives. The 
 
69 
 
 devotes are allowed to see the image eight times a day. I have sometimes heard that 
 women's dresses are handled indecently in the crowd, and their persons disgraced. In 
 the winter the men and women attend at so early an hour as 4 o'clock. I did drive 
 the Maharaj's carriage as coachman ; I do not consider it disgraceful to do so. I did 
 not slight the late Governor Lord Elphinstone while driving in public in order to pay 
 respect to our Maharaj. Before the publication of the libel I have read in some of 
 the papers that the Maharajs were in the habit of committing adultery. This was 
 about 4 years ago. There was a talk amongst members of the Vallabhacharya caste. 
 I do not know if any replies were made to this. There was a talk, I believe, among 
 the Bhattias that their females should go at proper hours to the temples of the 
 Maharajas The women were to go only in the morning and evening. This was about 
 ten months ago. I am not on bad terms with the defendant, I have been attacked 
 by him in his newspaper. The attack was made on account of some caste disputes. 
 I took no notice of the article. I do not read the doctrines of my sect ; I learn them 
 by hearsay from the Gujerati Brahmins. 
 
 Ee-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am still a justice of the peace, and do not think 
 my character injured in any way by what is called the double murder by Government 
 or any other body. The charges were without foundation. I have merely heard 
 that the Maharaj was found dead ; I know nothing further about it. The plaintiff 
 said if the Shastras allowed him to support the re-marriage of widows he would allow it, 
 but if they did not allow, he would not allow it. There was some discussion, but I 
 have not heard how it was settled. Visknoo Punch means Vishnoo assembly and not 
 a caricature. These articles that I saw had no effect on my mind as to the character 
 of the Maharaj. I frequent the Maharaj's temple. Several people are kept at the 
 temple to keep order. They regulate the admission of people into the temple. 
 They enter into one passage and go out of the other. 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.) Runchor Munjee examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am a merchant, and have 
 visited many parts of India on pilgrimages. I have been to the great cities on the 
 banks of the Ganges and the Jumna. I have not been further than Porebunder 
 towards the West. There were Maharajs in many of the places I visited, in others 
 there were not. I believe there are in India some 40 or 50 Maharajs. There were 
 two Maharajs at Benares. In a religious point of view, the Hindus, as well as the 
 native princes, regard the Maharajs as gooroos. The Maharajs are Brahmins, and are 
 looked up to and respected by other Brahmins. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr- Anstey. — " The whole world say that the Maharajs are Brahmins. 
 I don't know if they are outcasted Brahmins. I have not heard so, I have not been to Telinga 
 country : it is said the Maharajs belong to the Telinga country. I have had no conversation 
 
70 
 
 with any Brahmins about the Maharajs. I used to see many Brahmins sitting at th« 
 Maharaj's when I used to visit him, sometimes five, sometimes ten, sometime twenty-five. 
 I can't say if they were there for asking alms, they often come to me for alms. I 
 never saw a Krahmin eating with a Maharaj. I am a Bania and a Vyshnav. I 
 have dim eyes and am not now able to read. I have read the story of " the 84 
 Vyshnovs," also " the story of the 252," (witness does not say 252 what !) I have 
 read another book called the " Instruction Paper." I have not read any of the lite- 
 rary publications of Judunathjee, the plaintiff. I have read, either in the 84 book or 
 the 252 story book, the story of Krishnadass carrying his wife on his shoulders for 
 the purpose of her fulfilling an adulterous engagement which she had made with another 
 Bania. [Mr. Anstey. — Is the conduct of the husband approved or censured in the 
 book ? Mr. Bayley objects to the question being put ; his learned friend might aa 
 well examine the witness on the contents of the Bible. Mr. Anstey read a few sen- 
 tences from the plaint, showing that the question was necessary to disprove an allegation 
 in the plaint. The objection was overruled.] The conduct of the husband, the wife, 
 and the third party in the story is praised. The good faith of the wife to her pro- 
 mise is particularly praised. I don't know the story of the Bheel who killed his wife 
 for adultery with a Thackorjee, who re-animated the wife and stamped her as a virtuous 
 woman. I am ignorant of a story in which a Maharaj declined to commit adultery 
 with one Gunga in a privy, but afterwards made her pregnant in a dream. Not being 
 acquainted with the Shastrns, I cannot say whether or not these stories are repugnant 
 to religion or morality in one sense. I ought to act according to what is enjoined in 
 our Shastras, but I think one ought to be mindful of his belly before he learns the 
 Shastras. I do not know the ten principles of the Vallabhacharyas. [Sir M. Sausse 
 suggested if Mr. Anstey would think it necessary, to swell the depositions with the 
 negative answers of the witness. Mr. Anstey. — This witness is called by the plaintiff 
 to show the morality of tlie life which the Maharajs lead, and the high respect in 
 which they are held, and I am bound to show the contrary. The witness seenw to 
 know nothing, and yet he is called to give opinions on the virtuous life of his spiritual 
 preceptors. My client being poor, it is unfortunate for him that the trial should be 
 lengthened over as many days as the plaintiff's advisers could possibly do so. The 
 objection was overruled.] I do not consider my gooroo to be an incarnation of the Deity. 
 I cannot say if other men believe so. I am not a " Varkat," or a beggar who goes 
 on pilgrimages. He begs only when necessary. Varkats are of the Lohana, Bhattia, 
 and other castes. Some of them marry, others do not. A man can marry after having 
 turned a Varkat. I have not heard if the Varkats act as procurers of women for the 
 Maharajs. I have been present when the Maharaj has attended the sick bed of a 
 dying person. I have heard that the Maharaj puts his foot on the breast of the dying 
 person. I have not seen him do so. For putting his foot in this manner, the Maharaj 
 gets from five to twenty-five rupees or any other amount, according to circumstances. 
 He gets the money as gooroo. I know the festival called the Has festival, which is 
 held at uncertain periods. Married and unmarried people of both sexes go as spectators 
 to the festival. I am talking of the drama. I don't know what is called the " Ras 
 mandali." 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " The story to which I alluded is a sacred story and is so 
 considered among my sect. The man had come to the wife's house, she gave him 
 food, made an engagement with him to go to his place and fulfilled it. It was, I 
 
71 
 
 presume, an adulterous engagement. The wife's conduct is praised in the story for 
 keeping her engagement with the man, who was a hermit holy man. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " It would not be considered in my sect a good thing 
 if a woman visited a Maharaj for a similar purpose. The woman in the story did 
 what she thought proper. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " The husband on hearing of the wife's engagement, said to 
 her " I consider you now as my daughter ;" and the hermit, on hearing what had 
 occurred, said to her, " You having fulfilled your engagement, I regard you as my 
 daughter." 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " The moral of the story is that all the three parties 
 were true to their faith as regarded the engagement. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " I believe, from the hermit having called the woman his 
 daughter, that no sexual intercourse took place. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — Was it the Bania or the hermit who said to the woman, " I consider 
 you as my daughter" ? 
 
 Witness. — " It was the person from whom she brought food for the holy man. 
 
 Mr. Scoble. — Your Lordship will find when the story is produced, that this man 
 has told it all wrong ! 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — I don't think it is worth following it up. It is a story without 
 a moral after all ! 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " The holy man asked the woman for food ; she had no food 
 in the house ; it must be provided somehow ; she went to a Bania for it, and it 
 was to the Bania she made the engagement. The hermit ate the food ; and when 
 she went to the Bania, he (the Bania) said he considered her to be his daughter." 
 
 (6.) Sewdass Mohu/njee, examined by Mr. Scoble. — I am a member of the 
 Bhansalee caste, and carry on a general trade at the bunder in the name of my sons. 
 I know the plaintiff in this case. He and the other Maharajs are regarded in the 
 light of gooroos amongst our caste. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " My caste is divided into four different sections. 
 My caste numbers ten or twenty-five thousand persons towards Cutch. The people of 
 my caste don't follow one sect ; some are ca led Bamanundee, Shaivi-s, &c., but they 
 do not regard the Maharaj as gooroo, they simply respect him. I don't know if others 
 of my sect believe in the Maharaj as a God. I have never read any books of my 
 sect ; nor heard them read. I don't know what the doctrines of my sect are. I have 
 heard the " Bhagwat" read by BraSmins. The Maharaj tied the bead necklace round 
 my neck when he told me I should do what was right. That was the only instruc- 
 tions I ever got from the Maharaj in my lifetime. I pay my respects to the Maharaj ; 
 I don't worship him. I have never drunk the water from his " lungotee," nor swallowed 
 his spittle." 
 
72 
 
 (7.) Gungadhur Nanackrayn, examined by Mr. Scoble. — I am a member of the 
 Mesree Marwaree caste. I belong to the Maharaj sect. There are not many Marwarees 
 of my sect in Bombay. Other Marvvarrees belong to the Maharaj's sect. There are 
 Mahara"s in Shreejeedwar and Joudpore. They are regarded as gooroos. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I cannot say how many of my sect there are 
 
 in Bombay, perhaps ten, twenty, or fifty. I don't know the number of the Maharaj's 
 
 sectaries in my native country. I regard the Maharaj as my gooroo. I 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 case made out by the plaintiff, and that, therefore, the defendants were entitled 
 to a nonsuit. He trusted their Lordships would not hold that there was some evidence 
 td go before a jury ; and even if tJietj did, that they would dismiss from their minds 
 the seventh and eighth pleas and the issuess raised upon them, and would return a 
 verdict upon the facts as regarded the first issue. To support this proposition he would 
 cite the case of Robertson vs. McDougall (4th Bingham,) the doctrine laid down in 
 which has been followed ever since. And it is so laid down by Mr. Wingrove Cooke 
 in his work on Libel, viz., that it is not for the Court to give any opinion, at an 
 early stage of the proceedings, upon the justification. Mr. Anstey would ask for a 
 nonsuit on the first issue, that of not guilty, on three grounds. First, he would say 
 this document (the article) was not a libel, and per se, secondly, that the plaintiff has 
 not proved his inuendoes, not a single inuendo, whereby the libel is pointed ; and 
 thirdly, tliat the document, as appeared from the evidence of the plaintiffs own witnesses, 
 was published upon justifiable grounds and upon a justifiable occasion. If their Lordships 
 should think that there was some evidence, however infinitesimally small, to go before 
 the Court, then he must say he would take the benefit of these observations. He 
 urged, however, that he was entitled to the Court's verdict on the first issue. On the 
 second issue, though the plaintiff produced no proof, or rather the proof produced by 
 him disproved his plaint, Mr. Anstey would say it resulted upon the evidence that 
 these persons called Maharajs, most improperly so called, are not the preceptors of 
 religion, and none of them has any right to sue in that character There is no evidence 
 offered at the Bar to prove, there was some apparently to disprove, that they are high 
 priests. The sect of the Vallabhacharyas is a contemptible sect of 400 years old, and 
 not an ancient ruling sect, as the plaintiff has averred. Mr. Anstey said the first five 
 issues were proved by plaintiffs witnesses for defendants ; and he did not prove some 
 issues at all. The learned counsel's two objections were that the libel is not a libel, 
 and therefore, per se, the Court ought to regard the libel as it is, without any regard 
 whatever to the inuendoes. The plaintiff has not proved the characters he ascribes to 
 himself in the plaint ; his witnesses have proved that he has them not, and, therefore, 
 he has no right in any of those assumed characters to sue. Before proceeding to read 
 the material portions of the libel, Mr. Anstey wished to have the libel entered as 
 
read along with the documents to which it refers ; otherwise he should object to its 
 being entered as read. 
 
 Mr. Bayley. — The learned counsel may put what construction he pleases ; the libel 
 has been entered as read. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — Then the documents to which it refers must be taken as also read. 
 
 Mr. Bayley objects to the proposal. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — Then I insist upon the libel being read, and I will make my objections. 
 
 The Prothonotary reads the article containing the libel. 
 
 Mr. Anstey applied to have read the documents in which Jadoonathjee says that 
 " in the same way as some one goes from the gates of the Fort to proceed to Wal- 
 keshwur, and some one to Byculla," &c., and also the commentary of Goculnathjee 
 referred to in the libel. The learned counsel applied on the ground that the plaintiff 
 is bound to produce all references in the article of which he complains His not having 
 produced them had deprived the defendants' counsel of hi.s right of referring to and 
 commenting upon them. In support of his argument the learned gentlemen cited Solomon 
 vs. LaicsoH (15th vol. Law Journal) in which the Court held that there was variance, 
 owing to one of the letters only being produced, and no mention made of a second 
 letter in the count, which was referred to in the first. Lord Kenyon held that the 
 other letter ought to have been also set out. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — They both togetlier made a libel, and, therefore, it was argued 
 that one ought to have been incorporated in the other. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — I rely much more on the second case, Cart>rrigJtt vs. Bri(jh', in 
 which it was laid down as a maxim. What I am arguing for is this, that, according 
 to these cases, references in this document ought to have been set out. 'Jhe libel is 
 said to be against the sect, against every member of it, and jigahist the plaintiff! 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — The libel does not say that Jadoonathjee wrote the reference. The 
 words are " Jadoonathjee says" ; it does not show he wrote anything. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — Very well, my Lord, then I proceed to the other reference to Go- 
 culnathjee's Commentary. The first thing to be proved is the libel, and then it must 
 be shown with what intent it was wrilten. " Holding improper and heterodox opinions" 
 — that is what plaintiff is charged with in the first part of the article. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — Defendants are debarred from asking for the referen<^e, 
 from all the works of Goculnathjee, they select a passage in point to explain their 
 meaning. 
 
 Mr. Anstey proceeded to comment upon the different inuendoes, remarking that 
 none of them was proved, and therefore the Court had no evidence before them of the 
 sensHs verborum. Ihe Court has no judicial knowledge of what the religious opinions 
 of the sect are ; there is no evidence to show what the doctrines of their religion are, 
 and, therefore, as regards the sensus verborum, the case fails What is left to juries 
 at home in such cases is — Given the sense, the plaintiffs meaning of tiie inuendo, was 
 it in that sense that the words were written or spoken by the defendant of and con- 
 10 
 
74 
 
 cerning the plaintiff ? and, tlien, whether the construction put by the plaintiff is borne 
 out bv the evidence. In Staple vs. Jones, it is laid down that if the meaning of 
 the defamatory matter be obscure and cannot be made out, the alleged libel is non- 
 actionable. In England, the rule is to take the words in their ordinary, popular sense. 
 Now, what is the sense of heresy, heterodoxy, &c. ? In this country, interpreting such 
 terms, the Court must take the surrounding circumstances into view. 
 
 Sir Josepli Arnould. — We don't know what heterodoxy is, and we don't know what 
 heresy is ; for we don't know what the Shastras themselves are. 
 
 Mr. Anstey said it appeared from Brooke's Eeports that one of the courts in 
 England refused to enter on its record an action in which a clergyman of a certain 
 persuasion wanted to sue, and referred him to the court having proper cognizance of the 
 matters concerned. What, then, is the course to be adopted ? The popular meaning 
 is taken, the witness is asked if there is anything to give another meaning to the 
 words, and, then, what did he himself understand by them ? Their Lordships could 
 not read the Purans, or read the doctrines of modern times, to be then able to say 
 what the heresy referred to in the libel is. There was no evidence to show what the 
 heresy consisted in. There was evidence the other way. It was the evidence of witnesses 
 that plaintifTs religion is of a modern date, and consequently he has established no 
 standard. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — There is, Mr. Anstey, great difficulty in the question. The stan- 
 dard is not proved, nor is it proved when the Kali Yug set in. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — T say, my Lord, the libel is not alleged and proved. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — As at present advised, we should read the clause leaving out the 
 words " Shastras" and " Kali Yug," There is no evidence to show what they are. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — Tb.e onus of proving every inuendo lies upon the plaintiff" where 
 the inuendo is material. I have already cited two cases to show that, and there are 
 two other cases to which I will now refer, Grijfiths vs. Lewis (8 2. B. R.) and 
 Golway vs. Marshall (9 Excheq. 94.) This brings me to a proposition to which I 
 would call the serious attention of your Lordships, and to which I did not do justice 
 in the recent Demurrer case. It is that, although it is competent to a person in his 
 private character to recover damages, if the libel refers to his professional character, he 
 cannot recover any, unless he prove — by first laying the foundation of proof by show- 
 ing his professional character — what damages in his private character he has sustained 
 by the libel. (Cites Mo,y vs. Brown and comments upon the points raised therein.) 
 Kg evidence is given here to show that the Maharajs would be subjected to any 
 punishment by the publication of the alleged libel. In the case I have cited, evidence 
 was given of practices inconsistent with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion, 
 and it was urged that the plaintiff" would incur the displeasure of his superiors, and 
 yet the court granted a new trial for the important defect on the record. Nothing 
 could compensate for such a defect on the record. The court held, — How could the 
 words be actionable, for the manner in which the plaintiff could be injured was not 
 shown, either in his private or professional character. Here there has been no averment 
 of the manner and form in which the libel would have damnified the plaintiff, but positively 
 he has given evidence to show that the witnesses treat the libel with great contempt. 
 
75 
 
 One of them says -that although, since the publication of the libel, love towards the 
 Maharaj has diminished, yet that respect has not. But there is no evidence of the manner 
 in which the love has been lost, nor to show lehose love is meant. There is an 
 utter absence of the averment both of manner and of form. 
 
 Mr, Anstey had not done with his able speech ; and the Court rose at hall- 
 past 5 P. M. 
 
 Fourth Day, Thursday, ^Oth January, 1882. 
 
 Mr. Anstey, resuming the thread of his observations of the previous day, alluded 
 again to the case of May vs. Brown and cited two other cases, Lewis vs. Walton 
 and Heine vs. Stovell, enlarging at some length upon the principal points mooted in 
 each. A much more stronger case than Jifai/ vs. Brown, a case long subsequent to it, 
 was that of the Queen vs. Burdett, in which Lord Teignmouth remarked that all the 
 facts descriptive of the offence should be set out on the record, as also ali the refer- 
 ences if they contained new matter. The learned counsel repeated, with fresh illustrations, 
 what he said on a former occasion, pointing out the only difference between an action 
 of libel and an action of slander. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — Is your view somewhat this ? — When a libel is alleged 
 against a person both in his private and official character, it is no libel unless it is 
 Ktated on the record how he is injured in both capacities. 
 
 Mr. Anstey stated this was shortly the substance of his argument. It was no 
 libel to say of a clergyman that he was a " stupid fool," though it would be libel- 
 lous to impute to him practical adultery. It is not actionable to say of a man in his 
 clerical capacity that he is a robber and a cheat, though the same words applied to 
 a tradesman would be indubitably libellous. According to the principles of the cases 
 cited by Mr. Cooke in his book on libel, it is libellous to publish of a gunsmith that 
 he slioots out of a leathern gun ; to say of a Eoman Catholic priest that he tries to 
 convert Protestants by promises of money ; to say of a newspaper that it is low in 
 circulation, although it is no libel to call it vulgar and scurrilous ; or to publish a 
 story which may make a man ridiculous although he may have told it himself. An- 
 other objection closely connected with the last one is this : Supposing all that the learned 
 counsel had said, went to nothing and that it was necessary to proceed with the case 
 in spite of the want of proper averment, the objection was that the plaintiff could not 
 carry the libel further than the class to which it belongs. No doubt it is true that 
 a libel on an individual may be a libel on a class ; but the averments being made, 
 they are to be proved as such. That is the very point decided in Palmer vs. Malcolmson, 
 the principle maintained being that, where the class is referred to, it must be proved 
 that it is a libel on an individual. In all these ca^es, the surrounding circumstances 
 must be looked to ; and this argument the learned counsel applied to the whole of 
 the plaint. He said this was not a case in which, without looking to the surrounding 
 circumstances, the Court could give its opinion that it was not a libel. This was 
 properly a question for a jury. The plaintiff is bound to show how he is damnified 
 
76 
 
 in his private and his official capacities ; and no introductory matter or inuendo can 
 change the burden oF proof. The parts of the libel where the plaintiff is referred to, are 
 parts where, the learned gentleman submitted, no libel certainly could be found. His 
 name first occurs in an abstruse alhision to the doctrines of the Shastras and the latter 
 days of the Kali Yug, which may be summed up thus : " the sect of the Maharajas 
 has arisen in the Kali Yug, therefore, according to the doctrines of the Shastras, it 
 must be false. Jadoonatlijee says that the original courses of the Veds and Purans 
 having gone forward, have diverged into different ways. What a deceitful proposition 
 this is." 'J'hfrc is nothing libellous in all this. Sir Kobert Philmore was a maintainer 
 of all the filthiest abuses which disgraced English literature, and Mr. Locke did a public 
 service in exposing and censuring such writings. Would any Englishman think Mr. 
 Locke ought to have been prosecuted in an au-tion of libel ? The critic does great 
 service to the public when he exposes a stupid book, and if the writer of it suffers 
 any loss, it is a loss of fame and of profits to which he was not entitled. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse — In the Demurrer case I expressed an opinion that the first part 
 of the article is a common and historical comment ; and brother Arnould coincides in 
 that opinion. 
 
 Mr. Anstey therefore proceeded to the latter part of the libel in which the plaintiff 
 is directly referred to : " Jadoonatlijee Maharaj ! should you wish to propagate or to 
 spread abroad religion, then do you personally adopt a virtuous course of conduct, and 
 admonish your other INIaharajas," &c. This passage and others are hypothetical state- 
 ments and not a libel upon the class at large or upon any one individually. If the 
 plaintiff makes the cap fit him — 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — There is no inuendo that the exhortation to adopt virtues per- 
 sonally, implies the absence of them in plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. Anstey remarked the defendant's object in writing down the doctrines of the sect 
 was two -fold : first, because they are heretical, and secondly, because they were such as 
 must lead to greater and more serious immorality hereafter. Some of the allusions were 
 introduced merely for the illustration of his argument. It is a great amplification of the 
 original stanza, says the libel, to say that the meaning of it is, Give your wives to adul- 
 tery and your daughters to whoredom. What evidence the plaintiff has given is in favour 
 of the libel, and the learned counsel would submit that if the doctrines mentioned in the 
 criticism were contained in the sacred books of the sect, there was nothing adduced against 
 the libel itself. •' In the Kali Yug many other heresies and many sects have arisen 
 besides that of Val'abhachar^a, but no other sectaries have ever perpetrated such shame- 
 le 8 less, subliiity," itc. The words in the passage are the sect of the Maharajas, not the 
 class. The entire sect is hinted at, the sect of Vallabhacharyas or the Maharajas. The 
 plaintiff sought to narrow and extend ihe meaning of " Maharajas" in the plaint and in 
 the libel respectively. This inuendo, Mr. Anstey hoped, the Court would not allow. He 
 would say the true meaning of the above passage is : — Of the many sects which have 
 polluted India, none have exceeded the Vallabhacharyas as appears from their sacred 
 books, and particularly the passage in the Commentary of Goculnathjee, to which reference 
 has been made. He goes on to say : — " When we use such severe terms as these, our 
 simple Hindu friends are wroth with us." What friends, the Maharajas ? no, but the 
 entire sect — " we have to grieve over our Hindu friends and over their weak powers of 
 
77 
 
 reflection." Connecting the whole of the passage with what follows, it is nothing more 
 th'n a hypothesis — " Should you wish to propagate," &c., " then do you personally 
 adopt," &c. " But when throwing dust in the eyes of simple people, the Maharajas write 
 about enjoying tlie tender maidens," &c., " great flames spring within our inside, our pen 
 becomes heated and on fire." Is this libellous ? The learned counsel could not think it 
 was. 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 or the debau- 
 cheries of these monstrous religious preceptors, would be brought up for libel every day ! 
 The defendant, being a member of the Yallabhacharya sect, has a distinct, a direct 
 interest in the debasing practices of his brethren, as well as a general interest which any 
 rightminded person must feel in the cause of morality and virtue. The above passages, 
 the learned counsel contended, were based upon hypotheses or suppositions. The libel pro- 
 ceeds. " Your ancestors having scattered dust in the eyes of simple people, made them 
 blind." Do you wish to make them see, or taking a false pride in the upholding of your 
 religion, do you, (Judoonathjee Maharaj) wish to delude simple people still more ? A 
 natural question to one who set himself up to propagate his religion ! " If you wish, 
 then, do you personally adopt a virtuous course of conduct ?" Is that libellous ? Why 
 the Times newspaper for several days admonished the Prince of Wales to persue the paths 
 of virtue and morality, and has he sued Mr. Walter for a libel ? This part of the article 
 is 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 upholders of the doctrines of 
 these pestilential books. Why, here is the plainest language as language can be, " Do 
 you adopt a virtuous course of conduct, and admonish your other Maharajas." The mean- 
 ing of this exhortation cannot be mistaken. There was another inuendo, to which 
 great weight was attached in the Demurrer case, and to which Mr. Anstey now 
 called the Court's attention, kiz., as to the character of the Maharajas as religious 
 preceptors. Tliat inuendo was not proved ; on the contrary, it was disproved by 
 plaintitTs own witnesses. There must be a proof of the averment tendered ; but no 
 experts had been called, no witnesses had been called to prove the Maharajas to be the 
 preceptors of religion. Those who had been called, said they did not know what the doc- 
 trines of the Shastras are. One said he had no time for 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 ; it is the Gujeratee Brahmins who read and explain the 
 Shastras. Another said the Maharajas never taught any thing, nor did they ever preach. 
 The vast majority of the Hindus follow the original religion of India, and, do not recognise 
 the Maharajas at all. To prove that they are the preceptors of such Hindu religion, it 
 ought to be proved that they preach any religion at all. Ko averment was tendered by 
 the plaintiff on any one of these material points ; and a nonsuit must be allowed for want 
 of a proof to sustain it. Returning from this digression to the libel itself, the learned 
 counsel said the next passage must be read as follows : — " You Maharas ! who, acting 
 up to that commentary of Goculnathjee, defile the wives and daughters of your devotees, dt-sist 
 from that, and destroy at once inmiorality such as that of the company at the Has festival. As 
 long as you shall not do so, for so long you cannot give religious admonition and propagate your 
 own religious faith. Do you be pleased to be assured of that." Now, what is in this 
 passage to connect the plaintiff with it ? There must be something laid by the plaintiff 
 before the )ury to shov^r that it is meant as a general aspersion upon his own character 
 and that of the other Maharajas. Considering the context, asked Mr. Anstey, is that 
 
even a libel upon the class ? The meaning of the passage is this, " You (Maharajas) 
 have put forward certain books in which adulterers and adultery are praised, and you 
 allow your followers to read and believe in those books. Unless, therefore, you 
 repudiate these doctrines, the cause of religion will not advance. Do you be assured 
 of that !" That's the meaning of the passage, that is what the writer meant to ex- 
 press. If the sacred books of the sect are of that kind ; if the defendant, from an early 
 period of his life, knew that the books of the sect contained more than permission — 
 an injunction — to the crime of adultery, where the adulterers are the Maharajas, then, 
 said the learned counsel, it fell within the bounds of legitimate criticism for the de- 
 fendant (a member of the sect) to say that these were the doctrines inculcated to the 
 followers of his sect. The official translations of the libel, Mr. Anstey proceeded to 
 observe differed ; and the meaning of the passage was so given in the plaint as to 
 fix the inuendo upon the plaintiff and the other Maharajas. The construction which 
 Mr. Flynn, when in the witness-box, put upon the passage was inconsistent with itself 
 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 
 constructions of it was inconsistent. In no part of the plaint was it averred that the 
 plaintiff was charged with adultery. According to the principles of the cases already 
 cited, the sensus verb'irum must be, first, clearly ascertained ; the libel must be proved in 
 the sense in which plaintiff understood it ; and there must be a distinct averment. Unless 
 these objections could be answered, the case was already made out for a nonsuit. All that 
 the defendant had said, came within the legitimate range of criticism. Following up hia 
 argument, jMr. Anstey asked, who ever heard of an action of a priest against a parson or 
 a parson against a priest ? and he submitted there was nothing more in this. It is in 
 evidence that the defendant is a member — a protesting member — of the sect ; he wishes to 
 remain amicably with its members, but has no desire to remain unreformed and unpurged 
 of those abominations, in which some of the members notoriously engage. If there have 
 been publications on one side, there have been publications by the other also. These ques- 
 tions of adultery, of blasphemous adultery, and sacrilegious pleasure have for some months 
 filled 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. Such is the complexion 
 of the times, which have come groaning for reform, and the defendant finds himself in the 
 capacity of an instructor and a teacher to his less fortunate castemen. He has denounced 
 gross abuses. In the deplorable state of things by which he was surrounded, he felt 
 himself called upon to write, under the inspiration of his better nature, which has been 
 cultivated 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 much 
 more stronger language than had been used for the reformation of public abuses. To sup- 
 port his argument that publications for the exposure of public abuses and for the public 
 good, are justifiable, Mr. Anstey cited from Mr. Starkie's book several cases in point, Hugo 
 vs. Spanier, Somerville vs. Haipkins, Harris vs Thomson, and others. The same doctrine 
 is laid down by Mr. Cooke, and also in the general work on Torts by Mr. Anderson. In 
 one of these cases, Baron Parke held that honest communications for the common welfare 
 of society must be protected. 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 excess of words is no evidence of malice, as appears 
 from the cases of Cooke vs. Wyldes, Taylor vs. Hawkins, &c. Mr. Anstey had now gone 
 through all the leading authorities, and had only to remind the Court that the allegations 
 of the plaint entirely disproved were the following :-the all -important allegation pointed to 
 by the inuendo as the Kali Yug ; the characters of the Maharajas as preceptors of the 
 Hindu religion : that the plaintiff is a high priest of a high caste. The learned counsel 
 had every reason to 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 plain- 
 tiff was not directed to himself personally, but to the sect of which he is a m.ember, and 
 referred to him as one who had come forward to propagate his religion. It calls upon 
 plaintiff, and says that if he wishes to propagate and spread religion then he must adopt 
 such conduct. It appeared, upon plaintiffs own showing, that this passage was addressed 
 not to him, but through him to the whole sect. If it reflected upon him, it did so only 
 upon his character as a preceptor of religion, but on this latter point the Court had no 
 evidence at all. Unless there was sufficient evidence to show that the libel pointed to 
 plaintiff as a preceptor of religion, the Court would be justified in entering a nonsuit. The 
 learned counsel referred to the case of Solomon vs. Lawson, remarking that it applied to 
 this case. If the plaintiff said the inuendo was pointed to him alone, the whole case falls, 
 because there is no personal imputation upon plaintiff in the libel, (Cites and comments 
 upon Smith vs. Kelly, 3rd Campbell, 460.) The only case against the arguments for a 
 nonsuit was May vs. Brown, which, however, was not generally cited, and did not affect 
 this case in reality. The plaintiff could not recover any damages unless he showed how 
 the libel affected him personally, and how as a preceptor of religion. There was no evidence 
 whatsoever to support any of the averments, while the statement of and concerning the 
 plaintiff must be taken as affecting his professional character. On these grounds, and others 
 which Mr. Anstey had so ably and fully argued, the Court must nonsuit the plaintiff 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 Mr. Bayley, in reply, stated he would notice one or two points, and if the Court 
 decided in favour of either of them, there would be no necessity for him to go further. It 
 had been said 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 
 it appeared that the case was often cited by Baron Parke and others. Several of the cases 
 which were cited by the learned counsel were decided previous to the modern system of 
 pleading, and this system was adopted here by the 166th Common Law rule of 1844. 
 That rule is applicable to this country and the members of the Bombay Bar were under 
 no necessity to resort to the pleadings of ancient times. (Calls attention to a para, in the 
 pleadings of the time of William IV. as to actions on the case.) The plaintift' was only 
 here to prove the issue between the parties and what was not expressly traversed. The 
 learned counsel cited Drummond vs. Pigot (2 Bingham,) in which the action was brought 
 for an unfounded and malicious claim of debt. Now, the learned counsel's proposition 
 according to the decision in this case was, that all introductory averments, not traversed, 
 are admitted on the record. It had been held by the learned Chief Justice in this very 
 ease, 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 by the judgment given by the Chief 
 Justice in the Demurrer case on the ISth July last. (The learned counsel cited Wafkins 
 vs. Lea and another case from Meason and Wellesley's reports.) Let us ask the question, 
 said Mr. Bavley, who are the Judges or what is a libel and what is not ? The Court, 
 as jurors, were constitutional Judges of facts. The sum and substance of all the arguments 
 addressed to the Court for a nonsuit was, Is there a case to go to the jury ? Their Lord- 
 ships had to define the libel, and say whether it was a case to go to a jury or not. The 
 Court must not be asked to say what must come out at the close, and these lengthy 
 arguments of the learned counsel might well have been reserved for a motion in arrest of 
 judgment. Coming to the inuendoes, Mr. Bayley said an inuendo is only explanatory of 
 some matter ; Tt cannot add to, or enlarge upon, what has been stated ; it cannot extend 
 the sense, and is an explanation of what is said before. There was no inconsistency in 
 any one of the inuendoes in this case ; in the first part of the libel, the plaintiff and his 
 sect are distinctly pointed at, and the inuendo applies to him as well as to his sectaries. 
 The closing part of the article distinctly points to the plaintiff and other Maharajas : — 
 " Then do you personally adopt a virtuous course of conduct, and admonish your other 
 Maharajas." Jt was said the other day that this was the only inuendo that was correct ; 
 and now, to-day, it is 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, and that there was 
 no other person of that name. This witness was not contradicted nor cross-examined upon 
 the point ; and Mr. Bayley had every right to suppose it was taken for granted by the 
 defendant's counsel. The Court, Mr. Bayley believed, had no doubt whatever that in this 
 inuendo the plaintiff was referred to. The only witness who knew English, Vurjeevundass 
 Madhowdas, said the plaintiff was a high priest and was respected by the Brahmins. The 
 learned counsel might, therefore, take it as admitted that the plaintiff is a Maharaj at all 
 events. There were very few inuei does in this plaint and the first occurred in the very 
 first line of the libel — " In the Purans and other Shastras of the Hindus." Was it 
 necessary, Mr. 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 
 and could not be traversed, and that there was not a single inuendo which was not more 
 than explained in the averment. After referring again to the judgment of Sir M. E. 
 Sausse in the Demurrer case, Mr. Bayley said, the plaintiff had given proof by the 
 evidence of his followers and others who have been on pilgrimages to different cities of India, 
 that the Maharajs are respected in Bombay and elsewhere by the Bhattias, Lohanas, 
 and Banias as their high priests. The second plea is that the plaintiff is not a preceptor 
 of religion, while it h d been sworn that he and other Maharajs are the preceptors of 
 religion. There was satisfactory evidence on both these issues ; and the simple question 
 now was — Is there evidence to send the case to a jury ? The first four pleas, Mr. 
 Bayley went on to say, as to which the burden of proof lay upon the plaintiff, were 
 all proved. The learned counsel was quite ready to proceed to a consideration ot the 
 authorities cited and the arguments addressed to the Court ujion the other [ileas, but 
 the question was now extremely narrowed, and it only remained for the learned Judges 
 to say, if there was a sufficient evidence to submit the case to a jury as a libel. 
 
81 
 
 M. Bayley. — It' it is no libel in youi* Lordship's opinion, I shan't proceed. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — As lar I am concerned, I should like to hear your further 
 observations. 
 
 Mr. Bayley now proceeded to a consideration of the authorities cited by the learned 
 counsel on the other side. (Heads Addison on Slander, under the head Wrongs ) The 
 learned counsel said the libel had been dissected word by word ; but this was not the 
 right way of judging of it : it must be taken in its entirety, and then the reader is 
 to say what is the impression produced upon his mind by a perusal of the whole article. 
 In ninety-nine out of every hundred cases of murder, the decision is arrived at by 
 circumstantial evidence, when the minutest parts are gathered up and meet in a whole, 
 and it is then that the offence is established. Now as to the article in this suit, the 
 first portion was a historical summary, which is introduced by way of prelude to the 
 charges. It shortly ceases to be historical, and comes to the doctrines, of the sect, 
 where it is gradually becoming offensive ! " Bo you personally adopt a virtuous course 
 of conduct, '^' implying that plaintiff is following any thing but a virtuous course. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — There is no inuendo that he is not. 
 
 Mr. Bayley. — After the argument and explanations submitted to the Court, arc 
 your Lordships prepared to say it is not a libel ? When the plaintiff is singled out, 
 and told to adopt a virtuous course ot life and to exhort the other Maharajs who are 
 said to be immersed in a sea of licentiousness ; — when these circumstances are taken in 
 connection with the general aspersions and imputations upon the whole sect of the Val- 
 labhacharyas ; 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 
 wives and daughters of your devotees ;" Is not this libellous ? 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould thought that the words ot Goculnathjee's Commentary were 
 necessary in considering the doctrines of 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 produce upon the. 
 minds of Hindu readers, and not the mind of a European. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — We are not to import European notions into the consideration 
 of a question of this kind. But how are we to arrive at " libel or no libel," — that's 
 the difficulty which at present presses upon my mind. 
 
 Mr. Bayley. — The way is to consider ourselves out of Court, and then judge what 
 impression must have been produced upon the minds of the readers of the original article 
 in 1860. 
 
 Mr. Bayley said he had not finished, and the Court therefore rose at a quarter-past 5 P. sr.. 
 
 Sir M. R. Sausse. — Since yesterday Brother Arnould has looked into the pleadings, 
 and is of opiiiion tliat there is a case to go to a jury as to libel or no libel. I have already 
 expressed my opinion that the first part of the article is historical but it is a very different 
 matter indeed when wc come to the latter port alluding to Judunathjee personally. 
 11 
 
82 
 
 Mr. Bayley llierefore proceeded witli his reply to the apphcatlon for a nonsuit, and 
 
 concluded at half-past 2 r. M. Mr. Scoble followed on t!ie same side and linished his 
 
 address at a quarter before 4 P. M. Mr. Anstey then made his reply till 6 r. iM. when 
 the Court closed. 
 
 F]fih I)a>i, Frldaij, Zlst January, 1862. 
 REPLY CONTINUED. 
 
 Mr. Bay ley resumed his reply this morning ; he said that much stress had been 
 placed by the learned counsel for the defence on the question of libel or no libel, and the 
 case of Hern m. Stowel had been constantly referred to. The Court there held that it was 
 not actionable ; inasmuch as it was not a libel upon the plaintiff in his individual character. 
 In this case it is said that this is not a libel upon the plaintiff in his individual character, 
 but in that of Maharaj and Brahmin. (The learned counsel here cited several cases.) The 
 Court was bound to regard the plea of justification, and even if the Court thought that 
 this was not a libel, it could not from the averments come to any other conclusion, even 
 if the whole of the other arguments were disposed of, this was clearly a libel upon the 
 plaintiff in his character. The defendant charges the plaintiff with defiling the wives and 
 daughters of his followers. (Here the learned counsel commented at great length on the 
 authorities cited by Mr. Anstey, and remarked.) On looking at the libel which we must 
 now prove by evidence, your Lordships will see that the commentary stands in bold relief 
 — it has not been stated that Goculnathjee made it, or that he wrote it. It may be quite 
 consistent that the commentary was not written. We must not look at the libel itself, but 
 at the plaint. Amongst the introductory averments are those relating to the plaintiff, and 
 he would call the attention of the Court to the translation of the article and to the other 
 pleadings. The libel is upon him in his double capacity as man and as Maharaj. The 
 case of Hern vs. Stoicell does not apply — the case of Roberts vs. MacDougall (4th Bingham) 
 to which he alluded shows that the action of libel can be maintained ; the p'aintiff could 
 abandon one of the capacities, and sue upon the other. It is stated that the alleged 
 inuendoes are not proved with reference to what the Shastras are, and what the Kali Yug 
 is : he would say that it was not necessary : also that the Court has not been invited to 
 look into the Pooranas. The Court has been told that this sect is not 400 years old : this 
 he would submit had nothing to do with the libel. Protestantism is not so old : and the 
 doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in which the Roman Catholics believed is of a very 
 recent date. It is also alleged that the plaintiff must show special damage, this is not 
 necessary (here the learned counsel cited cases to bear out his view.) The next allegation 
 is, the letters were written as a privileged communication ; that he is not damnified in his 
 sacerdotal character ; he had said that the plaintiff is injured in his private character, and 
 this was quite sufficient to constitute a libel. If your Lordships are of opinion that 
 it is a libel, then malice is implied. It is stated that it was a reflection upon the class 
 and not upon the plaintiff. Great deal of argument has been brought forward to show 
 that the plaintiff is not singled out personally : but what would the learned counsel for the 
 defence say to the passage, " Do you personally practise a virtuous life and admonish, 
 
83 
 
 &c." It has also been attempted to be shown that the Maharajs were not the preceptors 
 of religion — the Court has had no evidence to 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. If the Court, was, however, not of 
 this opinion, he would submit that there was an issue, and a case to go to a jury. It has 
 also been contended that there is a variance between the translation and the oral evidence 
 of Mr. Flynn : this was immaterial : he would submit that in the Gujarati cha- 
 racter the libel stands. The Court has full power under the rules to correct any 
 translation, and he trusted that language so ambiguous would not prevent the Court 
 from letting the case proceed. The next is, this is a privileged communication, (Mr. 
 Bay ley here read from Star tie on Slander and cited cases.) He said that not a 
 case had been cited by the learned counsel on the part of the defence to show that- 
 every publication in a newspaper is a privileged communication. Justifiable occasion 
 would give a writing the character of a privileged communication : as in the instance 
 of a master giving a certificate to his servant. He contended that the privileges ap- 
 plied to certain cases only, and that any abuse of a people, of a class, or of any 
 member of a class would not prevent the party abused from being entitled to protec- 
 tion. Your Lordships could not, Mr. Bayley said, think for a moment that this is a 
 privileged communication, but if your Lordships are of opinion that it is, then he 
 would submit that there was malice in the publication to rebut the evidence. He 
 would submit for the reasons stated, that the application for nonsuit must fail ; a 
 prima facie had been made out and that the case should go to a jury. 
 
 Mr. Scoble said that he appeared with his learned friend, Mr. Bayley, for the 
 plaintiff. He would endeavour to make his observations as brief as possible, regretting 
 that he would have to do so. .Thirst then, he would remark that the ground upon 
 which the application for a nonsuit has been made is not one which can be deter- 
 mined by the Court : his learned friend asks the Court to nonsuit the plaintiff, to- 
 tally disregarding the plea of justification. He would venture to say that this was an 
 unprecedented application. Had their Lordships been sitting as jurors, he should have 
 asked them to take into their consideration two of the eight pleas, but his learned 
 friend had unfairly taken advantage of the double position. The seventh and eighth pleas are 
 pleas of justification, and his learned friend cannot now ' be allowed after having put 
 the pleas on record to ask the Court to leave them out of all consideration. (Referred 
 to text books, and said 'it was clearly supported Ly Chitty) Nearly all the evidence 
 taken is not the evidence of the plaintiff. The major time has been taken up in 
 cross-examination. The plaintiff's case had been framed on the pleas drawn up by 
 the defendants, and he would say it was not proper that he should be now turned 
 round upon. Much had been said on the introductory averments, as to the plaintiff being 
 Maharaj. (He referred to the case of Jones vs. Stephen, an action in a case for libel, 
 in which rules for pleading in an action of slander are laid down.) If the defendant 
 wanted, Mr. Scoble went on to say, to reply on the defence now raised, proving the 
 general issue, he ought to have struck on the two pleas of justification. Mr. Scoble referred 
 to one or two cases on privileged communication, and said that those cases establish that 
 communication published in a newspaper must be proved to be true. The case had been 
 put forward unfairly. The defendant is represented as a Reformer, a Martin Luther of 
 the Banian taste. This he would say was not a religious question at all ; the question is. 
 
84 
 
 kas the plaintiff been libelled ? Here we have a man, who up to the publication of th« 
 libel, was held in respect and esteem, and has borne an unblemished character up to the 
 time of bringing this action. He has brought an action on the Plea side of this Court, he 
 might have done it on the Crown side, 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 (the plaintiff's) character. His learned friend, Mr. Anstey, had said that no evidence 
 was brought forward to show what the Shastras and the Kali Yug are, he would say that 
 their Lordships were supposed to know the religious laws and customs of the natives, and 
 that by the charter their Lordships were bound to make such rules as would not inter- 
 fere with the customs, religion, laws, and usages of the natives : and he had a right to 
 assume that their Lordships knew something of the facts and religion of the natives ; he 
 should say that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to call experts to show what the religion 
 of the Shastras is. Here Mr. Scoble went on to say, we have a clergyman of the sect of 
 Vallabacharyas, a sect in existence since 400 years ago. The defendant is a person who 
 dissents. The Maharaj is in the position of a clergyman of the established church of Eng- 
 land or of the Romish church ; in fact, more, he is a r/ooroo or spiritual guide of the Hindu 
 religion, which the Court is bound to regard according to the charter. Public life is sub- 
 ject to criticism, but when one comes to a private home and draws up the curtain and 
 exposes private life, so that it is detrimental and injurious to the interests, surely, he would 
 say, there could not be any thing to 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 : he could say that public comment on any 
 characters cannot justify it, unless it can be proved to be true. In the case of Levt/ 
 
 va. (4th Bingham) the plaintiff was charged with publishing a facetious poem of 
 
 eight verses, whereby the defendant was held up to scorn and ridicule. The bailiff 
 (defendant) was called a bum, no doubt it was amusing ; but C. J. Best, who decided 
 the case, was of opinion that it was a" libel, inasmuch as the publication was hurtful to 
 the feelings and calculated to make him appear mean in the eyes of the people. There is 
 no doubt, Mr. Scoble contended, that the plaintiff is charged with a high and grave ofience 
 in the Hindu religion : if that offence is allowed to be imputed to him it must make 
 him little in the €yes of the European community ; then the damage appears on the face 
 of the record and is a libel. Now as to the question of malice as to the presumption of 
 malice, he would refer their Lordships to the case of Simpson vs. Wallace, 12 Q. B. 
 He would contend that there was no occasion to justify the libel : it was not within the 
 range of a privileged communication. As the case stands the plaintiff bears an unblemished 
 character, and is held in respect by the Hindus : and as to the point raised by his 
 learned friend, Mr. Anstey, that the libel was incomprehensible, he would maintain that 
 it was not so. The Court had before it only one version — the translation by Mr. Flynn, 
 the chief official translator : for aught he knew another translation may be in his learned 
 friend's pocket. Two points had resulted strongly from Mr. Flynn 's examination. The 
 word " defile" was not in the past tense — the sentence was not in two parts but one, 
 and there was no full stop. A great deal had also been said that the word " Maharaj" 
 in that sentence was in the vocative case : and that since his learned friend had been allowed 
 to make a suggestion he would make one also. No grammar would justify the word Maharaj 
 being used in the vocative case. It was nothing more than an apostrophe. He would 
 with these remarks submit that the application of his learned friend be refused, and the 
 defendant called upon to answer. 
 
Mr. Anstey rose and commented at great length on the cases cited by Mr. Bayley 
 and Scoble ; he said that the case of Roberts vs. McDouf/all referred to by Mr. IBayley 
 was no authority for the plaintiff ; he produced other cases and read passages from the 
 Weeklt/ Reporter and text-books, and submitted that there was no case made out to go 
 to a jury, that their Lordships were not then to consider whether there was a libel or no 
 libel, but as to whether the plaintiff had made out such a case as should go to a jury. 
 Averments the Court had, but proof it had none. The learned counsel commented on the 
 different points of Mr. Bayley 's arguments ; he laid before their Lordships the law on the 
 question of libel, and privileged communication, and said that it would spare their Lord- 
 ships much time and trouble and the parties expense, if instead of entering upon the 
 defence which must occupy at least twelve weeks (I), they would declare that the defendants 
 were entitled to a nonsuit. 
 
 The Court rose at C o'clock and said that the decision would be delivered the next 
 dav. 
 
 Sixth Bail, Saturdaij, \»1 Februari/, 18G2. 
 
 The Chief Justice this day pronounced the Court's decision on the application for & 
 nonsuit, which was refused, and the defence was ordered to be proceeded with. The 
 power of the Court to entertain the motion, said his Lordship, has been contested, but the 
 Court was of opinion that it had that power. It would be an unseemly thing to stop the 
 proceedings however, except in the presence of a very clear case for it. It appeared that 
 this application was made upon a two-fold ground, viz. that the plaintiff" has sued in a 
 particular character, and the character must be proved ; and it was argued that as lie has 
 tailed to prove the character, the case must fall ; and that even if the proof of character 
 were sustained, and the Court came to that opinion, yet that the publication was not 
 libellous. His Lordship was of opinion that the averments in the plaint, which were 
 not traversed, must be taken to be admitted. Having looked at the evidence adduced 
 for the plaintiff, the Court thought there was some evidence of a libel. The case of 
 May vs. Broicn and Lewis vs. Walter are not expressly overruled, and the Court 
 would act upon them as good law, while, according to the principles of these cases, 
 the plaintiff' had established the characters in which he alleged he was libelled. Then 
 came the legal question, there is a case to send to a jury on the question of a libel. 
 His Lordship considered, after the very able and erudite discussion of counsel on either 
 side, that, as to the libel, there was a prima facie case disclosed on the face of the 
 publication : and it was his opinion that the tendency of the latter part of the article 
 is to bring the plaintiff into hatred, and to injure his character. That being the opi- 
 nion of the Court, it remained with the defendants to proceed with the case, and to discharge 
 themselves, by proving the libel to be justifiable, or by disproving any of the allega- 
 tions which were traversed by their pleadings. His Lordship thought the mere cross- 
 examination of the plaintiff^s witnesses made out nothing to show that the libel was 
 •entirely justifiable. It was said the evidence for the defendant was very considerable 
 
SG 
 
 and possibly it was very lengthy, but every endeavour, said his Lordship, will, he 
 was sure, be made on all occasions to economize public time. Having expressed hia 
 opinion that the gist of the libel consisted in the personal charge against the plantiff, hia 
 Lordship would hope that the evidence which might be brought forward would have its 
 bearing upon that particular issue, whether as to the fact of a justifiable occasion or as 
 to a justification of the libel itself. The Court thought that the strictures on Gocalnathji'a 
 commentary in the earlier part of the libel, although they contained strong expressions, 
 did not appear to go beyond the range of legitimate criticism. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould entirely concurred in the views of the learned Chief Justice. 
 He would confine his remarks only to two points, — whether the oft-cited case of Home 
 vs. Sloicell conflicted with May vs. Brown, that is, whether the libel must be shown to 
 have affected the plaintiff in both characters. His Lordship considered that the decisions 
 in those cases did not conflict with each other in any respect. With regard to the 
 other important question, whether it was a justifiable occasion for the publication of 
 the libel, his Lordship said he threw out observations during the hearing to guard 
 against any thing being surmised against the free, open, and unreserved discussion of 
 public questions by a public writer. An article is not libellous because it is free, open, 
 and bold in the exposure of measures and men, nor because it transcends the bounds 
 of polite journalism. The strictures on the commentary of Gocalnathji, it appeared to 
 his Lordship, were not libellous, because the defendant in his capacity of a public 
 writer, gives vent to a strong, honest, and virtuous indignation against the upholders of 
 what he considers to be the atrocious doctrines of the commentary. All this was no 
 libel, but honest, bold, and justifiable comments. But then comes the quesion, — is he 
 justified in singling out the plaintiff and attacking his personal character ? As very 
 properly observed in the able address of Mr. Scoble, the obvious tendency of the 
 expressions used must be kept in view, in deciding a question like this. The enquiry 
 naturally occurs to the mind, what must have been the impression produced by a 
 perusal of the article upon the minds, not of a certain class, but of readers who are 
 by no means remarkable for acumen or judgment ? — " You INIaharajs ! acting up 
 to that commentary, defile the wives and daughters of your devotees." Here is that 
 which constitutes the libel ; and the question arises. Did or did not the defendant 
 intend to say that the plaintiff, and other Maharajs, defile the wives and daughters 
 of their devotees ? To his Lordship there appeared to be some proof necessary of a 
 justifiable occasion for this direct, personal imputation upon the plaintiff". Sir Joseph 
 concurred with the Chief Justice in thinking, that the justification ought to be addressed 
 to this point only, and it would be a waste of public time to justify any remarks 
 which preceded those just referred to. 
 
 Mr. Anstey here asked that leave may be reserved to the defendant to show cause 
 against the decision on the application for a nonsuit. 
 
 After some discussion, the Court reserved liberty to the defendant to move, after 
 verdict, to enter a judgment on the nonsuit, but no fresh arguments were to be 
 addressed to the Court by the defendant in that respect, unless called, upon to do so, 
 by the Court, 
 
87 
 
 SPEECH FOR THE DEFENCE. 
 
 Mr. Anstey, on the sitting of the Court after tiiTin, commenced a very able speech 
 for the defence. It became now his duty (said the learned counsel) to address to the 
 Court such observations upon the facts of the case as might prepare their Lordships 
 for the evidence which would be adduced on behalf of the defendants. If for the 
 purpose of proof the inuendo, whereby the alleged libel has been interpreted into a direct 
 attack upon the plaintiff, had failed ; or if it could be proved that it was nothing 
 more than the bare enunciation of true criticisms on the doctrines of the commentary ; 
 or if it couid be shown to have been used merely for the purpose of giving support 
 to the view taken by defendant of the commentary, then Mr. Anstey hoped that any 
 one of these circumstances would exonerate, in the opinion of the Court, the defendants 
 of all misconduct, more especially with regard to the concluding words of the paragraph. 
 The history of this case is a history of the justifying occasion on which the defendant 
 relies. It is proved that the defendant is a member of the Bania caste ; that the 
 caste as a body is divided as nearly as possible between the worshippers of the 
 IMaharaj and the worshippers of Shiva ; and that the latter are naturally antagonistic 
 to the former. That in addition to the Bania caste, another caste called the Bhattias, 
 the most ignorant and the most inveterate in superstition, are to a man worshippers of 
 the Maharaj, and believe in him as the incarnation of the deity, sent on a mission of 
 impurity from the other world. Some of them believe that, in virtue of his divine 
 authority, his power over the doctrines and all subjects pertaining to religion, is omni- 
 potent ; in short, to use the language of one of the plaintiff"s witneses, the people's credence 
 in a doctrine, however atrocious, depends upon its being contained in a sacred book. 
 It then overrules the authority of all previous cases, and the Bhattias believe in it 
 with a blind zeal. The Bhattia is the only community in which the Maharaj can 
 boast of commanding an unanimous following. In any other caste, the number of his 
 devotees is comparatively very much smaller. And yet he is forsooth addressed by all 
 as the " Maha Prabhu" (great God) or " Maharaj," great king, is worshipped with 
 divine honours, is swung in the swing in the same manner as the sacred idol, is 
 bathed with saflfron water as the image is, and is honoured with prostrations as the 
 image is honoured ! Less indifferent to public opinion than the Bhattias are, the Bauias 
 are less blind in their zeal. To these are to be added a wretchedly small sect of 
 i\Iarwarris, a few Bhansalees, and a handful of outcaste Brahmins, to make up the 
 catalogue of the IMaharajs' worshippers. 
 
 This is the sort of evidence, Mr. Anstey said, offered in support of the plaintiffs 
 case. In a country swarming with a numerous population, some two hundred millions 
 of persons professing the ancient religion of the land, the Maharajs, the Court is 
 seriously asked to believe, are the preceptors of the ancient Hindu religion and the spiritual 
 guides of the people ! Mr. Anstey laid some stress on this point, because, even if the 
 question of damage sustained by plaintiff from the^publication of the libel be taken into 
 consideration, he would most strongly urge that the prefatory averments are not proved. 
 Neither the presence of malice nor any inuendo whatsoever, can compensate for the 
 want of proof of those averments. The learned counsel here cited several cases to show 
 that this has been ruled over and over again. Even if the plaintiff were damaged by 
 the libel, there is no evidence of it, while there is no averment of a special or 
 
88 
 
 ordinary damage. The witnesses for the defence will tell the Court that plaintiff is in 
 no way damaged by the supposed libel, that he is not a Brahmin, that he is an 
 outcaste, that his ancestors were outcasted by the Telinga Brahmins for heresy and 
 schism, and that he is execrated generally in his character of a Maharaj. It will be 
 in evidence that these ]\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 making large promises of money, proportionate to the loss 
 of caste and other advantages incurred by some indigent family. Long before the 
 libel was written, the plaintiff had but a bad reputation among his own people ; and 
 the circumstances under which he suffered in that reputation, will be brought to the 
 notice of the Court. Previously, also, to the period of the publication, he refused to 
 give instruction except to those who went in search of it to his house. As to the 
 female devotees, they were enticed to his rooms under the pretence of religious 
 instruction ; and the opportunities thus afforded him were misused for the purpose of 
 seduction and adultery. 
 
 The evidence will show that, at this juncture, the plaintiff became acquainted with 
 defendant, himself a Vallabacharya, and that the acquaintance was kept up for some 
 time. The secretary of the Maharaj communicated with defendant on the subject of 
 reform, and other subjects in which the plaintiff pretended to take an interest, though 
 his professions were miserably belied by his subsequent conduct. The plaintiff made 
 an outward show of taking great interest in the promotion of female education and in 
 the reformation of religion ; often exppressed a sanctimonious horror at the adulterous 
 practices of his brother Maharajs, and said that he was aware of their adulteries, 
 but that the crime was so widely prevalent that it could not be prevented. Their 
 seducers were the '* Yarkats," the hereditary procurers of women for the Maharajs. 
 It would be shown, said the learned counsel, that as far as the immoral practices of 
 the Maharajs are concerned, the plaintiff was the first to deplore their condition. It 
 would be shown that, in connection with this libel, a meeting of the Maharaj s followers 
 was held under the superintendence of his agents and secretaries to effect a " bundo- 
 bust ;" and that those who put their signatures thereto, agreed to do one of two things, 
 either not to appear in the Court as witnesses, or to swear falsely that the Maharaj 
 never committed adultery. And although the Maharaj's agent, who was also conducting 
 this case, should deny the making of any such " bundobust" as that imputed by a 
 witness for the plaintiff who swore that it was the same as had been enquired into 
 in the case of the Queen vs. Gocukkiss Leiadhur, the learned counsel would prefer to 
 believe the other. He would show what that bundobust was, and that it had been punished 
 as an attempt to defeat the administration of justice in Her Majesty's Supreme Court. The 
 ■veil of hypocrisy under which plaintiff affected to feel a great interest in female education and the 
 re-marriage of Hindu widows, was rather prematurely torn asunder. A more zealous, but bss 
 discreet friend of the defendant invited the Maharaj, through the columns of a newspaper, to come 
 forvvaid as the advocate of these very desirable innovations. The defendant thought that the 
 Maharaj would not so soon declare himself in his true colors ; but he (plaintiff) 
 instantly renounced his doctrines concerning the subjects in question, and repudiated 
 the opnions imputed to him. He at once quarrelled with the defendant and threw out 
 in print reflections of a provocatory character against him. The learned counsel alluded 
 to these circumstances to show the position in which the parties stood at the time. This 
 
89 
 
 was in the month of July 1860. Plaintiff threw out those provocatory reflections in a 
 paper over which he has direct or indirect influence. (The learned counsel here cited 
 Watts vs. Fraser, and other cases in respect to reflections of a provocatory character.) 
 It would be shown that the plaintiff went further ; and in a pamphlet, a serial book 
 in fact, publicly challenged the defendant to a controversy on the subject of religion, 
 and also ridiculed the defendant's views and opinions therein. A letter signed by 
 plaintiff's secretary, and purporting to be written under the plaintiff's authority, was 
 inserted in the Chahook newspaper of the 29th September 1860, whereby, also, defendant 
 was invited to the controversy. It would be shown, the learned counsel went on to 
 observe, that the plaintiff communicated with defendant's paper through his secretary, 
 and with other papers through other secretaries and agents. Mr. Anstey here adverted 
 to a handbill, published and circulated by plaintiff on his arrival from Surat, in which 
 he complained of the Vyshnovs not visiting him as they ought to have done. It would 
 be shown that about the end of August 1860, the plaintiff convened a public meeting 
 to discuss the subject of widow re-marriage with a Guzeratee poet of the name of Nar- 
 madashunker. This was after the challenge published by the indiscreet champion of 
 re-marriage. The defendant agitated the subject, and the plaintiff joined in the discussion, 
 but was unable to answer his arguments or resist the logical conclusions to which they 
 led. Baffled thus in a controversy in which he voluntarily took a share, and apparently 
 chagrined by his bad success in the matter, plaintiff started a pamphlet called the 
 " Propagator of our own Religion," alluded to in the libel, and with the view of 
 securing subscribers, issued hand-bills to be distributed among the Vyshnovs. At the 
 end of the first month after the periodical was started, a lecture by the plaintiff was 
 pubhshed therein, and a distinct allusion is made to the defendant in the same : — 
 " Whoever may wish to write upon this lecture should do so (a direct challenge to 
 defendant) by quoting the Shastras, but he who would not do so, should be unworthy 
 of belief by his own people." Here, therefore, Mr. Anstey remarked, the defendant is 
 denounced in the very first number of plaintiffs periodical, as being unworthy of belief 
 by his own people, his castemen. Accepting this direct challenge, and from a conscious- 
 ness of his responsibilities, the defendant reviewed in his paper the lecture in question. 
 Upon this the plaintiff resorted to aggressive measures, prohibited the Vyshnovs from 
 subscribing to defendant's newspaper, and gave expression to his cordial wish that the 
 defendant should be punished by excommunication from his caste for writing those reviews 
 of the lecture. The article containing the alleged libel, Mr. Anstey therefore maintained, 
 was written in answer to the challenge to which the learned counsel had alluded before. 
 The defendant wrote another article in vindication of himself, and in reply to the charges 
 levelled against him by plaintiff. The controversy was continued for sometime afterwards. 
 Amongst others the plaintiff published articles distinctly referring to the defendant as tha 
 editor of the Satya Prakash, and accusing him of assigning false meaning to the 
 doctrines of the Maharajs. One of these articles says : — " The (defendant) ' walks on 
 the support of opium, and will fall to the ground, and will never be able to get up. 
 He is the firefly, while we (plaintiff) are the Sun." The controversy was a bona Me 
 one on the defendant's part, long before and afler the libel. It is not, however until 
 six months after the publication of it, that the plaintiff thinks of commencing the action 
 for reasons best known to himself But why this long delay ? Subsequently to the 
 publication of the alleged libel, and in the second number of his pamphlet, the plaintiff 
 made another attack upon the defendant, accusing him of falsehood for having statad 
 12 
 
90 
 
 that the books of the Vallabacharya sect were kept concealed in tiie temples, lest the 
 Brahmins should read and repudiate their doctrines. The plaintiff in one place describes 
 the Brahmins as persons of another religion, and " not worshippers of the Supreme 
 Being." He again attacks the defendant shortly afterwards and applies to him (the defen- 
 dant) the very words of the libel : — " What hypocrisy I Oh, you Vyshnovs, you see 
 whose is the rascality and whose the hypocrisy !" So unconscious was the defendant of 
 any impropriety or offence against the plaintiff that, in the month of November 1860, 
 afler the publication of the alleged libel, he wrote in his paper a calm survey of the 
 public career of Juduiiathji Maharaj, this unworthy champion of monstrous doctrines, on 
 his departure for Surat. In this survey of plaintiffs career, defendant writes to the 
 following effect in his issue 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 * * * ^- * 
 
 " O religious preceptors I You are not our enemies. You have not in any way 
 injured us. We entertain 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. Then, religious preceptors, why should w^e entertain any malice against you 
 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 en- 
 deavour 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. O ! we heartily wish that you 
 would quit the evil path and come up on the good path that we may never be under 
 the necessity of writing anything acrimonious." 
 
 Jadunathji, then addressed the ignorant Vyshnovs as follows : — " The editor of the 
 ^atya Prakash defiles our religion ] — are you not going to punish him ?" The defendant 
 most emphatically denied that charge in his paper. 
 
 On the 18th November 1860, so far as the defendant was concerned, the con- 
 troversy with the plaintiff was abandoned. The action was commenced in May 1861, 
 and the notice which called upon the defendant to retract his statements in his very 
 next issue, was written in the last week of April. That was indeed a very long interval 
 after the publication of the libel, and this was but a very short notice to consider and 
 retract. The defendant accordingly, in the next issue of his journal, said he saw nothing 
 to alter or retract in what he had written, and nothing to apologize for, as required 
 by the plaintiff. Now, whatever may have dictated the spirit of the libel it was evident in the 
 opinion of the learned counsel, that the plaintiff, in filing the action, acted so from a desire to 
 injure the defendant, against whom he cherished ill will, and by no means from a sense of public 
 justice, for the extracts cited above had shown the absence of malice on the part of the 
 defendant, k strange circumstance it appeared to be that the plaintiff should have taken full 
 
91 
 
 six months to deliberate on the tendency of the article. By the statute of limitations, ac- 
 cording to the new Indian Act, a period of one year only is allowed for instituting 
 libel actions, whereas the plaintiff allowed half the time to elapse in coming to an opinion 
 whether it was a libel or no libel. Coupled with the above was the singular fact that 
 even after the libel, the plaintiff prosecuted and continued the controversy with the 
 defendant ! ! It was a precious long time, certainly, for the plaintiff to find out the 
 grievances he had suffered I The real solution of the problem lay in the fact, that the 
 Vaishnavs showed themselves determined not to be subject to the plaintiff or any other 
 Maharaj in matters of education ; and the plaintiff sought to revenge himself upon the 
 defendant for this beneficial change in public opinion. 
 
 The circumstances to which he had alluded at such length, would, the learned 
 counsel trusted, throw some light on the history of the case. Now, as the action was 
 commenced, it became necessary for the defendant to protect himself by such means as 
 he might be advised to adopt, and he was aware that the libel could be justified in 
 every particular. The new enquiries which he instituted, further satisfied him of 
 the correctness of his views ; and learned men, who knew nothing of the history of 
 the case, would tell their Lordships that the passage alleged to contain the libel, though 
 it was obscure, was capable of the meaning which the defendant gave it. It bears onlv 
 a hyphothetical meaning, and is but the enunciation of doctrines given to the world by 
 the plaintiffs ancestors. It is this, " If you will act according to your precept, 
 the precept of your ancestors, why then must you defile the wives and daughters of your 
 devotees !" And what is the character of their " sacred books" so reverenced by Mr. 
 Bayley ? Why, they contain nothing but the most obscene and beastly adventures. If 
 the Maharaj s are to pursue amorous sport, putting their arms round the necks of their 
 female devotees ; if such are the doctrines of their sacred books ! the defendant is 
 justified in calling upon the plaintiff, who had set 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. 
 They claim to be considered, as Krishna was considered in former days, each the husband of 
 many women and the " ocean of Kas Lila." It has been (for the plaintiff) shown that 
 they received the public in one room, at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, where the 
 darkness of the hour favoured the designs of some evil minded men ; and that a portion 
 of the public which consists of women of certain attractions, are received into another 
 room, towards which the Maharaj first bends his steps and is followed into it by the 
 women. It would be shown by evidence such as any of the Ecclesiastical Courts at 
 home would deem sufficient, that adultery is committed in that room. It would be shown 
 that the plaintiff had been bred and brought up in the adulterous doctrines of the sect, 
 and that he at one time maintained that adulterine inteixourse with the devotees of the 
 Maharajs leads to the strengthening and development of the body, and is akin to the 
 physical education of athletes. And this is the leader of high caste Brahmins, the 
 incarnation of God on earth, the gentleman, in short, as one of the learned counsel 
 called him ; and these are the professions and practices of a man who says he has 
 sustained demage by the libel ! (The learned counsel then made some remarks upon 
 the absence of the Maharaj from the Court, though he had been served with a summons, 
 and upon the fact that not a single Bhattia witness had been called for the plaintiffs 
 case.) It would be shown, Mr. Anstey went on to say, that the language made use of 
 by the defendant is not at all excessive, and that it is only expressive of an honest 
 indignation against the doctrines of sacred books, which are full of blasphemies and tales 
 
92 
 
 of adulterous practices, and in which adultery itself is held up as commendable. (Alludes to 
 the story mentioned by one of plaintiffs witnesses, according to which the husband anointed 
 and dressed his wife, and upon his shoulders carried her to the house of the intended 
 adulterer.) The Court would learn from the mouths of the witnesses that the doctrines of 
 the sacred books enforce the culture of adulterine love and sensual lust towards the leaders 
 (the Maharajs,) and it is said that these are the only means of " the deliverance of the 
 soul and its re-absorption into the Divine essence," — as if God meant Jadoonathjee Maharaj 
 (suffering under a loathsome disease) to propitiate Him, by engaging in hot love with his 
 devotees ! But, say these preceptors of religion, " This principle which we teach is not a 
 barren principle ; it must bear fruit. To each of us, (himself a Krishna,) you will offer 
 your body, your soul, your wives, your sons, your daughters, your ' tun mun, and dhun' 
 — (your body, mind and property). If you wish to serve God, and we are God to you, 
 do it in this three-fold manner." The sense of this application of body in reference to 
 woman, the learned counsel would leave to the Court to infer. A true Vaishnav is en- 
 joined to feel no shame and no regard to public opinion ; and that is service with the 
 "mun," mind "dhun" property of every kind. And say the Maharajs, " Before you enjoy 
 any portion of your ' dhun,' you must offer it, him, or her to your God, personified in us ; 
 you have no right to enjoy it before us." These practices were commonly known and com- 
 monly spoken of in the sect, but until the time of Goculuathjee, no Maharaj had the audacity 
 to illustrate the three grand principles. " That doctrine," says defendant to the plaintiff, " I 
 call upon you to denounce ; and I call upon you especially, Jadoonathjee Maharaj, because 
 the others are sinking deeper and deeper still, while you alone of their number once came 
 forward to propagate your religion ! and if your words are not so many impostures, do you 
 admonish your other Maharajs, do you scorn the writer of the commentary (repudiate the 
 doctrines of it, according to one translation,) and such of you as defile the wives and 
 daughters of your devotees, according to the doctrines of that commentary, desist from that, 
 if you wish to propagate your own religious faith, and to be heard." The defendant is 
 thus addressing himself to those who have set themselves up as teachers ; and says to them, 
 " unless you do so and so, you cannot expect to be heard." If the Court, Mr. Anstey 
 remarked, had once any doubt as to the meaning of that passage in the libel, it must 
 now vanish. 
 
 As to the nature of the evidence, Mr. Anstey remarked that the plaintifTs secretary, 
 ever since the Bhattia Conspiracy Case, had been trying to dissuade defendants' witnesses 
 from appearing in Court, threatening them with excommunication. The difficulties of 
 obtaining evidence in cases like this are great every where, but here they were 
 magnified by the Maharaj's attempt to withdraw from the ken of the Supreme Court 
 all of his sect who are likely to give evidence in behalf of the defendants. For these 
 reasons, Mr. Ansty said, the defendants were entitled to the utmost indulgence which 
 the Law of England, as administered by their Lordships, would allow. There was 
 evidence that the Maharaj's tyranny was not only spiritual, but was also temporal, worked 
 by spiritual means. And such it was that a Justice of the Peace — Mr. Anstey regretted 
 to say, the man was still a Justice of the Peace — admitted having subscribed his name 
 to the " slavery bond," a document whereby he bound himself to excommunicate all 
 persons in his caste who should write against these doctrines or attempt to procure the 
 Maharaj's presence in the Supreme Court. The signatures to that document were not 
 fully obtained until an interdict was issued and the temples were closed, and the de- 
 Totees were denied for some days the beatific vision of the image ! ! Allusion was next 
 
93 
 
 made to the visits of the Maharajs to the sick beds of dying persons, and their putting 
 (■for fees received) their holy feet on the breasts of those apparently in the last throes 
 of their agony and struggle with death. When all the evidence was given, the Court 
 would, Mr. Anstey had no doubt, be of opinion that the plea of justification as to the 
 language was fully sustained. He hoped their Lordships had been now enabled to understand 
 much that was at first unintelligible. There was no evidence of any Iqss to entitle 
 the plaintiff to damages ; on the contrary, it was stated that he was respected as much 
 as ever before, though not so much loved : and no doubt there were averments in the 
 plea to make intelligible that sectarian distinction. 
 
 Seveyith day, Tuesday, 4:tk February 1862. 
 
 (1.) — Karsandass Mooljee, examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am one of the defendants in 
 this case, and a Bania, about 28 years of age. I was born in the Yallabhacharya sect. 
 I am one of those who believe in the Maharaj as a guru ; I never believed him 
 to be a god. I was the Editor of the Satya Prakash at the time the libel appeared : 
 the paper is since amalgamated with the Rast Goftar, and is now known as the Rast Goftar 
 and Satya Prakash. The other defendant was merely the printer. I edited the " Stri 
 Bodh" (a magazine for the instruction of females.) I have also written several pamphlets 
 and books. I am somewhat familiar with the doctrines of the ancient Hindu religion. 
 It is broken up into about a hundred sects, in some respects differing widely from each 
 other. I am familiar with the distinction between the worshippers of Vishnu and those 
 of Shiva : those distinctions are strongly marked. The Yallabhacharya sect are the 
 followers of Vishnu. Both differ in morality, the creed of the Yallabhacharya does 
 not inculcate self-denial ; I think that of Shiva does. The ancient religion is one of 
 self-denial, mortification, and penance. The Yallabhacharya religion commenced about 375 
 years ago. Yallabh was the founder of the creed, and a Telinga Brahmin. Luxmon 
 Bhutt, the father of Yallabh, and Yallabh himself, were excommunicated by the Telinga 
 Brahmins, for founding a new sect. According to the doctrines of the sect, as mentioned 
 in the " Nij Yarta" (written in the " Brig Bhasha" language,) Yallabh, on his 
 death, ascended to heaven in a mass of flames. The Maharajs marry among themselves : 
 those, out of their body, who intermarry with them are outcasted. They intermarry 
 by holding out large promises of money and other rewards. Those who intermarry with 
 the Maharajs are poor Telinga Brahmins. In one instance of such marriage tchich 
 came under my notice, I think the Telinga Brahmin was poor. I am prepared to state 
 that the Maharajas are not Brahmins of high caste, and that the creed of Yallubh is 
 of a modern date. They are not the preceptors of the ancient Hindu religion to any 
 body. As a general rule, the Yaishunavs receive religious instruction in their own peculiar 
 doctrines from the Maharajas. In respect to other opinions they receive instruction from 
 the Brahmins. The learned Brahmins openly teach the doctrines of the ancient religion. 
 The Maharajas conceal their doctrines : there is a prohibition against revealing them. [A 
 good deal of discussion took place here as to the unfitness of the witness to speak with 
 authority on matters of which 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 the objection by citing one or two leading cases, in which he 
 had the honour to appear, and in which it was solemnly decided by learned Judges, 
 in England that a witness, a litterateur and a scholar, is competent to speak on subjects 
 which come within the line of his studies]. Witness to Court — I have given considerable 
 
94 
 
 attention to the religion of the Vallubhacharya sect, and am acquainted with the " Bri^ 
 Bhasha' language. I am not acquainted with Sanscrit. [Sir Joseph Arnould said the 
 difficulty was how to consider the witness, although a litterateur, as a professional" or 
 official witness. Mr. Anstey remarked he did not bring forward the witness as a pro- 
 fessional man, but as one who, from his studies as an author and a controversiahst, 
 was competent to speak with some authority upon the questions asked him. (Cites the 
 case in Nisi Prius of BanFs vs. Buckingham. The learned counsel said the objection, 
 if not overruled, would be fatal to the entire ease for the justification. It was very 
 hard to believe that the witness should not be considered competent to give evidence on 
 matters involved in the libel itself, and in respect to which he had been conducting 
 discussions for several months past, and with which, therefore, he had an every day 
 familiarity. Mr. Bayley replied that the point was very simple. The witness is 
 asked as to the contents of a book which, for aught he knew, might be in the 
 witness's pocket at the moment ; and therefore the very best evidence ought to be 
 produced. Sir Joseph Anould. — But it is not so in respect to books of science. Mr. 
 Bayley spoke further in support of his argument. The question was not as to cases of 
 foreign law, but as to the contents of a book which was in existence. The witness 
 could not be asked to give the contents of a book which is available. Sir M. Sausse 
 said, the question was put to the witness whether there was any prohibition against 
 revealing the tenets of the Vallabacharyas ? to which he replied that there was a prohibition 
 or penalty mentioned in a book. Mr. Bayley raised an objection to the writness 
 being questioned upon the contents of the book. The Court thought those tenets 
 could be proved by the evidence either of the teacher, or the sectary who has 
 received instruction. The first mode would be reliable, and the second v/ould be 
 an admissible mode of giving evidence. If a witness be asked to state what is 
 contained in a particular book, and if he said he had read the book for some 
 years of his life, the sectary so interrogated must produce the book and read from 
 it, Sir Joseph Arnould concurred with the Chief Justice. The evidence of the 
 " taught" is admissible evidence, but any evidence of the contents of any particular 
 book is inadmissible unless the book itself be produced.] 
 
 Witness continued. — " Whoever divulges the secrets of his spiritual guide, or of 
 the " Shree Thackoorjee," or the image, or the God, shall be born again in the condi- 
 tion of a dog. The number of doctrines taught by the Maharajas are of such a 
 nature that learned Brahmins are not in a position to teach them. The doctrines which 
 the Brahmins teach our sect are the same that they teach to others. The sacred 
 books of my sect, containing the doctrines of the Maharajas, are named — (witness gives 
 the names of fourteen books.) 
 
 (1.) — (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 Veishnava,* respects him who is not a Vaishnava, shall 
 for three births be a shoemaker. 
 
 32. Whoever holds (his) spiritual guide and Shri Thtikurji (or God) to be 
 different and distinct, shall be born a Sichdnd. 
 
 34. Whoever disobeys the orders of (his) spiritual guide, shall go to Asipatra and 
 other dreadful hells, and lose all his religious merits. 
 
 "•' The follower of Vishnu. 
 
95 
 
 37. Whoever 'divulges the secrets of (his) spiritual guide or of" Shri Thakurji shall 
 for three births, be born a dog. 
 
 39. Whoever, before (his) spirituous guide or Shri Thakurji, sits in (the posture 
 called) Fudmasan shall be born a serpent. 
 
 54. Whoever displays (hisj learning before (his) spiritual guide, shall for three 
 births be dumb. For three births he shall be a dog (or) an ass. 
 
 55. Whoever displays activity before (his) spiritual guide, shall be born a 
 Jarakh. 
 
 56. Whoever without paying his respect to (his) spiritual guide, performs worship (his 
 worship) shall become entirely fruitless. 
 
 59. Whoever shows the soles of his fe«t to (his) spiritual guide or to Shri 
 Thakurji shall be born a serpent for ten years. 
 
 Bo?nbay, 21th June 1861. 
 
 Translated by 
 Nanabhai Haridas, Translator. 
 
 (2.) — (Translation of an extract from a Manuscript in Brij Bhasha called 
 " Ashtakshar Tika.") 
 
 Behold I how is Shri Oosaiji* ! He is totally without desires ; he is without wants ; 
 he is with desires fulfilled ; he desires all Virtues ; he is possessed of all Virtues ; he 
 is the very (personification of) the most exellent Being (God) ; he is all incarnations ; 
 he is as beautiful as a million of Kamdevs ; f he is possessed of the six virtues ; he 
 is the head of all those who appreciate sensual or intellectual pleasure (or poetry) ; 
 he is desirous of fulfilling the wishes of his devotees ; such is Shri Gosaiji ! Why 
 should he want any thing ? He is himself the creator of the (endless) erases of worlds, 
 wherein his glory has diffused ail over. He is the inspirer (or propeller) of the souls 
 of all animated beings. He is praised by Bramha (the God creator), Shiva (the God 
 destroyer) Indra, and other (Gods). Such is Shri Gcsaiji ! 
 
 Translated by 
 Balaji Panddrang, Translator. 
 Bombay, 2nd July 1861. 
 
 (3.) — (Translation of a passage from a Commentary in Brij Bhasha on a work 
 called the " Chaturshloki Bhagvat.") 
 
 Therefore in Kali Yug, there is no means of salvation similar to worship. Therefore, 
 when a man seeks the protection of Sri Acharyaji alone, all his wishes are fulfilled. We 
 should regard our Guru as God, nay, even greater than God. For if God gets angry the 
 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.) 
 
 * Translated by 
 
 Nanabhai Haridas, Translator. 
 Bombay, Uh July 1861. 
 
 * Gosaiji is said to be the son of Vullabhacharya the founder of the sect, 
 t Kamdev is God of love. 
 
96 
 
 (4.) — (Translation of certain passages from a work in Brij Bhasha, entitled 
 the " Guru Worship.") 
 
 (rt) When Hari (God) is displeased [with any one] the Guru* eaves him [from the 
 effects of Hari's displeasure]. But when the Guru is displeased [with any one], no one 
 can save him [from the effects of Guriis displeasure]. Therefore a Vaishnav should serve 
 the Guru with his body and money and please the Guru. 
 
 (i^) But the principal Gurus are Shri Acharyaji and Shri Gusainji and their whole 
 family (called) the Valabha family. They are all Gurus as is mentioned in the Sarvottamji. 
 
 (c) Therefore God and the Guru are necessarily to be worshipped. If a man worships 
 God, he goes to Vyapi Vaikunth.f But by the worship of God he goes to Vyapi Vaikunth 
 only, when he worships the Guru. The worship of the Guru is to be performed in the 
 same way as the worship of God. 
 
 (d) Offerings are to be made to the Guru. There is not particular quantity of offer- 
 ings (ordained). You are to make such an offering as you feel inclined to make. But you ' 
 are to reflect thus : — " In this world there are many kinds of creatures. Of them all, we 
 are most fortunate that we have sought the protection of the illustrious Vallabhacharyaji, 
 Shri Gosainji and their descendants ; who are manifestly [incarnations of] God, the excellent 
 Being himself." 
 
 Translated by 
 Nanabhai Haridas, Translator. 
 Botnha^, m July 1861. 
 
 (5.) — (Translation of a portion of a Gujrati printed book called " Svadharmavardhak and 
 Samshaya Chedak" (meaning promoter of our religion and destroyer of doubt,) pub- 
 lished by the " Vaishnavdharmprasarak Mandali" (i. e. Society for the diffusion of 
 the Vaishnav Religion) commencing from page 27 ; Volume I No. 2. dated in the 
 month of Aso, Samvat 1916 (October and November 1860). 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 In the above chapter it is stated that God himself has become by parts all the forms, 
 consequently this whole Universe is his spirit, consequently he is at play with his own 
 spirit : with God therefore, (the relation of) my-own-and-other's does not exist. All 
 is his own ; consequently the sin of adultery does not affect Him. 
 
 The sin of enjoying other people's things, affects this world. With God nothing whatever 
 is alien. God has therefore ordained the sin of adultery for this world. Now the 
 ignorant say this : " Should a daughter or son propose to (her or his) father to become 
 his wife, what sin and immorality are contained therein ! How sinful therefore are 
 those who entertain towards God the adulterine love." Thus have they argued. Now 
 the intelligent should consider this matter as follows : The GopisJ made the 
 adulterine love with Shri Krishna (is it to be maintained that) therefore they 
 committed sin ? Further, Mahadevji and Ramchandarji married women of this 
 world, namely, Parvatiji (and) Sitaji ; and Shri Krishna married sixteen thousand prin- 
 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 
 maidens. But in God all relations abide. Both man and woman have sprung from God. 
 Wherefore with God the two species of man and woman do not exist. Both these are the 
 spirit of God. Consequently he is at play with his own spirit. In that no sin is incurred 
 
 * Spiritual guide. 
 
 t Name of a heaven. 
 
 X The Shepherdesses of Gokul. 
 
??7 
 
 either by Ged: or by (this) world. If any sin be* cpmmittcd (by such conduct) Shri 
 iKiislinawoull not have married the daughters of the kings. (Thus you) see how much 
 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 
 the adulterine love. I'hat Story is related liy Biahmaji to Bhrigu Ri&hi in Brahad \ aaian 
 Pu)an; wliich we now recount for the information of the people. 
 
 » 
 
 , (Sanscrit text quoted.) 
 
 Meaning — Having heard the long offered prayers of the Veds, the Lord spoke in a 
 heavenly voice : — " Oh ! you Traditions I am pleased with you wherefore ask such favors 
 as 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 
 invested with attribu es in regard to which our belief is not full. And as to that which 
 we call (usi;ally) by the term Brahma, the form of which is without attributes, and which 
 is different from the indestiuclible Brahma — that form is beyond the reach of our mind 
 and our speech, therefore beyond o^r knowledge — we request thee therefore, to cause us to 
 see that f..rm" 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 
 seen. Tiie kind of sight which the Traditions had on that occasion is thus described. 
 
 (Sanscrit text quoted.) 
 
 Meaning — On that occasion the Traditions having seen the form of Shri Krishna, com- 
 menced to praise him thus : " Oh Shri Krishna, thy form is more beautiful than even a 
 crore of Kiimdevs,| at the sight whereof, desire is produced in us. Please therefore satisfy 
 our heart's desire, so that we may enjoy with thee in the form of women. If thou wishest 
 to grant our request, this is what we require." When the Traditions of the Veds sjjqjie 
 thus, the most excellent Being said : — 
 
 (Sanscrit ten quoted.) 
 
 Meaning — " Oh Traditions this your heart's desire is vrry difficult to be satisfied and 
 very difficult to carry out ; however as I consent thereto, your heart's desire shall be satis- 
 fied ; but it wiJ. not be satislied just now." He (further) said : — 
 
 (Sanscrit text quoted) 
 
 Meaning. — " When the Sarasvat age shall arrive, you will be born as. Gopis in 
 Vrij. 'J'here, in the forest of Vrinda, I will gratify your desire in a chorus ; and 
 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 
 Vtds who became the Gopikas are called the Traditional persons. 
 
 * In this rentence tlie pre.sent ten-ie of tlie first pnrt do"f; n'-t correspond with (he p''st ten'^e of the 
 second part, but tiie form as 2;iven in the ori^riu: 1 i-< preserveil (ttiis at the expense of graaimaij as iuiplyiug 
 that wbat. is iu.c Jtu to be conveytd thereby ia true iu all times. 
 
 t Vide note above. | Qo^oflo^a 
 
 13 
 
98 
 
 In the enme way, it is related in the Eamaya'n as follows : ("When) Phri T?am- 
 chanrlraji pmcee 'ed to the forest of Dandaka (lie found) tliere sixteen thousand IJisliis 
 (sages) called Agnikumar peifornung prnanee. 'I'liese ]{isliis on seeing tlie person of Stiii 
 lliiMicliaixiraji, became enamoured. 'I'liereupnn, folding lluir hands, they made a request 
 to Slni Ramchandniji thus — " Oh Lord, a desire is produced in us to enjoy vvilh Uiee 
 in the firm of women. Wherefore be pleased to gratily ibis our liearl's desire." 
 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 
 tale thereof is recounted in the Kurnia (Tortoise) Puran and also in Alharva 
 Ved thus : — • 
 
 (Sanscrit verse quoted.) 
 
 Meaning — These jAgnikuniar TJishis having been born as women in Yrij, also 
 attained the most excellent Being with the Traditions. 
 
 Thus it is related in the Veds and Puraiis, at various places, that by whatsoever 
 faith, this soul 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 
 tliis subject a devotee has said 'n the 8aki (verse) thus ; '' what can the ass wlio 
 feeds on the dunghill know the pleasures of the Garden ? Sugar is his death, the world's 
 refuse, his life." Meaning — the Asses who feed on dur.ghills, what do they know of 
 the pleasures of gardens ? that such and such pleasures are to be had in gardens ! 
 By eating sugar the ass dies ; aiid by eating the rubbish that lies on dunghills he 
 lives. Siir.ilarly,* those devotees who long for the Para-brahma, (Bivine Sfiirit), their 
 life is sustained by this very adulterine love. What could the non-devotcts know of 
 this love : they wish for the love of hell. (To them) to get (go"d) bodies, women 
 and property, is to meet with God. Even, by exjierience, it is clearly known that 
 there is no love in any thing like adulterine love. We are therefore enjoined in the 
 Shastras to feel in Hari a love like the adulterine love. For, see ! although the 
 adulteress may he engaged in the household work, yet d.iv and night, her mind is 
 directed to the object of meeting her paramour, and if ' t.^ r) paramour goes to a 
 foreign country, in consequence of (her) separation I'rom hiu , she does not relish (her) 
 food, does not like to 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 
 in the Shastras as the most exfcHent thing. Of suih lov<-', these fools say tliat this 
 love is loathsome. But it is no-where irsentioned that by the adulterine love (we should) 
 carry on a c iminal intercourse with Gi d ; because our souls are not qua ified like the 
 Gopis ; nor could our souls have immediate connection with God. 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 
 she was unconscious. Just then the Fukeer did not say any thing. liut when that 
 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 
 
 * If iMs sentence should mal<e out an nnalopy brtvreen the filth loving ass and the aspirer 
 after the divjue spirit, the fault should not be atlribuud to the translator but to his text, 
 
been conscious of my having struck you with my foot. See, owing to my contemptible 
 love in my paraniour, 1 did n'>t ol)3erve you and was not even conscious of h.iving struck 
 3'ou with my loot. (;h man ! had your l(tve re.illy b<'on in (Jud and your attention fixed 
 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 
 said) — '' Oh mother what you have now observed is true. From this day I have adopted you 
 as my spiritual guide. In this anecdote also a lesson is drawn from loye. As Dattatraya 
 JKushi derived instruction from twenty-four things, so should we draw the moral frum the 
 adulterine love. Thus (we see that our religion) does not tell us to commit adultery. 
 
 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 with Tradition's rec^uest (ia 
 related) it is (further) stated. 
 
 (Sariscrit text quoted.) 
 
 Meaning — If either man or woman serves Hari with real devotion, he or she will 
 gain their wishes in the same way as the Traditions gained (theirs.) It is also stated in 
 the Shastras that whatever may be the object with which one serves the L'>rd, such his 
 object the Lord will fuifil. This is what is staled. Wlierefore those who have good sight, 
 shculd not walk by [mtting their hands on the shoulders of the blind, — as is said in the 
 Verse : — 
 
 " Whoever shall walk by placing his hand '^n the shoulder of the blind, will full into a 
 hole, though a good man, and remain behind." 
 
 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. To this end is inijiroven'ent (or civihzaiion) going on in 
 Bombay ; and it spreads to other countries also. This 2nd chapter on the adulterine love 
 is now concluded. 
 
 Translated by 
 Balaji Pandl'rang, Translator. 
 Bombaj/, list June 1861. ' 
 
 (S.) — (Translation of an Fxtract from a ^Manuscript copy in Brij 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 
 affection. If we serve liy our body, mind, wealth or by any other mode, than another's 
 son or husband will remain with us. In the same way does God ever abide in our house 
 in union. 
 
 Translated by 
 Balaji Pandukang, Translator. 
 Bombay, %id July 18G1. 
 
 (7.) — Translations of Fxtricts taken from a manuscript Copy of a work in Brij language 
 by Goculnath^i, called l^asbhavna (Love faith) bound up with several other works into 
 one book.) 
 
 * Id token of ackiowledging his own shortcomings. 
 
M 
 
 Extract ' No. 1 from the second half of ■pa.ge 98. 
 
 Thus* came Krishna to be caHed a great Chnrioteer (a warrior V, 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. 
 
 Extract No. 2 from the second half of page III. 
 
 Thereafter the female companions (of Shri Svaminiji) 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The Lord plays with the followers of Pushti System (i. e. followers of Valabhachdrya), 
 (Such) play is fearful to the opponents, whereas such play is poetic liappiness (extacy) to 
 the devotees (or initiated). 
 
 Extract No. b. from the second half of page 125. 
 
 The elephant's ivory toys are (symbolic) of the internal desires of Shri Svaminiji (the 
 chief mistress). So when she goes into the forest, Shri Svaminiji by means of those toys 
 enkindles (in him) the desire to amuse or enjoy like elephants. 
 
 Extract No. 6 from page 130. 
 
 Shri Chandravaliji arid Shri Yamunaji and the Virgins and all the (married) women 
 of Vrij join togetlier in a humble speech to Shri Svaminiji| (thus) : — " Let us become 
 your Sfrvants. We are not like you. We are your servants. Jlov; can we reach God in 
 yoiir I'resenie. Still we are yf^i^'i's." Having heard this hiimtile speech, Shri Svaminiji 
 addresses them thus : — ('i"hougli§ sagacious and possessed of the sixty four (gord) qualities, 
 yet is she guileless ! though the iorensost among the accomplished, 3'et is she guileless ! 
 Wherefore Shri Svaminiji seeing the 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 
 in Vrij ; for there is no other love as the love of husband, which you cherish towards God. 
 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 
 
 * The preceedingr passages allude to the wr whic'/ is the 1hem6 of the great rpic of MahA 
 
 Eharat, whereiu Kri-hiut by his superior [ower prccuied the dcU at of oue of the 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. 
 
 § This parenthetical part is the author's and not translator's- 
 
 11 Cowherds of Viij. 
 
101 
 
 in your sexual cimmeree. You have no harm or jealousy in-' ynu. Thirdly- you are fene-. 
 trated with the passion of love. Your passion is for the different modes of sexual coinmtrce. 
 You are very dear in my heart. 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. 
 
 Thereupon Shri Svaininiji being^ pleased tells God thus. " Because they are dear 
 to you, they are exceedingly dear to me. They should be therefore alloted separate 
 groves so that you might carry on sexual conunerce (separately with them.)" 
 
 Extract No. S from the second haf of page 133. 
 
 There Shri Svam'niji produces from her person millions of female companions. They 
 were named Lalita, ^'isaklla, and so forth. Tho^e that were exceedingly skiiUuI and beauti- 
 ful in sexual commerce, are called Lalita ; those that are very ex.pert in the inverted and 
 other postures or positions (at sexual congress) are called Yisakhas. 
 
 Translated by 
 Balaji Panduranq, Translator, 
 Bombay, 8l/t October 1861. 
 
 (8.) — At Page 6th of a work called Vithalesha ratnavivarana, the Acharya or Maha- 
 raja is called " yiirisha" which is rendered by the cOinmentator to mean the Priyah, 
 or husband of many women. 
 
 Again at page 19 of the book, the Acharya (or Maharaja) is described as " the* 
 ocean of the Kas lila." and also as " one'j' whose sole aim is the KasUla," which means 
 wanton or amorous sport with many women. 
 
 (9.) — (Translation of an Extract marked No. 32 from a book in "Brij Bhasha, composed 
 by iShri Goculnathji and containing an account of 252 devotees of ^hri (iosayin i| Maharaj.) 
 
 Now, there was Ganca Kshatriani, a female devotee of Shri Gosayinji,§ who was 
 living in that Mahaban.|) This is an account of her. 
 
 The mother of that Gongabai was very beautiful, and was also very good looking, 
 and siie was in the bloom of her age. On one occasion Gosayinji went to the 
 Mahaban and put up in the house of a Vaishnav^ and that Kshatriani was then residing 
 close to the house of that A'aishnav. 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 ena- 
 moured. So that she did not feel easy without seeing Shri Gosaiji once (daily ) So, 
 she daily got up, and came to .Shri Gokul, and having seen Shri Gosaiji, she used 
 tliui tu go 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 
 in my heart." But Shri Gosaiji refused (saying) " I do not know any thing about 
 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, 
 
 * RAs ]iI4 mabodaflha. f Eds lilak tatparyah. J A femnle of the Kshatri caPte. 
 
 a High priest, HThfvnaTOe of a forest— literally great forest. ^ A woi shipper of Visnts. 
 
 «* The Hindu Cupid, 
 
102 
 
 without vour leaving (your) house. Tl>€se are tny (prophetic) words and therefore you 
 mny go ' home." That Kshatriani having heard tliese words of Shri Gnsaiji. wtnt 
 away. Afttrwards, one day, when that Kshatriani was asleep, she dreamed a dream 
 in her sleep, that she had connection with Shrl Gosaiji, and from that very day, 
 that Kshatriani was in the family way. Afterwards when the time of pregnancy was 
 completed, she was delivered of a daughter. Slie was extremely bcauliful, v.'ns a 
 fountain of good qualities and was beautiful. Slie was then named Gangahai. Then 
 that girl grew up ; after which she was caused to tell her name to shri Gosaiji. 
 
 'J'ranshited hy 
 Karatan Dinanath, Translator. 
 Bombaj/, ISlh September 1861. 
 
 A narrative, related first of all, by the Shri Acharynji,* with his own "^onth to 
 the Yaishnavas, on a certain occasion and (afterwords) related by Shri Go,, naihji to 
 the Yaishnavs,| There was a I^hil| (and a Bhili) being two persons, husband and 
 wife. Thev used to go to a Jungle and to bring (fire) wood daily, and they used to 
 maintain themseb'es by selling the wood. Tl.ere was another Bhil, who was also in 
 the haltit of going to the same Jungle to fetch W' od. An intiihacy tlien arose between 
 the wife of the Bhil anl the other Bliil. At first, the two persons, husband and 
 wife used to go together for wood. She then fell in love with the other man. After- 
 wards that woman commenced going for wood to another Jungle, with the other (or 
 stranger) man, with whom she had contracted an intimacy So the wornan went with 
 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 
 rest themselves there. They did so for several days, when ■ being overpowered with 
 love, they took to singing. They then both got up from that place, and went to their 
 respective houses. Afterwards, some one came and told the husband of the woman, 
 that his wife lived (or was in love) with such and such man. and that those two persons were 
 in the habit of going *o such and such place in such and such dungle. Afterwards, one diiy, the 
 husband of the woman, fol owed his wife to the Jungle. The two persons went first, 
 and having gone there, they sv^ept and cleared (the s[)ot) all round the place of God, 
 that was th re, and then sat there in happiness. The husband of the woman then 
 witnessed while standing (there), all the acts of the two persons, and when the tvvo 
 persons had completed their worldly (or carnal) pleasures, the husband of the woman, 
 killed them both on the spot 'l"he angels of L)liarm;irai§ then came for the two 
 persons, 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 
 will moreover obtain better and a more desirable place than this (in the heaven)." 
 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 
 to ask for any thing they liked. They then having folded their hands together in a 
 suppliant manner) made the following representation : — " Maharaj, we have c^nrnitted 
 a very mean act ; what is the cause of your showing so great a regard towards 
 us ?" When the angels of Vishnu told them as follows : — " It is true you two 
 persons have committed a mean art, but you cleaned a temfde of (Godi, and Shri 
 Thakurji iGodi has favorably accepted the service performed by you, and therefore you 
 both have now obtained the best place (in the heaven.") " Having therefore become 
 pleased with you, I tell you two persons, that you may ask (for any thing you likej." 
 
 ♦ Valabhacharya, the foun'liT of the sect. 
 
 f Thf \7ors)iip' ers of Vishuu. 
 
 X A person belonging to a ■wild tribe in India. 
 
 ^ The deity that judges ^ioA and punishes the wicked. 
 
103 
 
 The t\ro persons tfien Said, " Mnharnj, if you are pleased with us, and wish to 
 confir a lavor, then we jt v, that we may be born in the mortal world, and that 
 we. liuvin;^ bfcome liusl)aiKl and wife, ■■...y s.rve yoii. Pray, favor us with a com- 
 pliance witli this ireciLU'st j" When 5-iiii 'i liakuiji Godi said " Go, your wislses will 
 be fulfilled." Then tlie two iiersons became inc riuite in this world. The man xvas 
 bora a son of a liaja and a woman was bcrn a daughter of a Kaja. 
 
 'I'ranslated by 
 NARAi'AN DiNANATU, Translator 
 Bombay, \1ih Nocember 18G1. 
 
 (10). — (Tran.slation of an extract marked No. 62, from a book in Brijbhasha, 
 containing the account of the eighty-four Vaishnavs.) 
 
 The 75th Vaishnav. A narrative of Krishnadas Brahmin, a devotee of Shri 
 Acharyaji,* the great lord. Krishnadas was living in a village. He was a worshipper 
 of Bluigvat (God.) There were five or ten Va;slmavs, who, on one occasion, were 
 going to Adelf for the pur|)ose of paying their homage to Shri Acharyaji, the great 
 Lord. 'J liey came to the house of Krishnadas. At liiat time, Krishnadas was not at 
 home. He had gone out on some business, and the wife of Krishnadas was (at home.) 
 AViien the Vaishnavs came to the village, Shri Krishnadas had gone out to some 
 (other) village. Alter that, she went inside the house, and began to consider as to 
 what she should do now. She tlien recollected, that the Banian iJainiaro ? always said 
 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 
 today, and will tell Irm, I will meet you today" — "Give me the provisions and other 
 articles, that 1 require." Having made this determination, she set out went to bis 
 shop, and having given a promise to hun, the woman brought all the provisions, 
 and other articles ; and having come home, prepared the dinner, and presented an 
 offering, of it to Shri 'Ihakurji ((lod) ; and havii;g removed the offering, at due time, 
 she caused the Vaishnavs to feast on the blessed food, of 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 
 given them fiod ; wlien Krishnadas inquired, whence she had got the provisions, and otlier 
 articles ; wlien the v.oman related (to him) all that had taken place. 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 
 wife j'lintly partook of the blessed food. Krishnadas then said to his wife : — " You gave a 
 p omise yesterday to the Banian, and the Ixmiaii must be expecting (youl, and that there- 
 fore the promise given to him must be fulfilled." The wife thereupon hav'ng rubbed her body 
 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 
 liuid on the road, in consequence whereof Krishnadas said, " if you place yourself on my 
 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, 
 and placed her down near the shop of the Jianian ; whin tlie woman called out to the 
 Banian, and asked liim to open the door. The Banian then opened the door, and took 
 
 * (A title applied to Va labh the founder of the Vaishnav sect 
 1 (Name of a towu.) 
 
the wetnjin Inside, and then brought some water to wash her feet with, when the woman 
 said to tlie Banian, my ft-et are not soiled with mud." The Batiian then said, " "JMiere 
 is a great deal of nuid on tlie rojid, and how is it that your feet are free [from iti." 
 When the woman said to the Banian "you had belter pro'eed with your bu iness," when 
 the Banian said, " you must till (me) the eircumstanfes" — The woman then said to the 
 Banian : — " My 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 
 whole subject, and asked the cause of it, and requested her t • tell him all ; when the 
 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 
 his hands together in a suppliant manner, saluted (her), and said '• I'ardon me my offence" 
 ' — " Kegard me with kindness" — you are my sister." 
 
 Translated hy 
 Narayan Dinanath, Translator. 
 Bombay, ZOlh November \^\. 
 
 ^11.) — (Translation of extracts, marked No. ' 58,' 59," 60,' and 61,' from a book in 
 Bridbhasha, called the Vachnamral* of the Pushtimarg"-|- of iSlui Gocalnatliji.j 
 
 (No. 58. 7'aye 9.J 
 
 tie who getting angry, in his heart, maligns (hisi Guru, J and utters harsh terras 
 towards (his) Guru, | becomes dumb and after tiiat he becomes a serpent. He is then 
 born a creature of the region of the vegetable kingdom and after that, he is born a 
 creature of' the region of the dead, {or Ghtet.) 
 
 (,No. 59. Page 10.) 
 
 As he (Vaishnav) remembers Shi Bhagvan (Godl, in the same way, he remem- 
 bers and repeats in his mind the name of his Gurii J 
 
 {No. 60. Page 12.) 
 
 One having become a Taishnav,§ should not see faults of (or in) others. He 
 should not hear them with (his) ears. Even if he should see them with (his) eyes, 
 and hear them with (hisi ears, still he should not consider any thing of them in (his) 
 niitid. He understands >or says to himself' as follows : — '' I, who have fallen into 
 this Avidya (ignorance), in the form of maya (uelusion), see nothing but the faults ; 
 (but) there is not a particle of fault therein." 
 
 {No. 61. Page. 20.) 
 
 He does not consider himself happy, hy the acquisition of any thing. By hear- 
 ing the Shastras of the duties of Grahasla|| doctrines, from any one, he does not 
 
 ••^ (Precept as Pweet as nectar.) 
 
 t (The name of the System of religious doctrines 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 himself to be" absorbed into the Lavkik^' (and) Vedik.f The moral precepts of 
 the Shastras connected 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. 
 
 Bombay, 30//t Nocember 18G1. 
 
 Translated by 
 Nauayan Dinanatii, Translator. 
 
 (12.) (Translation of an extract from a book in Sanscrit, called " Virchita Bhaktee 
 Sidhant Vivruti";}; by Shri Goculnathjee.) 
 
 Therefore, in the beginning, even before ourselves enjoying wives, sons, &:c. should 
 be made over ; [because oi] the expression " Sarva Yastu" (i. e. all things.) After 
 marriage, even betore, ourselves using her, her [wife's] offering should be made with 
 the view that she may become useful [to ourselves]. So likewise even after the birth 
 of a son, sons, kc. should also be made over. On all occasions [and] on account of 
 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. 
 
 Translated by 
 Vishvanath Xarayan Mandlik. 
 
 8M November ISGl. 
 
 (13.) Translation of Siddhant Kahsya. 
 
 At midnight on Ekadashi in the month of Shrawan Shood, God visibly uttered the 
 [following] 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 
 which owe their origin to time and place ; those described in the Vedas ; those which are 
 results of intimate association ; and such as are produced by contact. These sins are not 
 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. 
 Offerers, after making their offerings, should do with them what they like, such 
 is the rule. That oft'ering which has (in the first instance) been engaged by its lord is 
 not acceptable to the God of Gods. Therefore in the first instance in all doings all things 
 should be dedicated. That which is given should not be taken 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 
 thing should be done accordingly, ,that is, after dedicating it should be enjoyed, and 
 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 
 the quality of Ganga, so now that such is the case here. Thus is concluded in Siddhant 
 Kahsya composed by Vallabhacharya. 
 
 Translated by 
 Javerilal U.mesiiankak. 
 
 * (Popular doctrines.) 
 
 i (Ceremonial doctrines of the Vedas. 
 
 X A cominentory of Gokuhiatlijee oti Sidhant KAbsya. 
 
 u 
 
106 
 
 (14-) (Translation of a piece in verse taken from the first half of pageT65 of a manuscript 
 book of collection of various religious works.f) 
 
 (His) only firm support is that of Va]labhadliisha,J 
 
 (His) only habit (that) of serving (God) mentally. 
 
 (He is) one who has given up the popular and the Vedic (opinions) 
 
 A 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 
 
 [Translation of a piece in verse from the second half of page 63 of a manuscript 
 book of collection of various religious v^rorks.] 
 
 Of thpse feet the support is firm ; 
 Without the g'ory of the moon of Shri Vallabhas' nails, there [would be] darkness in the whole 
 
 world. 1 
 There is no other means in this Kali (yng) by which the solution of the problem of salvatioa 
 
 is obtained. 
 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 
 All [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 feet 
 on the heads (of the Vaishuavas.] 
 
 Translated by 
 Balaji Panduraunq, Translator. 
 Zlst January 1862. 
 
 •' One of these books is in the Guzeratee language, the rest are in Sanscrit and 
 the " Brij Bhasha" language. There are songs in the Gujeratee language sung by 
 the female devotees of the Maharajas : they are sacred, religious songs. They are 
 Bung by the female devotees when the Maharajas are invited to the houses of 
 Vaishnavs. I hold two of these songs in my hand. (Mr. Anstey read an English, 
 translation of them by Mr. Flynn, and puts them in as exhibits. 
 
 (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. 2. 
 Restrain me not. Oh ! my mother. 
 To pay my homage to him, daily I Avill go. 3. 
 
 As to the connectiouship, that of the SavalyaJJ is the only true one 
 (And) all others, appear to be but imperfect. 4 
 Him, who tells, may tell, we will permit to do so, 
 ■ And to them (with indiiference) we shall listen. 5 
 
 * i. e. Physically and spiritually, 
 i His, he and him given in brackets here, evidently allude to orthodox Vaishnava. 
 X Vallabhadhisha is literally Vallabh. superior lord, which according to rules of construction 
 may mean either, Vallabha, the siqjerior lord, or the superior lord of Vallabha. 
 
 I Lord of th-^ Gopics. 
 II If both is made to qualify faith, thea the line would run — he knows the twofold faith 
 of the women, &c. 
 
 ^ By women, ^c. are meant the Gopis of VriJ. ** An appellation of Krishna, 
 
 tf- This word may also be rendered " the best of men." it An appellation of Krishna. 
 
107 
 
 If to foreign lands, you the descendant of Vallabh,* should go. 
 
 And to (us) gentle women, messages do yen send. 
 
 To your commands, obedient we are. 
 
 Us, the suppliant, you have accepted, with all your heart. 
 
 Soon do you return. 
 If to foreign lands. 1 
 
 If to foreign lands. 2 
 
 A pleasant look, you the compassionate, by casting upon us, 
 Of our bodies and hearts, have deprived us. 
 
 If to foreign lands. 3 
 For your sake, the sense of public shame, I have not entertained 
 A great de.sire, 1 entertain for your feet. 
 
 If to foreign lands. 4 
 Many such intreaties, (your) female slaves are making. 
 If soon you will return, pleased will become (your) temale .slaves. & 
 
 Bowing down ? 1 
 
 Bowing down ? 2 
 
 Bowing down ? 3 
 
 Bowing down ? 4 
 
 The descendant of Valabh is the amorous Kana,t 
 Enamoured, he has made (us), in the roads of Vraj.J 
 
 See, sisters, the full moon -like face. 
 
 With his sharp eyes, my heart, he has enticed and attracted. 
 
 To that dear (soul) having become a female slave. 
 The public shame, I will now no longer fear. 
 
 Now, sisters, the household affairs, I cannot perform. 
 By seeing the dear (soul) my heart has become enticed. 
 
 A descendant of Valabh is the amorous Kana 
 
 The sound of the jingling of (his) toe-riugs has deprived me of my heart. 
 
 Bowing down ? 
 The very personification of God, you arc. 
 Having married (or accepted) the Valabh husband with extreme love 
 
 Bowing down ? 
 By our submitting to the Valabh husband, happy we shall become 
 By his association, the Vaikunt|" we shall obtain. 
 
 Bowing down ? 
 
 Translated by 
 Naratan Din'anath, Translator. 
 Bombay, Vlth November 1861. 
 
 ^16.) — [Translation of a song at tlie end of a lithographed Gujrati book of poetry.] 
 
 life of Vrajll ! I pray the. 
 Illustrious beloved one [source of} pleasure,'^ Moon of Gokul,*'^ 
 An invitation send with speed. 
 Without seeing thee, illustrious, beloved one, 
 Say dear, how am I to live ? 
 How shall my heart be restrained ? 
 
 [My] eyes wi'th tears are suffused [0 Life of] Vraj ! 1 
 Hearken attentively to [my] prayer, revered mother Jamna, fr 
 The pangs of separation are un(ndurable, 
 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. 
 
 X A city in Upper India. | TJie paradise of Vishnu. 
 
 II [Vraj signifies a village or station of cowherds. Kn'^hna the Eighth incarnation of the 
 Hindu deity. Vishnu is here addressed as the chief of the Cowherds ] 
 
 ^ The expression Vallahhananda in the text, rendered in the second line by " beloved one 
 [source of] pleasure," may also be translated child [or Children] of Vallabh ; but the song is 
 evidently addressed io Krishna.] 
 
 ** [The name of the village at which Krishna was brought up.] 
 f-f [The name of the river hero personified as a goddess, on the banks of which the village 
 •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. 
 
 Be merciful, Lord of the lowly and destitute ! 
 
 Otherwise I will put off this earthly tenement. 
 
 Life of Vraj ! An invitation send. 4 
 
 1 want a resting place amidst the jasmine [bowers] of Vra, 
 That always exist in the town of Gokul, 
 
 On the banks of the Kaliudri,t 
 At the landing place of Thakarani,t 
 
 Life of Vraj ! An invitation send. 5 
 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, 
 
 Of Life of Vraj ! An invitation send ! 6 
 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 
 
 Life ot Vraj. I beseech thee ! 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 
 
 A true translation. 
 J. Flynn, Chief Translator. 
 Supreme Court, Translator's Office, 3lst October 18G1. 
 
 " Three of these songs were printed at the Bombay " Union Press" the property of the 
 'CO-defendant. It is said in these songs that Kann or Krishna (the Maharaj) is the 
 descendant of Vallubh. That is the beHef entertained by the sect. I am somewhat 
 famiUar with and k:;OW the history of Krishna. He is the subject of several " avtars" 
 (incarations,) God (Krishna) came to this eaith in the shape ot man ; and 16,000 " Gopees" 
 " female cow-herds obtained salvation by falling in love with Krishna, " Ras Lila'" 
 nieans amorous and wanton sport with women. (Witness reads the ditTerent meanings 
 •of the word ' Lila' from the late Horace Hayman "Wilson's Sanscrit and English 
 dictionary.) There is no sport imputed to Krishna, which is not amorous sport. When 
 a Maharaja dies, he is said to extend his journey to the other world in amorous 
 sport. The Maharajas have neglected the instruction of the sect in their peculiar 
 doctrines. In the strict sense of the word, they are not the preceptors of religion. 
 The vow (or " kanthee") is applied to males and females at the age of eight or ten. 
 Both in the songs and in the vow, reference is made to tioi, viun, and dhuu, (body, 
 mind and property.) A person who makes a vow to give all his " dhun," binds 
 himself to give his property, his wife, his son, and his daughter to the Maharaj or 
 Thackooriee. I have heard of in&tances in which these offerings have been practically 
 made by the most devoted followers of the Maharajas. It is a matter of general 
 reputation in the sect that all the Maharajas have carnal intercourse with the wives 
 and daughters of their more zealous devotees, Girls are sent to the Maharajas before 
 being touched by their husbands. I know of such instances. The knowledge of these 
 practices, among the sect does not in any way diminish the influence and respect of 
 the Maharajas. Within the period of my recollection, the Bhattia caste, 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 to these practices of the j\Iaharajas. 
 In 1855 the Bhattias convened a meeting of the caste, at which it was resolved that 
 females should not be allowed to visit the Maharajas unless at certain fixed hours, 
 when they may not have any opportunities for carnal intercourse with the Maharajas. 
 According to the Hindoo religion, the laws of God are unalterable, as regards morality, 
 piety, &c. It is considered a sin to act contrary to them. Adultery is a great sin. 
 Handling the breasts of females and throwing " gulal" on their persons is considered 
 as a sin equal to adultery, according to the Shastras. " Red powder" (gulal) is a 
 sign of a bad design, of an adulterous character. During the Holee holidays, the 
 Maharaj throws [ndal on the breasts of female and male devotees, and directs the current 
 of some water of a yellow colour from a syringe upon the breasts of females. During the 
 " Eas'" festival, wives and husbands collect promiscuously in a room, and have carnal 
 intercourse promiscuously among them. The " Ras" festival is held unto three or four 
 times in a month. The Maharaj has actual sexual intercourse with many women, and 
 is called the husband of many women. I used the passage in the libel, " You 
 Maharajas, acting up to the doctrines of that commentary," kc, in a hypothetical 
 sense, and with no other meaning. I am not ashamed to say there was a time when 
 I followed the doctrines of the Vallabhacharya religion more strictly than I do now. I 
 and others have prosecuted enquiries on the subject of the religion of our sect. The 
 views of our small party were directed towards the doctrines as well as towards the 
 history of the religion. In my sect, particularly, our larbours have been rewarded with 
 abuses. I was an author and a journalist before I became a reformer. The tyranny 
 and evil practices of the Maharaj's induced me to write against them. Besides my 
 own works, there were pamphlets, books, placards, &c., published in different languages 
 to expose the practices of the Maharajas. They were published long before my time, 
 and one of them was a drama written 250 years ago. There was no prosecution for 
 libel by a Maharaj except this. My object in writing was to get the Maharajas 
 reformed. The plaintiff had organs to oppose us. One of them was the Vishnoo Punch 
 newspaper, patronized by plaintiff ; another was the religious pamphlet edited by plaintiff 
 himself. Plaintiff wrote several times letters to the Chabook and Sati/a Prakash and 
 other newspapers. The communications were made to me through Goverdhundas, plain- 
 tiff's secretary. Plaintiff has been in Bombay for some years past ; he returned to 
 Surat last year. He showed great interest on the subjects of female education and 
 widow re-marriage. Subsequently, at a public meeting, plaintiff declared himself ao-ainst 
 re-marriage. From that time, he became unfriendly to me, and discussed with me, 
 through the publications, the questions of re-marriage and the creed of Vallubh. These 
 are the pamphlets in which the discussion was conducted by plaintiff. 
 
 (17.) — (Translation of a passage at the end (page 23 and 24) of a Gujerati printed 
 periodical, entitled, " The Propagator of our Religion and the Annihilator of Doubt.") 
 
 Thus comparing the antecedent and subsequent connection (i. e. the context) of the 
 Shastras, whatever meaning is established that only is the true meaning of (any passage 
 &c. ol) the Shastras, and the authors of the Shastras have prescribed this as the sole 
 method of determining the meaning. Whoever, therefore may wish to write upon this 
 lecture should do so, by supporting his opinions by quotations from the Shastras. And 
 
110 
 
 whoever shall find fault merely according to his erroneous farces without quoting the 
 Shastras, should by all people be considered as unworthy of being believed. 
 
 A true translation, 
 J. Fltnn, Chief Translator. 
 Supreme Court, Translators OlJi're, 2Uh January 1862, 
 
 (18.) — CTranslation of a passage at Page 37 of a printed Gujerati book entitled, •' The 
 Propagator of Keligion and the Annihilator 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 
 published and made known to all the people as follows : — In the first number of the 
 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 
 the people, that whoever behaves contrary to the precepts of the Shastras, does not 
 acquire happiness in the next world. But in the Ten principles his own ancestor Shri 
 Dwarkeshjee Maharaj has inculcated that (we) should act laying aside the precepts of 
 the Veds. Thus he has represented to the people. But in no one of the Ten principles 
 is it stated that (we) should abandon the precepts of the Veds. Nevertheless this person 
 (the editor) says so. But as to the meaning of the Ten principles which he has given 
 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 of opium -will fall to the ground. 
 Although he may struggle with his legs, he will never get up. 
 
 Of this description is what the Editor of the " Asatya Prakash"* says. But as the 
 light of the fire fly is rendered nought before that of the sun, so in regard to Brahm 
 (i. e. the universal soul) will his false meaning be nullified before the true meanincr. 
 Of that he has no conception at all. In these Ten principles of the way of strengthening 
 (Devotion, &c.) Shri Harirayji has benefited all by giving (them) the essence of the 
 Veds and Shastras. On these same Ten Principles Shri Dwarkeshji Maharaj has 
 composed a short st'^nza. Therefore O Vaishnavs do you behold what is stated in this 
 (stanza.) The musical mode of (chanting) the Ten Principles is (termed) Prabhati 
 (Light). 
 
 A true translation, 
 J. Flynn, Chief Translator. 
 
 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 deception ! what rascality this (is) ! 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" is Light of Truth, Asatya Prakash means Light 
 of Untruth, 
 (t The meaning of Satya Prakash is Light of Truth. Satya means Truth. Asatya Prakash means 
 
 Light of Untruth.) 
 
Ill 
 
 mmediately understand whose is the deception and whose the rascality, Oh ! You- 
 (Vaishnavs) the more the calumniators shall dig into this way the more will the 
 people comprehend the strength of this way.* 
 
 A true translation, 
 J. Flynn, Chief Translator. 
 Supreme Court, Translator s Office, 2oth January 1862. 
 
 (19.) — Ti-anslation of a passage at page 25 of a Gujrati printed book entitled " The 
 Propagator of our religion and the Annihilator of Doubt" No. 2 vol. 2. 
 
 In (his issues of the 23rd September 1860 and 30th September) the Editor of 
 the " Satya Prakash" has asked Shri Jadunathjee Maharaj questions as follows : — 
 
 1. First question, you write that the Shastras, have been made by God. Then 
 of the four Veds you believe in one the Yajurved. That Yajurved consists of 101 
 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 
 be regarded as Gods. Having put such a question it is represented to the people that 
 he (the Maharaj) does not believe in all the Shastras, whereas he represents to the 
 people that he believes in all the Shastras. And this statement is such as the people 
 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 true translation, 
 J. Flynn, Chief Translator, 
 
 Supreme Court, Translator s Office, 2b(k Jannary 1862. 
 
 Translation of a passage at page 29 of a Gujrati printed book entitled, " The Propagator 
 of our religion and the Annihilator of Doubt." No. 2. vol. 2. 
 
 And the Editor of the "Satya Prakash" says that the works treating of Vallabh's 
 religion are kept concealed in the mansions, lest the Brahmans should refute them. 
 But this statement which he has made is entirt-ly incorrect. For these works written 
 in the (Brij) language are in the houses of all the Vaishnavs. But those 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) 
 Devout Adoration. 
 
 A true translation, 
 J. Flynn, Chief Translator. 
 
 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 " reformers," that is, I and my friends. I was challenged to 
 review the plaintiffs lecture published in his pamphlet. That was after the article, 
 containing the " alleged libel, appeared. Plaintiff called my paper, named the Satya 
 Prakash, (Light of Truth,) the " 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 is simply that of ignorance, for I shall give a short illustration 
 (thereof) as follows : — There are two travellers, of whom one has to go to Walkeshwar, 
 
 (* i. e. 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 
 way 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 
 does not wish to go to Byculla, go by tliat way ? Now, the established conclusion (from 
 this is that) for souls to go to different places there are various different means mentioned 
 in the Shastras ; consequently to whatever place a man may wish to go, the way to that 
 place he follows. 
 
 Written by Goverdhundass Gopaljee, Bombay, the 27th September 18G0. 
 
 A true translation, 
 J. Flynn, Chief Translator. 
 
 Supreme Court, Translator s Ojjice, lUh January 1862. 
 
 Eighth Day, Thursday, %th February 1862. 
 
 Karsandas Mooljee, further examined by Mr. Anstey. — (The learned conusel reads 
 from the pamphlets issued by plaintiff, passages expressive ot adulterous love for and 
 amorous dalliance with Krishna, personified in the Maharaj.) " From the measure of 
 enlightenment in my sect, I do not think it likely that they are able to understand 
 the nice distinction made in the concluding passage of that article, that is, the 
 Maharajas cannot be exculpated from the horrible doctrines mentioned in these docu- 
 ments, by the distinction in question. (Mr. Bayley objects to the question and the 
 answer. Objection overruled.) 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " That distinction is not the opinion of the less reformed 
 of the Vallubhacharya sect. 
 
 Witness proceeded to say. — " I think that the plaintiff's power, influence, and 
 respect have in no way been affected by the controversy or the alleged libel. They 
 are just the same. Before the commencement of the controversy, there was dissatis- 
 faction in my sect at the conduct of the Maharajas. The plaintiff had complained of 
 such conduct in a hand-bill issued by him from the Chabook press on the 19th Sep- 
 tember 1860, and circulated among the Vaislmavs. 
 
 (21.) — Translation of a printed Gujrati hand-bill.) 
 On the part of Shri Jadunatliji Maharaj a warning to the Vaishnavs.^ 
 By order of Shri Jadunathji Maharaj may it be known to all the Vaiahnavs as fol- 
 lows ; — The Lord has graciously given to them this human body. Moreover he has caused 
 them to be born in a high caste. And you have sought the protection of the sacred great 
 Lord. What a body this is which saves us from the pains of being born form of eighty- 
 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 
 
 * Worshippors of Vishmi [whose impersonation or representative is the Maharaj]. 
 
 (t Meaning that the soul of a Mortal who devotes himself entirely to the worship of the Deity 
 
 in this 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 you do not worship (the deity) Hari, 
 or call to remembrance (his) name. Observing this I feel exceedingly concerned on your 
 behalf, for after (the dissolution of) the body, what will be your condition ? And after (the 
 dissolution of) the body you have to deal with (the deity) Shri Thakurji. How is it you 
 do not meditate a little upon that ? 
 
 For some time (back) the people of Bombay blamed the spiritual guides (saying) 
 thus : The instructors of the sacred great Lord's (religious) course do not impart (spiritual) 
 knowledge to the Vaishnavs. " But after my arrival here, the reading of (religious) books 
 was carried on and the discussion of questions was carried on, in order that all the Vaish- 
 navs might acquire a knowledge of their own religious course. But no Vaishnavs came to 
 listen to that. Now what can the spiritual guides do ? In the Shastras it is said, when a 
 pupil being anxious himself asks his instructor, then only is the instructor to give 
 instruction to that pupil. But should he give instruction without being asked, the 
 instruction would have no effect on the pupil's mind. Such instruction is like giving 
 food to one who is not hungry to whom it is tasteless. Such is the mode of giving 
 instruction prescribed in the Shastras. Still I continued to hold discussions. However 
 when no one attended them, I caused to be printed monthly a magazine, in order to 
 enable the Vaishnavs to acquire a knowledge of their (religious) course and intimated 
 (that they were) to purchase that magazine. They were told to subscribe their names 
 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, 
 of whom 5,000 five thousand are Marjadis.* And the Bhatias assume the name of 
 " worshippers of Vaishnu alone," and are considered the chief of all the followers (of 
 Vallabh) of all these Bhatias only 100, one hundred individuals have written their 
 names and of the Banias 120, one hundred and twenty names have been written. 
 There are four Brahmans, eight Marwadis, and two Mooltani Vaishnavs. Out of the whole city 
 of Bombay so many names have been written. As to most of the names they have 
 been written by poor people. 
 
 From this it will be immediately perceived by all persons what sort of under- 
 standing the people of Bombay have. No 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. 
 
 Alas ! O Vaishnavs, you have come and sought the protection of the sacred great 
 Lord. Therefore I find it necessary for me to advise you to understand your (religious) 
 course. If you do not understand it, what will be your condition in the end ? Reflect 
 on that consi'lering you as my (disciples) I thought of imparting to you a knowledge of 
 your (religious) course through the magazine, for which, however, you could not subscribe. 
 Consequently it appears that you do not care to read even books relating to your own 
 '(religious) course. You will have indeed to spend R. | ^'^^ ^h^ magazine, but by 
 reading it you will be exceedingly benefited. In the first place you will understand 
 your (religious) course, as it is contained in the Shastras, by (understanding) which 
 you cannot be corrupted by evil company. Not only this, but you will be able to 
 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 
 deity) Hari. In consequence of that love you will obtain (the favor of) Shri Thakurji, 
 and you will be exempt from the pains of (successive) birth and death, and from the 
 pains of hell. Do you therefore open your eyes and reflect a little. You will not 
 again obtain such an opportunity of understanding your (religious) course. 
 
 Copies of the Magazine for this month of Bhadarva (August, September) having been 
 printed have arrived. Therefore every Vaishnav who cares to understand his (religious) 
 course, and who may care to obtain (the favor of the deity) Hari should come to my place, 
 and he is to take (a copy of) the Magazine, and write his name for a copy monthly in 
 
 (* A clas.s of individuals strict in observing certain ceremonies, &c. 
 15 
 
114 
 
 order that, that Magazine may be regularly delivered to him every month. Alter all, there 
 is the proverb (which says) that, " The master's advice extends as far as the gate, and as 
 is the food so is the belly." The 5th of the first A so Sud of Samvat 1916 (19th 
 September 1860). 
 
 By the command of the holy Maharaj, "Written by Vaishnav Gordhandas Gopalji. 
 Printed at the CImbook Press, Bombay. 
 
 A true translation, 
 J. Flynn, Chief Translator. 
 Sup-erne Court, Translators Office, l^th September 1861. 
 
 "Witness continued. — " Plaintiff complains therein of the carelessness of the Vaishnavs 
 as to religious instruction, and of there being only 100 subscribers to his magazine, 
 the " Propagator of our own Keligion," out of a population of 12,000 Vaishnavas 
 in Bombay. The bad company, alluded to in the hand-bill, are the " refor 
 mers." The person whose signature appears at the foot of the hand bill is Gover- 
 dhundas, the plaintiffs secretary. The subscribers to the magazine are chiefly of the 
 lower class. The Vis/moo Punch is conducted by some Vaishnav, under the plaintiffs 
 patronage ; and was so until the 8th November 1860. (An article in a number of 
 the Vis/moio Punch is put in as an exhibit. 
 
 (22.) — (Translation of portion of an Editorial article in a printed Gujrati newspaper 
 pubHshed every Thursday entitled Vaishnow Panch" (i. e. the society of the 
 Vaishnavs or followers of Vallabhacharya) dated the 8th of November 1860. No. 
 3 Vol. I. Page 10.) 
 
 Last Sunday at 7 o'clock in the evening the ' Vaishnav Dharm Prasarak Sabha' 
 (i. e. the society for the propagation of the Vaishnav Religion) assembled in the man- 
 sion of Shri Chimanlaljee Maharaj. On that occasion Shri Jadunathji Maharaj and Shri 
 Gokuladhisji Maharaj and Shri Vithaleshji Maharaj presided, and Bhatji Jumkaji Lai 
 Gordhanji and other members were present. After the proceedings of the last meeting 
 had been read out, Vias Jekisan Morarji delivered a speech as follows : — 
 
 " I intimated to the Vaishnavs before, that they should daily attend here, and 
 have explained to them our religious books which are read every day. But the 
 Vaishnavs have neglected to do so. Let i^that pass. Nevertheless I in my speech again 
 intimate as follows : — It will be exceedingly well if all the Vaishnavs will come to 
 this society which has been established. Behold for our sake Shri Jadunathji Maharaj 
 having taken great pains in order that we may acquire a knowledge of (our) religion^ 
 has arranged for the issue of a small book (i. e. a periodical) every month ; more-*" 
 over he has established a society for the propagation of our religion still you are 
 indifferent !" 
 
 A true translation, 
 J. Flynn, Chief Translator. 
 
 Supreme Court, Translator s Office, 24:th January 1862. 
 
 ■ ' Attempts were made to injure me, and to put me out of my caste, but without 
 success, as the castemen were affaid lest I should institute an action of damages. The 
 plaintiff and his agents asked the Vaishnavs not to subscribe to my periodical. One 
 Kanjee told me so. These attempts were made before this action was filed. I received 
 a notice of this action about the end of April 1861. I repHed to that notice in the 
 Rast Goftar and Satt/a Prakash of 5th May. It is the tyranny of the Maharajas 
 which makes the Vaishanvs obedient : they don't allow a man who has incurred their 
 displeasure, to visit the temple. Visiting the temple once in a day is indispensable. 
 
115 
 
 I have seen Maharajs put their feet on the breasts of dying men, with the view of puri- 
 fying them of sin. Eewards are paid for this, Es. 5 to Rs. 1,000. A penalty is attached to 
 the breach of the " Kanthee" vow. The general character of the Maharajs in my sect 
 is " adulterous" and licentious. The plaintiff is known to be debaucherous. " The conse- 
 quence of the Maharaja's practices has been general debauchery in the sect ; and great 
 scandal and shamelessness prevail. The dedication or bowing of maidens to the Maharajs 
 before marriage, has given occasion to these practices. The Maharaj is called, also, 
 " one whose sole aim is amorous sport with women," Certain portions of the sect, the 
 Marjadees, consider these practices as meritorious, and in no light worthy of blame. 
 In addition to Marjadees, there are the " Varkuts," who are considered the most 
 zealous of the Maharaja's followers. They generally act as procurers of women for 
 the Maharajs. Every Varkut is necessarily a pilgrim : they form a distinct caste. 
 The first thing in my studies, which arrested my attention, was the commentary of 
 Goculnathjee. The ten principles are explained in a Marathee book called " Kavee 
 Charitra." 
 
 (23.) — (Translation of an extract marked from a Marathi prjpated Book, page 96, entitled 
 " Kavee Charitra" by Janardan Eamchandarji.) 
 
 Afterwards, Vallabhacharya having invited his tenets with those of that System* of 
 religious persuasion, set up a system of religious doctrines, called the Pushti-Marga. The 
 ten articles of the principal rules thereof are as follows : — 
 
 1 To secure the firm support of the Acharya (spiritual guide.) 
 
 2 To worship Shri Krishna, is the only principal means of Muktif (salvation.) 
 
 3 To forsake the sense of shaiue, with reference to the public opinion and the commandments of 
 
 the Veds and Shastras, and to he supplicant to the Acharya for protection (or salvation.) 
 
 4 Humility towards God, and the Guru. J 
 
 .5 To believe, that I am not a Purush (man) hut a Gopi (female cowherd) of the Vrandavan. 
 
 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.^ 
 
 These are the principal doctrines of the system of Vallabha. He only, who con- 
 ducts himself 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 
 path. Vallabhacharya established these principles. According to those (principles) the 
 followers of the Pushti-marga are the only principal Vaishnavas (followers of Vishnu). 
 
 Besides this, there are strict words of command written in a work called the 
 Sidhant Eahasya, 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 of this verse — By those things being offered respectively, they are 
 transformed into the nature of Brahmajl and (thereby) five kinds of sins do not attach 
 themselves (to persons) by the enjoyment of them. 
 
 * The system described in the prececding paragraph. 
 t The deliverance of the soul from the body, its exemption from further transmigration and its 
 reabsorption into the divine essence. 
 
 X A title applied to Vallabhacharya and his successors. 
 
 I A title applied to the worshipper of Vishnu. 
 
 11 The divine essence. 
 
IIG 
 
 (Sansh-it verse quoted.) 
 
 Goculnathji has given explicit exposition of the sin arising from not doing as des- 
 cribed in this verse. It is as follows. 
 
 (Sanskrit verse quoted.) 
 
 To offer every thing means, that even our wives, sons, &c. should not be brought 
 into our use without oftering (or presenting) them. Regarding this, there are written 
 down other dicta and their exposition. 
 
 (Sanskrit verse quoted.) 
 
 The substance of this verse is, that liberty is also given to the effect that lastly 
 those, that may be incapable of performing this difficult act, should live (in the world) 
 by considering themselves as (the property) of the Acharya. We have thus briefly 
 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 
 equalling in weight his own body. With that wealth Vallabhacharya made ornaments 
 for fthe image of Vithalnathji (and) paid off his father's debt and retained (the 
 remainder) for (his) house* expense. He disposed of it in this way. 
 
 A true translation, 
 Naratan Dinanath, Marathi Translator. 
 Supreme Court, Translator s Office, l\th June 1861. 
 
 " The Maharajs also promulgated a new set of doctrines called ' Pushti Marg.' (Mr. 
 Anstey reads the principal doctrines of Vallubh, as illustrated by Goculnathjee) The 
 Seedhant Rahsia is written by Vallubh, and his grandson Goculnathjee, has written a 
 commentary on it. I had my doubts excited as to portions of the Commentary, which 
 led me to studies and enquiries, the result of which was, that I believe that these were 
 the real doctrines of the sect. I announced in my paper the result of my studies as soon 
 as I had satisfied my curiosity. I was aware that the females of my sect believed the 
 Maharajs to be incarnations of Krishna, and as the " gopees" obtained salvation by 
 falling in love with Krishna, that our females were bent upon adulterous love towards 
 the Maharajs. But I did not know that such doctrines were contained in any of the 
 sacred books of the sect, until I learned the fact from personal enquiries and research. 
 The Maharaj is known by different names, such as Agni Svaroop, Acharya, Gosaiji, Vallabhcool 
 &c. The Maharaj pretends to be, and is believed to be the personification of God. In 
 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 displea- 
 sure ; but the Maharaj can save one from God's displeasure. To believe the Maharaj 
 to be merely a gooroo, is to be born again in the condition of an animal or bird called 
 ' slchana.' The love enjoined to be cherished towards the Maharaj means adulterous love. 
 These horrid opinions are held wherever members of the sect reside : they are not 
 confined to Western India. They prevail at Benares. I caused a copy of this book to 
 be procured from a press at Benares. I produce these papers as specimens of the attacks 
 made upon the Maharajs previously to the publication of the alleged libel." 
 
 (These specimens of attacks, which were never noticed by the Maharajs, were 
 tendered as exhibits. Mr. Bayley objected on the ground that newspapers could not 
 be admitted in evidence, and that, for aught he knew, those newspapers might have 
 been printed and pubhshed by these very defendants. Objection overruled.) 
 
117 
 
 Witness to Court. — " These are hand-bills, newspapers, and pamphlets published from 
 1855-59. The purport of the attacks is similar to the purport of the libel, that is, 
 that the Maharajs are adulterers. I saw and read these different publications as they 
 came out. I am able to say that these publications were generally circulated and 
 read. I read and believed them to 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 
 the light, and have resolved to resist to the death, the inevitable exposure of the 
 witness box, which is sure to bring on them the detestation ot the maority of 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 
 contempt of their people, and their abandoned profligacy ; it suffices to tell the reader 
 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 have (felt) much pleasure in learning and feel joy in announcing that several 
 persons of the Hindu Community have resolved to be freed fri m the bondage of 
 their religious preceptors, and in order to adopt a proper course for the purpose of 
 preventing the injuries occasioned to their characters and various interests 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 
 and injury is occasioned to their (reputation for) intelligence, and a blemish is attached 
 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. 
 
 ********** ** 
 
 It is quite needless for ui to say that unless they break down the present 
 
 authority of their Maharajs they will afterwards repent, even more with regard to what 
 
 they now greatly suffer in 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 
 
 Thus very often they gave to their religious preceptors with great wiUingness 
 
 permission to destroy the reputation of their families, and thought it an act of holiness 
 sufficient to carry their progeny to the seventh generation in heaven. But all this 
 
 folly has spontaneously now been made public The meaning of our words is 
 
 simply this : that they should be backward in respecting the notoriously immoral, the 
 honor destroying and the unrighteous as well as improper commands of their preceptors 
 of religion." 
 
 (27.) — (Translation of a portion of an editorial article in the Samachar Durpun, 
 a Gujrati newspaper of the 29th November 1855.) 
 
 A 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 
 than (what relates to) the irregular conduct of the Maharajas. Should a Maharaj not 
 entertain the fear of God and walk in a crooked path and should he commit evil 
 actions then it is certainly necessary to punish him , 
 
 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 
 God's commands in the same way as they did before. Now their knowledge holds 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. 
 
 (28.) — (Translation of a portion of an editorial article in the Bombay Chabuk a Gujrati 
 newspaper of the 21st June 1859.) 
 
 According as education advances in India, according as we begin to reflect upon 
 the savage conditions (of man) our minds begin to be exceedingly expanded. The 
 cause of (our) saying this is as follows : — With regard to the Gosawjee Maharajs of 
 the Vaishnavs here instead of their giving instructions as spiritual preceptors, these 
 lords practise very licentious courses towards their devotees. This when viewed by a 
 savage does not strike him at all, but when rightly regarded it appears to be very 
 iniquitous behavior. These Maharajas seem to these Hindus to be pure incarnations 
 of the Deity but their actions are very base ; and their intentions are full of sin and 
 their conduct greatly transgresses all the rules of the world, and their religious practice 
 appears to be contrary to religion. In this respect their own disciples expose their 
 shortcomings. 
 
 (29.) — (Translation of a portion of an editorial article in the Apakhtiar (i. e. In- 
 dependent) a Gujrati newspaper of the 22nd June 1859.) 
 
 In regard to the various deeds done by the Hindu Maharajs and how far they 
 act contrary to the character of religious preceptors, there were carried many general 
 discussions which the young men have now begun to publish by means of books from 
 which good consequences are expected to result. 
 
 It is proper to know the opinion 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 
 authority of spiritual preceptors and licentious preceptors." The mansion of the Hindu 
 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 
 
119 
 
 of his body are the tenements of evil passions, every particle of his person is replete 
 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, 
 or should a nautchj of a courtesan take place (there) ? Is it worthy of a Maharaj to give 
 encouragement to courtesans ? Because one Maharaj has performed such an unworthy act 
 in his own Mandir should not another Maharaj § question jj (him) ? We recommend the 
 Vaishnav community to consider those questions. It is necessary for them to direct their 
 attention to those questions. They should direct (their) attention to the present state of the 
 Maharajas. They should make their Maharajas act in a proper way. The Maharajas act 
 just as they think (proper). This should be put a stop to at once. If the Gujrati com- 
 munity direct (their) attention in a proper manner, towards the conduct of their Maharajas 
 their spiritual guides will conduct themselves according to their religion. Should any Maharaj 
 not conduct himself properly, he should be turned out of his Office. 
 
 (31.) — (Translation of a passage at page 13 of a printed Gujrati book entitled 
 " A Treatise concerning Licentious 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 pro- 
 cure other people's wives. Although the wives of the Maharajas are not for the most part 
 very beautiful, yet they keep them in privacy.^ In the service of those wives there are 
 several widows and married women. By means of such men or women appointed for those 
 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 
 of love, they are called by the Maharajas winking at them. When called by a Maharaj 
 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 of a portion of a Gujrati book of poetry entitled " Whips for 
 the Hindu Maharajs.) 
 
 Chorus. 
 
 I have wituessed the deception of the Maharajs ; 
 
 Now women let none (of you) go to the (Maharajs) Mansions 
 
 1. Sending for females of tender age 
 
 They give them sweetmeats as tokens of favor. 
 
 Showing them (a.s) examples (the action, &c.) of Kan andff the Gopis^J 
 
 * Hindu religious preaching. f Temple. | Dance. 
 
 I High priest. || Or bring him to an account. 
 
 ^ i. e. concealed from the public gaze. 
 
 ■** The 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. 
 
120 
 
 They cause Kandev* 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) 
 
 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. 
 
 Behold what rascality this is, I have (&c.) 
 
 (33.) — (Translation of a portion of a printed Gujrati handbill printed at the Baft 
 Askdrd Press in 1855.) 
 
 'ar 
 
 Gentle readers, do you attend. Behold ! how the banners of the Maharaj's good 
 conduct and understanding, are flying. And he writes. " As for coming to the meeting, 
 it is not my custom at all." Behold then ! O behold ! does he write correctly when he 
 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 are only some attacks amongst many. I know what the 
 " slavery bond" was. The temples were closed for a week to force parties to sign the 
 bond, and the person signing it bound himself not to write anything against the 
 Maharajas, nor attempt to procure his attendance at the Surpeme Court. One of its 
 objects was to excommunicate me, in which they failed. The bond is still binding, 
 and I have read in it that persons not obeying it shall be guilty of a crime against 
 religion. I have seen the females bow to the Maharajas, at the time of worship in 
 the temples, and I have seen the Maharajas touch the toes of females of whom they 
 are fond. Touching the toe is indicative of a desire for carnal intercourse. The 
 females go into the zenana, and the Maharajas go after them. I have seen the managers 
 of the Maharajas giving water to Vaishnavs to drink, the water which fell from the 
 Maharaj's " lungotee." I have seen the leavings of the Maharaj's food eaten by some 
 Vaishnavs. When the Maharaj walks on foot, males and females follow him in the 
 streets. I have seen the " Ten Principles" in two other books, one in verse and the 
 other in prose. 
 
 Ninth Dmj, Friday, Itli February, 1862. 
 
 (Mr. Spencer Compton read English translations of passages from the sacred books 
 of the Vallabhacharya sect, which were put in as exhibits the previous day. These 
 passages support the pleas set forth by the defendants, and allude to the horrible 
 doctrines of the sect as mentioned therein. 
 
 * The name of the Hindu cupid or god of love. 
 
 t This alludes to a practice at the Holi festival when persons amuse themselves by filling syringes 
 squirts with a yellow fluid and discharging them at one another. 
 
121 
 
 Karsandas Mooljee, cross-examined by Mr. Bay ley.— "I first became acquainted with 
 the plaintiff in the year 1860, but have never been in his company, nor even spolcen 
 to him in my life. He has no temple in Bombay. Maharajas having no temples of 
 their own, go to the temples belonging to other Maharajas. I have no ocular knowledge 
 of any improprieties committed by plaintiff, but have had in respect to others, when 
 I used to visit the temples about ten or eleven years ago. I have observed the impro- 
 prieties of Jeewunjee, the head Maharaj. I have not been to the temples, I believe, 
 since 1848, because I knew that the Maharaja's conduct was blame- worthy. I mean 
 improprieties to the extent of pressing the toes of females by Jeewunjee Maharaj. I 
 went once a week every Sunday, to Jeewunjee's temple. The temple consists of two 
 parts, and I have seen both, I saw the toes of the females pressed three or four 
 times when I myself went to touch the Maharaj's toes. I did not mark this 
 when I was young, that is, under fifteen. This circumstance, combined with their 
 general reputation as regards adultery, made me secede from the Maharajas. Jeewunjee 
 is still my gooroo, but I have stopped visiting him. I have a daughter round whose 
 neck I put a " kanthee" myself according to the ceremonial forms of my sect. Many 
 Vaishnas have put " kanthees" with their own hands round the necks of their 
 children. There may be two hundred reformers among the Vaishnas at the utmost. 
 When I say all the Maharajas have carnal intercourse with the daughters and wives 
 of their devotees, and that maidens are first sent to the Maharajas after their mar- 
 riage, I say so from general reputation. Besides pi-essing the toes, I have seen the 
 Maharajs throwing golal on the breasts of females during the Holee festival in different 
 years, when all the men and women were in the temple. It was golal which had 
 been offered to the idol, and is considered holy by the people. The golal was some- 
 times thrown in balls, which where pointedly thrown at the breasts of females. I 
 received spiritual instruction from the Maharaj once in my life when the " kanthee" 
 was put round my neck. These sacred books are the property of two of my friends 
 and of Eamlall Thackorseydas. I found out the particular passages with the assistance 
 of one Mathooradassdas. I was acquainted with these passages before the time of the 
 alleged libel. I said there are about a hundred sects in India, but I don't think the 
 old religion is represented by any one sect at present. Some of the sects follow the 
 old religion more or less. The Vallabhacharya sect professes to follow the old reli- 
 gion, but I am not certain whether it does. It differs widely in its doctrines from 
 those of the old religion, and conceives itself to be far superior to all other sects. 
 The number of the Vallabhacharyas in Bombay may be thirty or forty thousand ; they 
 extend from here to the Ganges and to Agra, but not uninterruptedly. I heard six or 
 seven years ago that the Maharajs were excommunicated by the Telinga Brahmins. 
 I think it is the general belief in the sect that Vallabh was a Telinga Brahmin and 
 was outcasted. Telinga is a province in the Madras Presidency. The Telinga Brah- 
 mins form a large body in Telinga as in other parts of India, and are the worshippers 
 of Shiva. They are like any other Brahmins in any other part of India. The 
 Vaishanavs and the Shivas are " at daggers drawn." Luxmon Bhatt, the father of 
 Vallabh, was excommunicated by his own castemen for founding a new creed. Menu 
 and other books are considered to be of divine origin. The story of the " gopees" 
 and the incarnations of Vishnoo are believed in by several sects, but are opposed to 
 the ancient religion. The Shaivites believe in the incarnations of Vishnoo equally with 
 IG 
 
122 
 
 the Vaishanavs. As far as I have read, all the sacred books do not contain amorous 
 passages. I am not aware whe'^^r Sir William Jones has said that " Krishna is to 
 this day the darling god of Hindu women." I have heard the story of Brahma coming 
 out of an egg after remaining three millions and millions of years. I do not believe in the 
 modern stories in books vvrhich are vsrritten after the Veds, which I have not read. The stories 
 are considered by most Vaishanavs as literally true. I was not present at any of the " Ras festi- 
 vals ;" it is a matter of general reputation, and is described by Captain McMurdo of Kutch, 
 in his work, on that province. Adultery is considered a crime whether committed by a " Go- 
 sai," or any other person. The instruction which Vaishnavs receive from the Maharaj is 
 only once in their life-time when the " kanthee" is put round the neck. In certain res- 
 pects the Maharajs are regarded as religious preceptors, but they don't teach more than 
 once in a person's life-time. Each family has its 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 when the Maharajs are invited to their 
 houses. I have heard the songs sung within the last year or two. I heard them sung. 
 They are sung generally among the sect. What I printed are not the exact words, but 
 the substance of the songs, which I got printed for the purposes of this trial. There are 
 many other songs of similar tendency ; these are mere specimens. The Brahmins are 
 highly respected ; they are not divine. The " amorous Kann" plainly means the jMaharaj ; 
 he is generally regarded as God, the Supreme Being himself It is not possible that I can 
 be mistaken as to the construction of the words " tun, mun, and dkun." " Dhun" means 
 property, but the Vaishnavs have extended the sense. I differ with the Chief Ti-anslator 
 as to the translation of the latter portion of the libel. The word " bigado cho" simply 
 means " defile," but from the context it is a participle and not an active verb. I had 
 nothing to do with the article which appeared in the Summackar : its editor was a Parsee. I 
 had nothing to do with any of the articles which appeared in other journals against the 
 Maharajs. I don't know who wrote the article against the Maharajs in the Bombay 
 Times. I have seen Maharajs follow females into their private rooms, — not the females of 
 their own family, who are not allowed to be seen by strangers. Plaintiff pretended for 
 some time to be a reformer. I have not read Goculnathjee's commentary in the original, 
 i. e. the Sanskrit. I did not intend to convey any reflections against the plaintiff, but 
 against the body of Maharajs. I have had no personal knowledge of the adulteries of 
 plaintiff : it was a matter of notoriety that he committed a rape at Surat. I heard from 
 a friend that plaintiff suffered last year from the venereal disease. 
 
 Mr. Bayley. — Who is your friend ? 
 
 Mr. Anstey applied that the witness might not be compelled to give up the name, as, 
 from the fact of so many " bundobusts" having been made against the defendant by order 
 of the Maharaj, it was to be presumed that if the name were revealed, the witness would 
 be exposed to importunities and menaces, and thus justice would be defeated. 
 
 Mr. Bayley objected on the ground that he had a very good reason for asking the 
 name, and that the Court cannot extend the rules of evidence in defendant's favour. 
 
 Mr. Anstey repeated that justice would be defeated if the name were given up, and 
 ibegged the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to obviate the mischief by a special 
 
.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 
 party 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 
 much inconvenience. 
 
 Mr. Bayley. — Who is your friend that informed you ? 
 
 Witness to Court. — " Am I bound to answer that question, my Lords '< 
 
 Sir Mr. Sausse. — Yes, answer it. 
 
 Witness continued. — " Lukmidas Khimjee is the name of the friend. I know nothing 
 of this, of my personal knowledge. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — The females go to the zenana, the place for the Maharaj's 
 family. They go to th„ zenana, and then into the Maharaj's bedroom. The zenana has 
 more than one rooni ; but I don't know of my persor.al knowledge. At the time I wrote 
 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 
 Hindu 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 
 of the " Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay," published in the year 1820, 
 He says : — 
 
 " The Bhattias are of Sindh origin. They are the most numerous end wealthy 
 ' merchants in the country, and worship the Gossengjee Maharaj, of whom there are many. 
 ' The Maharaj is master of their property and disposes of it as h„ pieases ;■ and sucli is 
 ' the veneration in which he is held, that the most respectable families consider themselves 
 
 * honoured by his cohabiting with their wives or daughters. The principal Maharaj at pre- 
 ' sent on this side of India is named Gopinathjee, a man worn to a skelton and shaking 
 ' like a leaf from debauchery of every kind, excepting spirituous liquors. He is 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 well-known Eus 
 ' MundUees are very frequent among them (the Bhattias) as among other followers of 
 ' Vishnoo. At these, persons of both sexes and all descriptions, high and low, meet together, 
 ' and, under the name and sanction .f religion, practise every kind of licentiousness.' 
 (Witness here '^ofmes the grammatical construction of the passage containing the libel, — 
 
 * You Maharajs !' &c.) I am sure that the songs I ' e printed give exactly the 
 substance of what I have heard women sing. Maharajs are sometimes called by the name 
 of " Purshotum," God or " excellent Being," or " Poorna Purshotum," perfect God, or 
 perfect excellent Being." 
 
124 
 
 Tenth Daij, Saturday, 8tk February, 1862. 
 
 (2.) — Dr. John Wilson, examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am an ordained minister of the Free 
 Church of Scotland, and a graduate of the University of Edinburgh. I came out to this 
 country in 1829. My professional duties as a missionary led me to the study of some 
 of the eastern languages : I know the Sanskrit, the Zend, and to a certain extent the 
 P ehlvi. I have some acquaintaince with the Prakrit languages and the Brig Bhasha, in 
 b3 th its forms, I have presided at the examinations in languages of gentlemen of the 
 Services. I was offered the office of Translator to Government, but declined it. I am a 
 m ember of the Koyal Society of Great Britain and Ireland, and a member of the Bombay 
 Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. For seven years I was its president, and since 1842 
 have been its honorary president. I am a corresponding member of several Societies in 
 Europe. I am the author of certain works of the ancient Hindu religious systems, and 
 have prosecij^ted studies in the literature of the East. I commenced such of my studies in 
 the University of Edinburgh, and prosecuted them on my arrival in this country. I have 
 heard the evidence of the witnesses in this case up to yesterday ; but I was absent 
 yesterday. There is one sacred book of the Hindus called the Vishnoo Puran, a philoso- 
 phical and legendary treatise dedicated to the exposition of views respecting Vishnoo. I 
 have read it in the original Sanscrit as well as translations of it. The most ancient books 
 of the Hindus are the Veds. They are what is called " Srootee," i. <'., what is heard. They 
 are believed to be the works of divine revelation in the highest sense of the word. The 
 Vishnoo Puran belongs to a later period and is considered as authoritative revelation by a 
 large body of the Hindus. The Institutes of Menu are believed to have been written two 
 centuries before the Christian era ; the Veds about three thousand years before the 
 Christian era. The law books belong to the " Smriti," /. e., what is recollected. The 
 literature of the Hindus shows great changes of religious belief and practice. It is an 
 historical fact, that the more modern religions are less moral and less pure. Very great 
 changes have occurred in India with reference to the gods, positively for the worse, as 
 admitted by the Hindus themselves. Vallabhacharya flourished from the end of the 15th 
 to the beginning of the 16th century. I have read that Vallabh visited the King of 
 Vizianuggur about the year 1500 or 1504, and I found from the genealogies of the kings 
 of that place, that the King was Krishna Deva ; and that Vallabh received a large pre- 
 sent of gold from him. (Witness refers to an ancient Sanscrit drama he held in his hand.) 
 The dramatist distinctly alludes to the existence of the sect of Vallabhacharyas. (Witness 
 was about to refer to the contents of the drama, to which Mr. Bayley objected.) 
 
 Witness to Sir M. Sausse. — " I have not found any reference to the drama in the 
 s acred books of the sect. I don't now if it has ever been acted ; but it is the custom of 
 the Brahmins to compose dramas and circulate them among their friends. 
 
 The Court upheld the objection, on the ground that the drama was not a professional 
 treatise, and could not be recognised as an historical authority as to the tenets of the sect. 
 
 Witness continued. — " My object in referring to the drama was to show the existence 
 of the sect and its aspects to certain classes of India. 
 
 Sir 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.) 
 
 Witness proceeded to say. — " I have seen notices of the sect by Captain McMurdo^ 
 
 Kesident at Kutch, in papers communicated to the Asiatic Society of Bombay ; 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, for some time the 
 
 ecretary of the Society. 
 
 • Amongst other articles of the new creed, Vallabha introduced one, which is rather 
 singular for a Hindu religious innovator or reformer : he taught, that privation formed no 
 part ot sanctity, and that it was the duty of the teachers and his disciples to worship 
 their deity, not in nudity and hunger, but in costly apparel and choice food, not in soli- 
 tude 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 belong- 
 ed, he married, by the particular order, it is said, of his new god. The Gosains are 
 always clothed with the best raiment, and fed with the daintiest viands by their followers, 
 over whom they have unlimited influence : part of the connection between the Guru and 
 teacher, being the three-fold Samarpan or consignment of Tan, Man and Dhan, body, 
 mind and wealth, to the spiritual guide. 
 
 **■»*•»* -X- * 
 
 ' 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 
 shrine is modern, but richly endowed, and the high priest a descent of Gokulnath, is a 
 man of great wealth and importance. It is a matter of obligation with the members of 
 this seet to visit Shri Naih Dicar, at least once in their lives ; they receive there a 
 certificate to that effect, issued by the head Gosain and in return, contribute accord- 
 ing to their means to the enriching of the establishment. 
 
 ' It is not an uncurious feature in the notions of this sect, that all the veneration paid 
 to their Gosains is paid solely to their descent, and unconnected with any idea of their 
 sanctity or learning ; they are not unfrequently destitute of all pretensions to individual 
 respectability, bnt they iiot the- less enjoy the homage of their followers.' 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " From my study of the doctrines of the sect I am of opinion with 
 with Dr. Hayman Wilson that the sect is 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. The Gossavis have unlimited influence over 
 their followers, who consign to them their " tun, mun, and dhun." (An account is next 
 given of the services of the image, in which witness agreed with Dr. H. H. Wilson.) The 
 homage paid to the Gossavis is paid to their descent, not their sanctity or individual accom- 
 plishments. The most ignorant Gossai is reverenced by his followers. 
 
 To Mr. Anstey. — '"The drama I have referred to, is a faithful mirror of the doctrines 
 and practices of the sect as they prevail at the present day. I could not give a more 
 faithful picture, than by reading one of the passages which I have translated into English. 
 The conductor of the play says to one of the actors : — 
 
 " The Veds have fled ; lovely damsels now look to the gratification of sense with the 
 ' descendants of Vallabh ; the descendant of Vallabh is the kisser of females ; he feels 
 ' lust at every step for his large-eyed damsels. Offering one's-sclf and one's wives and 
 
126 
 
 ' daughters to the gooroos is in this world the only course of salvation. Carnal intercourse 
 
 • with females, dining and playing with them, is one of the principal offices of Krishna. The 
 ' nectarine pleasure of Shree Gocul (Krishna) is 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, is put 
 
 * on the record.) 
 
 The sect of the Vallabhacharyas is a new sect, inasmuch as it has selected Krishna 
 in the aspect of his adolescence and praised him to supremacy in that aspect. The sect 
 is new in its objects and new in its method. The god Krishna is worshipped in the 
 shape of images and the Maharajs ; both are believed to be personifications of 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 
 of Vishnoo, the last of which was that of Boodh The Hindus do not believe in any 
 incarnations which have taken place between the time of Boodh and the present day ; 
 the Vallabhacharyas, on the contrary, hold that Vallabh and his descendants are incarna- 
 tions of Krishna. They view the Maharajs as intermediate between themselves and the 
 God Krishna ; in the sense of receiving his dicta as equal to Krishna himself. As 
 between the angry God and the sectary, the Maharaj is the mediator ; as bet 
 ween the Maharaj and the sectary there is no mediator. There are multitudes who 
 believe the Maharajs not only as gooroos, but also in the light above represented. 
 The Maharajs are certainly not the preceptors of what is technically denominated the 
 Hindu religion. They are not chiefs or heads of any single sect of Brahmins. The 
 descendants of Vallabh are considerered as outcasted Telinga Brahmins. To my 
 knowledge there is no intercourse between the Maharjs and the Telinga Brahmins. 
 According to the belief and practices of the Hindu religion, it is not possible for Brahmins 
 to hold such intercourse with the Maharajs as members of one caste hold with each other. 
 
 • Tun, mun, and dhun' are used in an all-comprehensive sense : ' tun' embracing body in 
 all its relations ; and ' mun' referring to mind in all its mental faculties and qualities which 
 are to be placed at the disposal of the Maharaj according to the doctrines of the sect. 
 With reference to the third word ' dhun,' I have seen passages published by the authority 
 of the Maharajs, in which it is stated that the sectaries should make over to the Maharaj 
 their sons, wives, daughters, and every thing else before applying these things to their own 
 use. (Witness reads the translation of a passage from the commentary of Goculnathjee). 
 In regard to the Brahmin, it is said in the Bhugwut Gita that his qualities are quiescence, 
 self-control, patience, rectitude, the resignation of spiritual existence, &c. The sense of 
 shame and public opinion are outraged by the doctrines of the Vallabhacharyas. There is 
 no sense of shame in the doctrines of the sect. I have heard that the translation of the 
 passage containing the alleged libel has been disputed. I consider that the passage 
 should be read as : — ' Ye Maharajas ! when you act according to that commentary, or 
 upon your acting according to your commentary, you corrupt the wives and daughters of 
 your devotees, lift your hand' (desist.) The passage is capable of the interpretation 
 given by the defendant. The meaning to my mind, is that it is a mild expostulation 
 on the principle. I do not think that, in the passage, the plaintiff and other Maharajs 
 are necessarily meant ; it is probably a general and inferential proposition. (Witness 
 reads the translation by himself of a Sanscrit paper, in which a sectary says to 
 Krishna : — " I consecrate to thee, my life, my soul, my organs, my property, myself, 
 &c. 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), 
 its feelings, as also (my) wife, house, children, relatives, weath, and other wordly things, 
 together with (my) soul. Oh you Krishna, I am your servant. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " The passage containing the alleged libel is 
 ambiguous, and the composition is losse. I think the Bhattias, who read it, would see 
 the connection between it and the commentary. I am not prepared to state that Mr. 
 Flynn's translation is incorrect, but it might be improved. I have taken no active part 
 in the getting up of the case, except that I take an interest in it, I did not know the 
 defendant personally before the action was brought. I have not been in any of the 
 Maharaj's temples. I have no personal knowledge of the improper practices of the 
 Maharajs, but have heard a good deal from his followers. From the books I conclude 
 that the Maharaj and the idol are worshipped as gods. I do not think that the Hindus 
 worship cows and bulls ; they believe that the Deity is present every where and in every- 
 thing, and, philosophically, they believe every thing to emanate from the Godhead. The 
 books of Vallabhacharya are read by portions of the sect. Sir William Jones thought that 
 the time of Menu was about the date of Christ. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " I would not call the Mormonites a sect of Christians. The 
 Vallabhacharya sect forms only a portion of the Hindu religion. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — "I cannot say that any sect at present strictly follows the ancient 
 Hindu rehgion. 
 
 Witness proceeded to say. — "I know of a sect that holds doctrines similar to those of 
 the Vallabhacharya sect. This book (one of the exhibits) appears to me to have been 
 published by order of one of the Maharajs. There is no date to it ; I have come across 
 it in my researches. It appears to have been printed and circulated in Bombay, but I 
 cannot say to what extent. The word ' vishai' is not equivalent to the word adultery. 
 The caste to which the Maharajs should belong is the Telinga Brahmin. The third or 
 fourth in descent of the Vallabhacharya sect, I believe, is still alive in Ahmedahad, but I 
 have not seen him personally. There are a number of sects in various parts of India of 
 as recent origin as the Vallabhacharya sect. The words ' tun, mun, and dhun' have 
 nothing peculiar in their original meaning, which has been extended by the Maharajs. 
 The intelligent portion of. the Hindu community are making great researches in their old 
 writings. 'I have read some of the works of the plaintiff and formed a very low estimate 
 of them. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I have seen some very obscene conduct on the part 
 of the Maharajs, and have turned away -from it in disgust. I should have been pleased 
 to have seen a better state of things in this country. The passages in question were 
 
 * 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 to my notice by parties engaged in the defence, but I was acquainted with them 
 before. 
 
 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." The Maharajs 
 in a general point of view might be looked upon as preceptors, but not as preceptors of 
 the Hindu religion." 
 
 Eleventh Day, Monday, Wth February, 1862. 
 
 (3.) — Balajee Pandoorang, examined by Mr. Dunbar. — " I am one of the Translators 
 ajid Interpreters of this Court. I have rendered into English this passage (in exhibit) in 
 the Brig Bhasha. (Witness deposes to having translated into English several other passages 
 referred to and put in as exhibits.) 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Scoble. — " There is a dictionary of the Brig Bhasha language, 
 printed at the Calcutta School-book Society's Press, for the use of schools, to which I 
 referred for the meaning of some words. The Brig Bhasha is a composite language 
 containing some Sanscrit and some Hindu words, and some no doubt other dialects. In 
 making the translations, I looked more to the meaning of the analogous than to the mean- 
 ing of the words themselves. I have never scientifically studied the Brig Bhasha language 
 as a language. I have read some songs in Brig Bhasha. In the translations I confined 
 myself to the passages I had to translate. ' Russic She'romanee' literally means * the 
 head jewel of humour :' the words mean either intellectual, aesthetic, or sensual pleasure. 
 " Vehvichar bhav" means adulterine, not adoptive, love ; the first word literally means 
 admixture, confusion. The words are always used in a bad sense ; they cannot be 
 translated as ' exceptional or deviating love.' ' Soorut Aranya' means a forest where 
 sport is carried on between men and women ; the first word does not mean beauty. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I have carefully studied the passages I have translated, 
 and have no doubt as to the meanings I have given. ' Vehvichar,' in its primary sense, 
 means admixture ; and in its secondary sense, adultery." 
 
 (4.) — Venayeck Laxman Shastree, examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am a Brahmin, 
 and Government Shastree at the Sudder Adawlut, I come from the Concun. The report 
 is that the Maharajs are Brahmins, and I consider them as Brahmins. I might sit 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 
 but the Vallabhacharyas. I know the Sanskrit language, and have seen and read some of 
 the sacred books. All religious sects of the Hindus are derived from the ancient religion, 
 and profess to be guided by its principles and cannot therefore be said to differ from the 
 ancient religion. Each sect says that it follows the ancient religion. I don't think that the 
 Vallabhacharya sect deviates from the ancient religion ; but there may be some slight 
 difference. It is a sin almost equal to adultery for a person to handle the breast of 
 another's wife :" 
 
129 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined for the plaintiff. 
 
 (o.) — Vishvanath Narayan, examined by Mr. Dunl.ar. — " I am Superintendent of 
 the Special Income Tax Commissioner's Office and a member of the Bombay Branch of 
 the Koyal Asiatic Society. I hold the substantive appointment of Curator of the 
 Government Central Book Depot and Deputy Inspector of Marathee Schools. I have 
 translated Elphinstone's History of India into Marathee. I am one of the Konkanee Brahmins, 
 and am acquainted with b'anscrit. I have read some of the ancient books of the 
 Hindus. We have no intercourse with the Maharajas as Brahmins ; we don't intermarry 
 or dine with them ; because, as Brahmins, we have duties to perform, and to my 
 knowledge the Maharajas don't perform those duties. They are not preceptors of religion 
 to all Hindus. I am not acquainted with their caste as Brahmins. Every Brahmin, 
 according to our laws as laid down in Menu, has to perform six duties : — sacrificing 
 and assisting at sacrifices ; teaching the Veds, which the Maharajas don't teach to my 
 knowledge, &c. These are two out of the principal six which are neglected by the 
 Maharajas. I have looked at some of the books ot the Vallabhacharya sect. (Witness 
 refers to passages in some of the exhibits.) The Maharaj is in this passage described 
 as the lord, the husband of many women ; as one whose only object is wanton sport 
 with many women and the ocean of wanton sport with many women. One of the 
 books contains 108 names for the Maharaj, and he is described, there as equal 
 to the Supreme Being. I don't think that the Vallabhacharya sect follows the religion 
 of Menu, the most ancient religion of the Hindus. My caste, are bound to follow 
 that religion, and they follow it. I don't think the Brahmins regard the Maharajas 
 as models of morality at all. They have no authority in the Brahmin caste at all, so 
 far as my caste is concerned. The morality of the Maharajas was made the subject of 
 comment in some of the Marathee newspapers of Bombay. To my knowledge the chastity 
 and morality of the Maharajas are very low. Others have also a low opinion of them. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bay ley. — " I have seen the plaintiff once at his house in 
 Bombay. I may have seen other Maharajas on the roads. Once in Bombay, in the year 
 1858-59, I saw a Maharaj do an improper act, unworthy of his assumed character of a 
 spiritual preceptor. There were two persons sitting in a moveable swing among a crowd 
 of males and females, and the Maharajas (I think both of them were Maharajas) threw 
 golal indiscriminately upon all. The golal is not thrown only during the Holee holidays. 
 I do not recognise the Bombay Almanac as a book of religious authority. I considered it 
 an act of immorality for men and women to mix together purposely, and for the Maharajas 
 to throw golal upon the females. It was not an accidental crowd : the men and women 
 met purposely on the occasion. I consider the book of Menu as binding so far as it is 
 consonant with the Veds. I have been in Sind, out of the Bombay Presidency, and in 
 Kattiawar and Gujerat. Gossaijee and Maharaj are considered as convertible terms. 
 Gossai commonly means a man clad in reddish-coloured clothes. A preceptor of religion 
 must be a Brahmin ; and I cannot say if the Maharajas are preceptors of religion. I have 
 not heard that the Koncanee Brahmins are looked down upon by the Gujeratee Brahmins. 
 The fact is the other way. We dine with the Telinga Brahmins, but not with the Maharajas, 
 I have read the whole of Goculnathjee's commentary in the Sanscrit. I don't recollect 
 any particular passage ; I recollect the general impression it left upon my mind. The 
 translation of the passage in the alleged libel from the commentary, is not so exact 
 as mine, but I cannot say that it is a garbled translation. There is no mention of 
 17 
 
the Maharaja's name in the original : The original passage is in the passive voice, but 
 the agent is understood. The word " Soorut" in Sanscrit implies carnal intercourse. I 
 know Gujeratee. The word " Soorut" means a face, countenance, in the Hindoostanee. 
 It would have the same meaning in Gujeratee according to the context. I know the 
 defendant for the last two or three years and have taken an interest in the case as 
 one of the public only. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " The proper meaning of the word " reform" is 
 bettering, and in that sense I am a reformer, and wish to see the religion restored 
 to its pristine purity. I have heard the Maharaj called " Purshotum," i. e., best of 
 beings. This word in the commentary applies to the Maharaj. Goculnathjee's com- 
 mentary is considered a book of religion. (The Marathee translation of the commentary 
 is put into witness's hand.) I find a passage in the book referring to " Acharya," 
 commanding that all things should be in the first instance offered to him before being 
 tasted or enjoyed by any other person. From what I have seen and heard, I don't 
 think the plaintiff and other Maharajas specially qualified to be spiritual preceptors. 
 From the conversation I had with the plaintiff, I did not think he was a man of 
 learning, and as such, qualified to be a preceptor. I take no interest in this ease 
 beyond what is felt in it by hundreds of the public. (Eefers again to a passage in 
 the commentary.). The subject of my conversation with the plaintiff, was the female 
 schools and the meaning of one or two verses from the " Bhagwut Gita." 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " Every Brahmin is bound to be a preceptor ; if he is not 
 80 qualified, he is obliged to undergo a certain penance. Among the general class of 
 Hindus, every Brahmin is looked upon as a preceptor, whether he gives precepts or not." 
 
 (6.) Javeriial Oomiashanker, examined by Mr. Dunbar. — " I was lately one of 
 the Duxina Fellows of the Elphinstone College. I know Sanscrit. (Eefers to one of 
 the translations put in as an exhibit.) I made the translation of the Sanscrit passage. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley — "The word 'Purshotum' to whom that translation 
 refers, is the 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 : 
 nor the commentary of Goculnathjee upon the passage." 
 
 (7.) — Nanabhai Harridas, examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am one of the Translators 
 of this Court, and have made some translations of books in the Brij Bhasha language, 
 (specifies the translations.) 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — There are many works in the Brij Bhasha in manuscripts. Most 
 of the Maharcja's works are in that language. Generally manuscripts don't contain 
 dates. In this instance I have collated two manuscripts and the dates each bore were 
 different. These books are read by Banias who read the Balbodh character. I have 
 read portions of them. I am a " Kyast," a word derived from Kya," the body. The 
 Kyasts are followers of the Maharajas. They are respected by their followers and such 
 Brahmins as receive alms from the Maharajas. 
 
 To Mr. Anstey. — I find one of the books composed by Vallabhacharya. The 
 Maharajas are reputed to be outcaste Telinga Brahmins. A Brahmin out of caste 
 would not be reputed to be a preceptor of religion among learned Brahmins. I don't 
 
131 
 
 know what common Brahmins might think. There are some Brahmin followers of the 
 Maharajas." 
 
 (8.) — Narayeii Dinanathjee, examined by Mr. Dumbar. — " I am one of the 
 Translators and Interpreters of this Court, and remember to have translated some of 
 the documents in this case, (specifies them.) 
 
 Witness to Mr. Bayley. — I did not read the books before they were put into my 
 hand for translation. I visit one Maharaj Jeevunjpe, as a friend ; he is considered the 
 head man. I have visted his temple perhaps two or three times a year, during the last 
 ten or twelve years, I have not seen any improprieties in his temple. I have not 
 been there during the Holee, and have not seen any golal thrown. There are certain 
 occasions on which golal is thrown ; the Holee is one of them. There is no impropriety 
 in the act itself. I have not seen Jeevunjee throw any golal at dl at any time. I 
 never went there to see the idol or the worshippers. Gooroos are worsliipped by all 
 sects throughout India ; and all sects have gooioos. The form of worship is always the 
 same : they are not worshipped as gods. There are in my caste both Vaishnavs and 
 Shivites ; but none of them are followers of the Maharajas. I have read the commentary 
 of Goculnathjee since this action was filed. My attention was particularly called to the 
 word " Purshotum" therein, and I remarked that it applied to Purshotum (God) alone. 
 The word Acharya (gooroo) occurs in one place. And it is stated that the dedication 
 ought to be made to Purshotum through the Acharya. It is very difficult to say 
 what the word " Soorut" means : it means — " soo," good ; and " rut," attached. I am 
 not positive, I guess merely. I am not prepared to say whether or not it means 
 carnal intercourse. As to the name of the town, Surat, it means " Surat," good 
 town. According to my views there is nothing improper in the dedication of " tun, 
 mun, and dhun" (to God). It is enjoined in all sects. As to the ' Eas lila' I would 
 derive the word from " ras," an assemblage ; not " rus," juice. The word 
 " Kas," however, is capable of the interpretation of juice. I never heard of the " Eaa 
 festival." The popular meaning of " Vyabhichar" is adultery ; the primary meaning is a 
 deviation. " 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 
 not looked carefully at the passage containing the alleged libel. (Looks at it now.) I 
 would read it thus : — " Acting according to that commentary, or having acted according to 
 it, you (Maharajas) defile the wives and daughters of your devotees " There is not the 
 slightest doubt that the passage says ;— " You are defiling" that is the literal translation. 
 The following words are " take off your hands from it," that is, from the defiling, &c. I 
 have not the slightest doubt that this is the meaning which a person reading newspapers 
 would attach to the passage. The " Bhagwut Gita" is a book of very high authority, on 
 which witnesses are sworn, and is an extract from the Mahabharut, 1 have heard the 
 story of Krishna and his 16,000 wives, Vaishnavs of all sects regard him as a Hindoo 
 god ; his incarnations are believed in by all Hindoos. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — Well Mr. Bayley, have you any more questions to ask ? 
 
 Mr. Bayley. — I have several My Lord. 
 
132 
 
 Tioelfth Dcui, ThnrRdoij, iZlh Fehruary, 1862. 
 
 Narayan Dinnanathjee, re-examined by Mr. Anstey. — 1 am not a follower of the 
 Maharaj nor a Vaishnav. I am the only member of my family who is acquainted with 
 Jeevunjee Maharaj. My nephew Shamrao is assisting the plaintiff's case by desire of Mr. 
 Kelly, to whom he is an " articled clerk." I don't know if he is so assisting at the request 
 of Vurjeevandas Madhaodas. All the parties connected with the defendant knew very well 
 that I was acquainted with Jeevunjee. It was Mathooradass that applied to me first for 
 the translations, and he knew very well that I was a friend of Jeevunjee Maharaj. I be- 
 lieve in the Bhugwut Gita on which witnesses are sworn. I know Sanscrit to a certain 
 extent, but am not a very learned Sanscrit scholar. I have no doubt of the accuracy of my 
 translations from the Brij Bhasha. I have read four or five of the old Sanscrit dramas 
 which are extant at the present day. I cannot read them with great facility. I believe 
 the Sanscrit and Persian are entirely different languages ; I would not refer to a Per- 
 sian dictionary for the meaning of a Sanscrit word. I gave the meaning to the word 
 "Surut" according to the best of my ability ; since then I have referred to Molesworth's 
 Dictionary. (Reads the meanings of the word.) I meant to say in my cross-examination 
 that I had not, before the libel, heard of the " Eus mundlee" festival. I have heard of 
 16,000 married wives of Krishna, but I said I never heard of 16,000 " gopees :" he 
 might have had them besides. I translated extracts from Goculnathjee's Commentary, 
 which I had not read before the libel. I have seen pictures of " Ras lila." (Mr. Anstey 
 hands a picture to witness.) This is not a picture of " Eas lila :" I don't know what it 
 is. I cannot say if this is a picture of " Eas lila" understood in the sense in which 
 defendant understands it. I did go in once when worship was going on in Jeevunjee's temple ; 
 there is no prohibition. I never went to the part of the temple where women are admitted. 
 I saw the ceremony of waving the lights and the image also. I never heard of an accusation of 
 improprieties against the Maharajas. When there is no occasion for it, I would consider 
 the throwing of " golal" an improper, not indecent act. Throwing it on females I consider 
 it improper, rude, uncivil, and almost indecent act. It has no connection with the sense of 
 adultery. " Bhooka" means powder of every kind. I don't know what powder the Maharajas 
 mix with golal which they throw on females. Eeads from a sacred book, but is not able 
 to say if throwing certain powders on females is equivalent to seducing, (seduction). I 
 don't know of any sect, except the Vallabahcharya, in which there are hereditary gooroos by 
 blood or adoption. I think among the Shivites the head disciple succeeds a gooroo. The 
 Maharaja I am acquainted with is a very learned nian, but I am told he is an exception. 
 The other Maharajas are not to be respected for any learning. All Hindu gooroos allow 
 females to approach them for being respected by touching their feet. Some gooroos don't 
 allow their feet to be touched. I have not seen any gooroos throw golal upon females. I 
 have seen some females touch the feet of gooroos. I am speaking generally. In no sect 
 that I know of is the gooroo swung in a swing, or has his body rubbed with saffron- 
 water by males or females ; I don't know of the leavings of any gooroos' meals being eaten 
 by their followers, or the water falling from their " langotees" drunk. I have seen the 
 wooden shoes of some gooroos respected. The person who puts the sacred thread upon a 
 Hindu child, whether the father, or the elder of the family, or the family priest, is con- 
 sidered to be the child's gooroo. I cannot say when the custom of having gooroos originated. 
 I don't know if the dedication of " tun, mun, and dhun" is made by females to any 
 
133 
 
 gooroos but the Maharajas. I have seen the Marathee version of Goculnathjee's Commen- 
 tary- I think it enjoins the dedication of " tun, mun and dhun" to the Acharaya. I 
 understood the v^'ord " Purshotum" to apply to God only ; I don't know in what sense the 
 Valshnavs take it. Referring to the passage containing the libel, I do not agree with Dr. 
 Wilson that it is in the suspensive mood. I never heard of a suspensive participle. I 
 have not the slightest doubt that the passage is not conditional : I don't agree with Dr. 
 Wilson's version of it." 
 
 (9.) Mathooradass Lowjee, examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am a Bhattia merchant, 
 find am a member ot the Vallabhacharya sect. I know the Brij Bhasha, the Gujeratee, 
 and the Marathee languages. I am acquainted with the sacred books of my sect. (Xames 
 some of the books which he has read.) I am not able to read Sanscrit or Persian. I 
 have given these books to Karsandass for the purpose ot be ing produced in Court. 1 con- 
 sider myself skilled in the doctrines of my sect and the ancient religion of the Hindoos. T 
 heard the ancient religion expounded from the Bhagwut and other two works. Our religion 
 differs from the ancient religion. Idolatry is not enjoined by the Veds. It is mentioned 
 in a book called " Balbodh" that none would be able to read the Yeds in the Kali-Yug 
 (present time), and that the acts mentioned in the Yeds would not lead to salvation. In 
 a work by Goculnathjee it is stated that the Shastras are not to be followed which are 
 opposed to the doctrines of the " Pooshtee Marg" (the doctrines of the Yallabhacharya sect). 
 In our sect, " Poorn Purshotum," and his incarnations Yallabhacharya and Wittulnathjee, 
 are considered as God. The Maharajas are considered as those incarnations, and 
 are known as the children of Yallabh. Poorn Purshotum, Acharya, &c. There 
 are 108 names given to Yallabhacharya and his descendants, which names are 
 similar to the 108 names of the Supreme Being. Maharajas are called " Maha Prubhoo' 
 (great God) by several devotees at the time of worship. The major part of the Bhattia 
 caste worship the Maharajas as God, and also worship their portraits. Each Maharaj is 
 also worshipped by his individual name, and is regarded as God from his birth, without 
 reference to his subsequent character or qualifications. Yallabh is regarded as the incarnation 
 of the head of the Supreme Being. In reality, he was the son of Luxmon Bhutt, a 
 Telinga Brahmin. The Telinga Brahmins would not dine or associate with his descen- 
 dants. The Maharajas have about two lacs of followers out of some twelve crores of 
 Hindoos. 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 
 separated from Krishna for a long time. I dedicate my body, mind, wealth, organs, wife, 
 children, house, and all to Krishna." The Maharaj desires the person to repeat it to him 
 (the Maharaj). Children are made to repeat this " muntra," as also young girls and lads 
 on the occasions of their marriage. The Maharaj is Krishna ; and a Yaishanav dedicates 
 to him " his tun, mun, and dhun." In practice all a person's wealth is not given to the 
 Maharaj ! but as to women, he commits adultery. " Eas lila" means amorous sport, carnal 
 intercourse. This picture (an indecent one) is a correct representation of the sport Krishna 
 had with women. There are many such pictures in the Maharajas' temples. This book is 
 believed in by the sect ; it contains this picture, in which there are represented naked 
 women and Krishna at the top of a tree. One of the pictures represents the women, 
 shepherdesses, as coming out after bathing ; the other represents them as playing with 
 golal and the colour of Kessoora flowers (yellow) with Krishna. " Bhooka" is a sacred 
 powder called " abir," and is used with golal. The followers of the Maharajas, males and 
 
ir34 
 
 females, will, after death, become " gopees," for the purpose of having amorous sport " Kas 
 lila," with God, in which the Maharajs will take part and enjoy both as gods and as 
 gopees. The Maharajas, when they worship the image, wear long hair because they regard 
 themselves as gopees in this world. I had conversation with the plaintiff to the effect that 
 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. It was started by 
 plaintiff in the name of a society, of which he is the president. I received this hand-bill 
 at the entrance of plaintiffs dwelling-house. I have read it. I am known In my sect bj 
 the name of " Mathoora Punth," because my opinions are opposed to the immoralities and 
 adultery of the Maharajas, and as if I was the founder of a new sect. This is not the 
 case. From my infancy I was instructed by my father not to believe in the practices of 
 the Maharajas, which, he said, are immoral and adulterous. Many persons in my sect 
 know the fact, but refrain from avowing it for several reasons. Since the last eight or nine 
 years I have explained to my friends these immoralities. I respected the Maharajas out- 
 wardly ; my friends did the same. In the year 1912 (1855) a writing was prepared by 
 Bhattias to prevent females from going to the Maharajas unless at certain hours, and with 
 the view of preventing the adulteries. It was resolved that the writing should come into 
 force after a year. There was a dispute at the time between the Maharajs and the Bhoo- 
 leshwar Brahmins, and it was apprehended that, if the document was made public, the 
 Brahmins might obtain a triumph. The year elapsed, but the agreement was not brought 
 into force. Since this action commenced, a hand-bill was issued from the press of plaintifiTs 
 manager Purbhoodas, with the object of suppressing the agreement and preventing its being 
 produced in this Court. The Maharajas' adulteries were a matter of notoriety in the sect, 
 and there has been no improvement since 1855. I remember having been often to the 
 garden of Goculdass Tejpall with Khuttao Mukunjee. About eight years ago I went there 
 with him, when at the entrance we were informed by the malice that a Maharaj was in- 
 side with four women. Seeing us go in, Lukhmidass Khlmjee followed us. Goculdass was 
 in the garden opposite, knowing the Maharaj was in his own garden with the women. 
 We went in. Khuttao stopped in the dining-room. I entered by another door, and saw 
 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 in the act of connection with a woman. The other woman 
 was sitting in the room. The Maharaj was ashamed on seeing me, and put on his 
 " dhotia" (waist cloth). [Mr. Bay ley objected to this sort of evidence being gone into, as 
 the alleged act did not concern the plaintiff. Mr. Anstey contended that this part of the 
 evidence was necessary to disprove one of the allegations of the plaint. The learned coun- 
 sel would rely on the 7th plea, which embraced the practices of all the Maharajas. The 
 defendants' witnesses were challenged if they could name a single instance of adultery from 
 personal observation, and now that there was an instance, the plaintiff's counsel wanted to 
 stop the witness. The Court overruled the objection. Witness continued.] " The woman 
 was of the Bhattia caste and a member of the sect. She was about 25 or 30 years of 
 age, and was a married woman. I paid my respects to the Maharaj on seeing him com- 
 mit the act ! ! Goculiass was sent for ; the Maharaj gave him some sweatmeat and 
 pan soparee. The women went away, and a companion of Goculdass struck one of them in 
 the head. I refused to conceal the act ; I said I never would conceal such an act. There 
 is a club among the Bhattias of my sect called " Bus mundlee," of which the members 
 are very much respected, as they pay greater homage to the Maharajas and commit moi« 
 
135 
 
 adultery. The members would not admit a stranger. They go to the meeting with their 
 wives. I was never a member. 
 
 The Court rose at 6 P. M. The Court-house was more excessively crowded than on 
 any previous day. 
 
 Thirleentfi Bay, Friday, 14/// February, 18G2. 
 
 Mathooradas Lowjee continued. — " I have frequently seen females approaching the 
 person of Maharajas. I have seen ten or twenty Maharajas worshipped by females. The 
 females touch the soles of the Maharajas' feet with their hands, and then apply them to 
 their own eyes. I have seen females perform this kind of worship to plaintiff Several 
 Maharajas press the toes of their female devotees. I have not seen the plaintiff do this. 
 J'ressing the toes is a sign of a desire for adultery. When the females look at the Maha- 
 rajas, the latter make signs with their eyes. Accordingly, the females take this hint and 
 retire into a room. I speak this from my personal knowledge. (A packet containing golal 
 was shown to the Court and put in as an exhibit.) This powder is thrown on the occasion 
 of the Vussunt Punchmee (which falls shortly before the Holee holidays). The golal is 
 thrown by the Maharaj on the persons of such females as he wishes to gratify his desire 
 with. Golal water is also thrown by means of syringes, and the Maharaj takes precise aim 
 at the females. This is done with the same object and purpose. Females sing " gurbees" 
 (songs) of an amorous character in the presence of the Maharajas ; — such as " I was 
 asleep and you awoke me," " you will ease my mind if you will take me," " you are 
 my husband," and so on. The purport of such songs is evident as sung in the presence of 
 the Maharajas It is notorious that the Maharajas are adulterers. The plaintiffs reputation is 
 no way better than that of the other Maharajas. According to our Shastras, conduct such as this 
 (throwing powders on females) is considered equivalent to adultery ; and in fact, under the 
 head of adultery in a religious book, it 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 hus- 
 bands of females who sing the " gurbees" before the Maharajas. I first became acquainted 
 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, 
 Muggunjee, Dwarkanathjee, and Jadoonathjee. I have been out of Bombay, and have seen 
 Maharajas at Kutch Mandavie,' Beyt, &c. The Maharaj at Mandavie is Kunchorjee, and I 
 was also acquainted there with Majee Maharaj ; the widow of a Maharaj. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse remarked that since the Court rose yesterday, he had read over the 
 pleas of justification, and came to the opinion that the evidence, as to the individual acts 
 of other Maharajas ought not to be admitted, and that the evidence to that effect already on 
 record should be struck out. It would be struck out accordingly. It would be an injustice 
 to absent individuals to admit evidence of their guilt. Any evidence as to general reputa- 
 tion, would not of course be objected to. 
 
 Witness continued. — " Eventually ihe Maharajas refused to accede to my request not to 
 admit females into the temple unless at certain hours. The refusal was made after some 
 
• 136 
 
 discussion. I am unwilling to reveal what private conversation I had with Jeevunjee, 
 unless forced to give it out. Jeevunjee said all persons are masters of iheir own houses, 
 and adultery has increased very much, and it is difficult to stop it. He could not, he 
 said, remonstrate with his elders or with those who were superior to him. If he attempted 
 to remonstrate, he was afraid the other INIaharajas would not mind him ; and he, therefore, 
 suggested that I should secure the aid of Shreenathjee and Muttressjee-walla Maharajas. 
 Without their co-operation, he said, nothing could be effected. As the females were the 
 source of great income to the Maharajas, it was rather a very serious matter, he said to 
 stop that source of income, and thus deprive them cf the means of defraying their 
 expenses. He added that, like an opium-eater, a man could not give up the practice of 
 lust, and therefore it was not possible to put a stop at once to the practices of the Maha- 
 rajas. He advised me to have patience in the matter of this desired reform. I had 
 similar conversation with Jeevunjee on another occasion. I stayed for about four hours 
 with plaintiff at the house of Jewraz Balloo. He also sent for me on other occasions. On 
 the first occasion I had some discussion with him on the subject of female education, in 
 the course of which he desired me to do as he or the Maharajas directed. I said we 
 are not bound to do so, unless what you say is good. He said you are bound to act 
 according to what we say. I said I can show you precedents from the Shastras, upon 
 which he desired me to see him at his house. I said the Maharajas do not study the 
 Shastras and instruct their followers, as it is their duty to do. He said that was not 
 necessary, and that the followers must do what the Maharajas directed them to do. I 
 spoke of the desirability of establishing a library, when plaintiff said he had prepared a list 
 for the purpose, and ask me to procure subscriptions. I said I would procure the subscrip- 
 tions, but that the money could not be entrusted to him. He then said I and my friends 
 might keep the money. This was subsequently to the publication of the libel. The 
 Shankaracharyas do not allow women to approach them. I have read of the ten principles 
 in the Brij Bhasha and the Marathee languages. The doctrines mentioned in these corres- 
 pond in substance with those of the sacred books. The doctrines propounded in plaintiff's 
 works and Goculnathjee's commentary, are to my mind productive of adultery in the sect, and 
 lend encouragement to it. It is said in the " Propagator of Our Own lleligion" that we 
 ought to be in adulterine love with God ; in another place it is said such love cannot be 
 cherished in the Kali Yug. Of this two contradictory injunctions, the former, to my mind, 
 would have effect over a person's mind much more readily than the latter. The adulterine 
 love with God means something as the adulterine love between the Maharajas and the 
 Vaishnavs. The meaning of the dedication of the " tun" is that the wives and daughters 
 of the devotees are dedicated to the Maharajas. The seat or " baituck" of the Maharajas, 
 even, in his absence, is w^orshipped and respected by the devotees. I was myself present 
 at the meeting of the Bhattias in 1855, and took a part in the proceedings. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am not called Mathoora Punth because I have 
 founded, or am about to found, a new sect ; it is only because I have opposed the 
 adulterous practices of the Maharajas. I frequent at present the temple of Jeevunjee 
 Maharaj. I don't send my wife to that or any other temple, though it is the custom 
 among the Vaishnavs to send their wives. The wives of very few Vaishnavs do not go 
 to the temples. I do not worship Jeevunjee as God. The other Vaishnavs touch the 
 Maharaja's feet, swing him in a swing, a sacred necklace is put round the neck of the 
 Maharaj in the same way as it is put round the neck of the image ; they take up the 
 dust of the feet of the Maharaj and eat it or put it into their mouth. When worshipping. 
 
137 
 
 they call him Maha Prabhoojee. Purshotum, Vullubh Dev, &c. I can swear that the Maharaj 
 is addressed to in these names of the vSupreme Being, and not the image, which is in an 
 inner room. The Maharajas take their seat outside. At that time, the doors of the room 
 containing the image are shut. I have been to the temples belonging to the other Maha- 
 rajas ; the form of worship is the same in all. I went to worship the image only. I 
 joined my hands to the Maharaj, but did not worship him in any way. It is stated in 
 the sacred books that the worship of the Maharaj should be performed in the same way as 
 that of God. The Maharajas are Brahmins, and are regarded as gooroos. As Brahmins 
 they are not the preceptors of rehgion. A few of the Vaishnavs do not consider the 
 Maharajas as gods. I do not, but my brother does consider them as such. The dedication 
 of " tun, mun, and dhun" is not at present made by all Hindus. That after the dedica- 
 tion, the Maharaj can do what he pleases with females, is a matter of notoriety. I have 
 not seen any act of impropriety by the plaintiff ; I have heard. About four years ago, 
 on the occasion of the marriage of my daughter, a Maharaja was invited by the father- 
 in-law of the girl. A Maharaja then demanded a fine from me of Ks. 5-4 which I 
 refused to pay ; it was for my appearing in mourning. " Krishna Lila" means amorous 
 sport with Krishna, which commenced when he was 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 temples before males and females. Pictures 
 of this story are sometimes observed on the walls of some buildings, not on the walls of 
 temples. The women, however, are not painted naked. This book containing one indecent 
 and some other pictures was published at Ahmedabad five years ago : it is an abridgement 
 of the Bhagwut. It is recognised among the Vaishnavs ; there are some parts of it which 
 are recognised by others. It is certainly indecent to observe naked men or women on the 
 top of a tree. I have never appeared in that manner on a tree. I have not seen any pictures 
 in the Veds. The Maharajas wear long hair and consider themselves as " gopees" 
 (covvherdesses) in this world. It is so stated in one of the sacred books. The hair on the 
 head is worn by the Hindus not with the object that angles may hold us by it and pull 
 us up to heaven : it is to be tied up at the time of worship. The plaintiff is a mere 
 humbug when he pretends to encourage female education. I have heard that he opened a 
 female school in Surat ; and he collected subscriptions in Bombay for defraying its 
 expenses. At the meeting of the Bhattias held in 1855, several resolutions were passed, 
 one of which was to prevent females from going to the temples at night during the cold 
 season. The object was to prevent them being defiled by the Maharajas. I have seen 
 Goculadhishjee make signs to females two or three times about five or six years ago. From 
 their dress I knew the women belonged to our caste. The place in which the Maharaj 's 
 females reside is separate from the place where these acts are committed. I have been to 
 his bed-room, and have seen females going into and coming out of his bed- room. I have 
 been there only once, five or six years ago. He had sent for me, as there was a subscription 
 list to be prepared. Widows are constantly near the Maharajas' bed-rooms : it is their 
 business. I have seen Dwarkanathjee Maharaj giving a signal to a female to go into his 
 bed-room. On seeing me, he held back his hand with which he was making the signal. 
 She was asking something of the Maharaj, and the latter said " take this" — (Witness 
 explains the very incedent attitude and signal made.) The female was a married woman, 
 about twenty years of age. I once threw golal on the mother-in-law of my daughter, on 
 the occasion of her marriage. This sprinkling of golal was done with respect, not in the 
 way in which Maharajas throw it. On throwing the golal, T made her a present of 
 
 18 
 
138 
 
 money. 1 remember one Matoojee Maharaj held a meeting some years ago at Mahaluxmee, 
 on which occasion golal was thrown. In the island of Beyt, when the Maharajas throw 
 golal, they touch the females. Licentious songs are sung by females on occasions of 
 marriage ; but when they are addressed to the Maharajas, the females singing them wish 
 for carnal intercourse with them (the Maharajas). In some songs, on occasions of marriage, 
 the women on one side wish those on other side to exchange husbands, for the time being 
 of course. Such a thing is never done ; it is carried into practice only with the Maharaj. 
 I have seen the seats of Maharajas at Bombay, Beyt, and Mandavie worshipped by 
 Vaishnavs. If the Bhattias of Bombay were educated at all, such adulteries would not 
 prevail amongst them. The report in the Sati/a Prakash is not a full report of the 
 Bhattia meeting held in 1855 : the resolution about the females and the Maharajas is 
 omitted. 
 
 Ke-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " At the time of the Bhattia meeting in 1855, I read 
 the Smnmacliar in which the substance of the resolution about the females is given. It 
 is also correctly given in the Jam-i-Jamshed. (These papers are put in as exhibits.) The 
 resolution was not embodied in the report published in the Satya Prakash, because it was 
 not come into force until a year afterwards. I think the singing of licentious songs on 
 occasions of marriage is going out of fashion through the primary exertions ot 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 plaintiff said 
 he had opened a female school at Surat : I had no further knowledge of its being a fact. 
 There is a principal temple of a Maharajah at Beyt." 
 
 Fonrtemth Day, Tursday, lifh Fehruary, 1862. 
 
 (10.) — Dr. Bhawuo Dajee, examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am a Graduate of the 
 Grant Medical College, and a private practitioner. I am a prizeman of the Elphinstone 
 College. I won a prize on the best essay on Female Infanticide in Kattiawar. I was 
 a member ot the ' late Board of Education, and am a Fellow of the Bombay Univer- 
 sity. I am a member of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, the Bombay 
 Geographical Society and several others. There is a female school permanently endowed 
 in my name. I am a Shenvi Brahmin, and not a member of the Vallabhacharya 
 sect. I have obtained a diploma of the Grant Medical College. I have taken a particular 
 interest in the history and antiquities of my country. My practice extends amongst all 
 classes of the natives, and I was the first Graduate employed by the Maharajas of 
 Bombay. I know the plaintiff, whom I first saw about a year and a half ago, once or 
 twice professionally. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — What was the nature of the disease ? 
 
 Er. Bhawoo. — " Am I bound, my Lord, to name the disease which I came to 
 know confidentially in the course of my profession ? 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — It is a proper objection on the part ot this gentleman. 
 
139 
 
 Mr. Anstey cited authorities to show that the objection cannot be upheld. One of the 
 pleas asserts distinctly that the plaintiff suffered from a certain disease, and the defendants 
 were bound to prove it. 
 
 The objection was overruled. 
 
 ^'itness continued. — " The disease was syphilis, which is commonly known as the 
 venerial disease. I did not treat him for it, he mentioned to me that he was suffering 
 from " chandee," and would send a man to me the following day. " Chandee" literally 
 means chancre, an ulcer. There were two friends present. Mr. Lukhmidass Khimjee and 
 Eao Saheb Vishwanath Narayen, who retired as soon as the plaintiff began to describe to 
 me the disease. So far as I remember I did not visit him again. He said the story of 
 the case would be explained to me the next day. It was communicated to me by Gover- 
 dhundass, plaintiff's secretary and disciple. 
 
 (Mr. Bayley again objected to the witness entering into the particulars. Mr. Anstey 
 argued and cited authorities as to the objection. Witness to Sir M. Sausse. — Plaintiff said 
 to me that he would send Goverdhundass. The objection was overruled). Witness conti- 
 nued. — Goverdhundass came to me the next day, and said Maharaj Jadunathjee was suffer- 
 ing from chancre. I insisted upon an ocular inspection, and in the meantime prescribed 
 simple ointment. He did not send for me again. I have attended three other similar 
 cases connected with Maharajas. I saw Jadunathjee's father at Surat in December 1849. 
 I went to his house. He lived on the second story of his house. There was a private 
 staircase pointed out to me, by which a person could pass out without the knowledge of 
 those in the rooms on the first story. The plaintiff does not bear a good reputation ; I 
 have a very unfavorable opinion as to his character for chastity and morality. I have 
 known only one learned Maharaj : the rest are not above the average of ordinary Brahmins. 
 The Maharajas are respected for their descent, not for their learning. They are worshipped 
 as incarnations of Krishna. I have seen them worshipped. After the visitors have paid 
 their respect to the idol, they go to pay it to the Maharaj who sits outside. There is no order 
 among visitors ; there is great hustling and elbowing of men and women together. At the 
 entrance to the inner room, there is a railing on which two persons stand with large cords 
 in their hands. Accidents have occurred from the striking of the cords. I have known an 
 instance in which ornaments were lost in the crowd. I have seen the Maharaja's bath, 
 and hundreds rushing to drink the water dripping from his " lungotee." The women apply 
 their hands to the soles of his feet and eat the dust. In the compound of this (the Bho- 
 leshwur) temple, there is a one storied house, to which the Maharaj repairs after he has 
 done with the personal worship of the image. The devotees pay more attention to the 
 Maharaj than to the idol. There are two rooms in the house and two staircases, one lead- 
 ing to the temple and one to the outer gate. There is an entrance from the zenana into 
 the Maharaj 's bed-room. The inmates of the zenana have their faces always covered, but 
 the faces of the female devotees are uncovered. In this temple I have seen several pictures 
 representing the sport of Krishna with the gopees ; I don't think they were indecent. 
 About twenty years ago, I saw a Maharaj exhibiting indecent pictures to men and women. 
 His conversation was all about women : it was somewhat indecent. On one or two occa- 
 sions, a Maharaj applied to me for medicines which would prevent a woman from being 
 pregnant. I had conversation with Jeevunjee 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. A Brahmin has six duties to perform : — Sacrificing and assisting 
 at sacrifices, taking charity and giving charity, &c. The Maharajas only take charity. The 
 great majority of them are not fit to be gooroos. Their acts are inconsistent with the an- 
 cient doctrines of the Hindoos. A gooroo is a person who initiates a child : it may be his 
 father, his relative or the family priest. There is no mention of " tun, mun and dhun," 
 in our " gayetri," or verse of initiation, which is to be recited only mentally. It is not 
 innocent sport to throw " golal" on a female : it is considered one of the three forms of 
 adultery. (Reads the translation of a passage from one of the Hindu law books called Miiax)-a.) 
 
 The Law about Adultery is now told. [Adultery means the mutual connection of a 
 man with another's wife, (or the means of bringing about the connection.)] 
 
 V^asa describes three varieties of adultery, in order that the adulterer may receive 
 the punishment for crime of the first degree or for crime of the middle degree, or for crime 
 of the highest degree. 
 
 Fi)-st Adallery. — In uninhabited spots, 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, 
 and drink, 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 publish- 
 ed 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 
 translation. 
 
 Who ever touches, " the ends of the cloth passed round the loins," the cloth over the 
 breast, the thigh or the hair, or who converses in a solitary place or at an improper time 
 or who occupies one seat (with another's wife,) is also to be caught (for punishment.) 
 
 Manu. 6. He who with pride or folly or flattery says, that he enjoyed this female 
 before, that is also considered adultery. 
 
 " The word " lila" means amorous sport. The dance called " Eas lila" is mentioned in 
 Professor H. H. Wilson's dictionary and in the Bhagwut. I can best describe the way in 
 which the Maharajas wear their hair by showing a photograph taken by my brother (Dr. 
 Narayan Dajee). (The photograph is put in as an exhibit.) Except in one respect, the 
 way in which they wear their hair is peculiar. There have long been public discussions 
 and notices of the conduct and character of the Maharajas. The earliest bitter notice that 
 I saw was in the Dhoomketoo five or six years ago. I believe all the Maharaj as wear silver 
 toe-rings. This passage at the end of the alleged libel I would read thus, according to my 
 judgment : — " Oh, ye Maharajs, acting on that commentary, you spoil the daughters, &c, of 
 your disciples, raise your hands from that, and destroy at once immoralities like the ' Rus 
 raundlee.' "• I think that upon the whole " acting on that commentary" is quite positive. 
 I think " desist from acting" is the most emphatic part of 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. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bay ley. — " In the course of my private practice, I have at- 
 tended upon hundreds of different castes of natives, both high and low. I am sure the 
 
141 
 
 plamtiflf used the word " chandee." It is possible patients may be mistaken in describing 
 the symptoms of a disease. " Chandee" originally means silver ; it is 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 
 temperament. 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 
 generally. I heard from plaintiff that he had established a female school in Surat : he 
 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. 
 I think Krishna had no improper connection with the gopees : they were in love with him. 
 
 Mr. Bayley asked witness some questions about the Veds and Purans, when 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould said. — This is all very interesting, but we must really save time 
 in this enquiry. If we were sitting here to listtn to lectures on the Purans, surely we 
 could have no better authority than Dr. Bhawoo Dajee. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Anstey. — The story of the gopees and Krishna is not confined 
 to the Vallabhacharya sect. Uneducated persons take it literally, but not so enlightened 
 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. — •" I think the passage in question is directed as an exhorta- 
 tion to the whole class of Maharajas, not to the plaintiff personally. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " From 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 
 that it applies to the plaintiff. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " I myself understand it as a general exhortation, and any 
 intelligent reader would so understand it ; — I mean a reader of fair ordinary intelligence. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " The expression " adopt a virtuous course of conduct" does not 
 imply any imputation against the plaintiff ; it is an exhortation to set a good example. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " The exhortation 1 think is carried on from the commence- 
 ment of the paragraph to the words " desist from that." Nothing is imputed to the 
 plaintiff distinctly. I think decidedly that the plaintiff is not singled out. Any imputation 
 upon him would be inferential, not direct. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " I am of opinion that it is not intended against the plaintiff in 
 a direct manner. The article in the original does not allude specially to the plaintiff. The 
 English translation, now in my hands, tends that way. Reading the Gujerattee article, I 
 don't think the plaintiff is 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 him or not." 
 
 (11.) Dr. Dhh-ajram Dulputram, examined by Mr. Anstey. — "I am a Graduate of 
 the Grant Medical College and a private practitioner. I know the plaintiff, whom I first 
 met in July 1860, at the girl school of Munguldass Nathoobhoy. In consequence of some- 
 thing said to me, I called upon him at his house. In December 1860, I attended upon him 
 professionally at his house. He was suffering from venerial affection ; I made an ocular 
 examination- of it, and found it to be an ulcer. He gave me the history of the case ; he 
 said he had suffered from it three or four months previously and had caught it from an 
 impure intercourse with a woman. I prescribed the blackwash externally, and mercury 
 internally. Plaintiff said he suffered some years ago from the same affection, and had 
 taken a preparation of mercury, prepared by himself. Plaintiff asked me if I had read in 
 medical works that the disease would go by having intercourse with a temale free from it. 
 I said I had not. He then said he had twice tried the experiment at Surat. He suc- 
 ceeded once in it, but not the second time, because he was then much reduced. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " The plaintiff, when I saw him in December 1860, 
 appeared to have been suffering for three months previously. My opii^ion as to the ulcer 
 being syphilitic was confirmed by plaintiffs histor}^ of his case. I did make a personal 
 examination. I treated the plaintiff for more than a month. I had seen him in Surat a 
 good many years ago. There is a difference of opinion among doctors as to whether 
 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 
 in the backroom when I saw him : the room had more than two windows. In the com- 
 mencement of the treatment, I told plaintiff not to go out. I saw him sometime before I 
 treated him. I have known the defendant for the last seven or eight years ; but never 
 communicated to him the plaintiflPs complaint, nor even to Lukhmidass Khimjee, nor to 
 anybody else. I never mentioned anything about this to anybody before appearing in the 
 witness-box. I was born a Yallabhacharya, and am a Kyast. I do not at present go to 
 any of the Maharaja's temples. I have been practising for the last three years. The 
 plaintiff did not tell me he had prickly-heat." 
 
 (12.) Lukhmidass Khimjee, examined by Mr. Dunbar. — " I deal in piece goods and 
 am a 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, 
 whither I had been on a pilgrimage. Our acquaintance ripened into friendship. At Beyt, 
 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 
 saw Jadunathjee Maharaj. There were females present in the temple. After throwing 
 golal on the image, he threw it upon a number of persons, and in doing so, he pressed the 
 breasts of a Bhattia girl about fourteen years of age. As he squeezed her breast, she 
 smiled. He threw the golal upon the crowd, so that they might not see through it what 
 he was doing. I used to visit him at the place where he had put up. My maternal 
 uncle, Damodhur Dewjee, accompanied me. I went to plaintiff about one o'clock in the 
 day, 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 
 legs. The Bhattia girl above alluded to, came there with a widow, about a quarter of an 
 hour after our arrival there. The widow whispered something into plaintiff's ears, upon 
 
143 
 
 which he desired us to go out. We obeyed the order. Tlie widow came out with us and 
 went in again. The girl was left in the bed-room. Wlien I went outside, my uncle in- 
 formed me of the visit of the females. Afterwards, the widow came out, shut tlie door, 
 put up the chain and held it with her hand. The girl was inside all the time. In 
 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 the girl. 
 Several people are often anxious to see such " Eas lila." Plaintiff asked my uncle what 
 I would pay for seeing the " Ras lila." My uncle said that I would serve him (plaintiff). 
 I had to pay some money before I was allowed to see the " Ras lila." I was then 
 eighteen or nineteen years old. The followers who are allowed to see the " lila," as well 
 as the female who is defiled have to pay money for the indulgence. It is considered a pious 
 act, and sure to lead to the paradise known as " Gowlok." I left the room shortly after- 
 wards from shame ; my uncle remained inside. Two or three days subsequently, I saw 
 another married Bhattia female enter the plaintiff's bed-room. When I went on a pil- 
 grimage to Gocul Muttra at Benares about eighteen years ago, I first heard of a " Eus 
 mundlee." I was present at " Eus mundlee" at Beyt about the time I spoke of. There 
 were twelve or thirteen men and thirteen or fifteen females. It was held daily for some 
 days at the appointed place. On these occasions, after the persons had taken their seats, 
 the stories of the 84 and tlie 252 were read from a book. Some offering is then made 
 to the book, and sweetmeat, fruit, or parched rice is placed upon the book. The sweet- 
 meat or fruit is then distributed among the meeting The persons who are not members, 
 and who came merely to listen to the stories, then left the room. I was a stranger at the 
 meeting, and when I retired the men and women were in the room. I saw beds spread 
 near each other on the floor before the lights were put out There was a heap of 
 mattrasses which were put separately on the floor after the strangers had withdrawn. My 
 uncle was a member, and was desired by the other members to ask me to go out. The 
 *' Eus mundlees" are a matter of notoriety ; even a child of five years knows of its exis- 
 tence. Their existence is notorious this way : — they read ths stories there, 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 who are members of the society are reputed to be pious and staunch 
 devotees. The Varkats are procurers of women for the Maharajas. On one occasion^ 
 plaintiff told me " the Varkats are the persons who have corrupted us, Maharajas." On 
 another occasion at Beyt, I was sitting near the plaintiff, when a female came there. On 
 seeing me, she was ashamed and drew her cloth partially over her face. My uncle there- 
 fore said we would go away. I went and stood at some distance, and saw the female and 
 the plaintiff retire into his bed-room. I saw plaintiff on three or four occasions press with 
 his toes the hands of females who worshipped him by touching the soles of his feet. 
 Pressing the toes is the signal for adultery. I saw plaintiff at Byculla where he had put 
 up, the second or third day after his arrival in Bombay. 
 
144 
 
 Fifteenth Day, Thursday, 20th February, 1862. 
 
 Lukhmidass Khimjee, examined by Mr. Dunbar. — " On account of my having given 
 evidence here the other day, I was abused and ill-treated by a number of Banias. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse — 'If you give the names of those persons on affidavit, the Court 
 will take notice of the matter. 
 
 Mr. Anstey corroborated the witness having been an eye-witness of the assault. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse ordered it to be explained to all in Court, that it was informed of 
 the threats and intimidation used against the witness, and that such conduct would be 
 severely punished by fine or imprisonment, or both. 
 
 Witness continued. — " I am aware of plaintiffs arrival in Bombay in 1860. I saw 
 him two or three days after his arrival. I was in the habit of seeing him frequently, 
 two or three times a day. I was a friend of his. I invited him to my house, 
 introduced him to my friends, and induced them to invite him. I made him presents of 
 furniture, lamps, chairs, sofas, &c. I know plaintiff was the editor of two pamphlets. 
 I had a hand in getting them published. I made an arrangement with a printer 
 named Gunput Crushnajee, for the publication of plaintiff's two pamphlets. I did so 
 at his request. The pamphlets were edited by plaintiff : the Maharaj dictated, and 
 Goverdhundas, his secretary, acted as his amanuensis. 1 have seen the handbill issued 
 by plaintiff", asking the Vaishnavs to become subscribers to the pamphlet. I recom- 
 mended him to issue a handbill to gain more subscribers ; the Maharaj dictated the 
 contents of the handbill. Plaintiff" caused a letter to be published in the Chabook 
 newspaper, in which there is mention made of the Walkeshwur and Byculla roads, 
 alluded to in the libel. Plaintiff", before the action, said to me : — " All the Maharajas 
 are running away from Bombay in consequence of publications in the newspapers, and 
 I have therefore come down to Bombay for the purpose of discussing and debating with 
 the editors." Pie asked me if an action would proceed during his absence from Bom- 
 bay. I said I did not know. Kursondas Nensey, who was present on the occasion, 
 said the action would proceed even in his absence. Plaintiff" then asked me if his evidence 
 could be taken at his own house if he remained in Bombay. I said that that was 
 impossible ; that Jeevunlalljee Maharaj was summoned to Court some six years ago, 
 but that all efforts failed to obtain for him an exemption from attendance. Plaintiff* 
 then asked whether, if he were to go to Court, he would get an elevated seat near 
 the judge ! I subsequently came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not left off 
 the practices he pursued at Beyt. For a few months I was misled by his professions 
 for the promotion of female education, widow remarriage, &c. One day whilst I was 
 sitting at the plaintiff's temple, two females, one a married woman about 25 years of 
 age, and the other a widow, came up. The former, when she approached the staircase,^ 
 produced a silver goblet which she had concealed under her clothes. The Maharaj, on 
 seeing her, made her a signal, to go into his bed-room. She did not understand the 
 signal, whereupon a female servant of the Maharaj, about 24 years of age, beckoned 
 to her and said " come hither, Vaishnav !" Both the females then entered the 
 bed-room. Plaintiff asked me to go and make immediate arrangements for the pub- 
 lication of the pamphlet. I went downstairs to the veranda, but having had a suspicion 
 
145 
 
 in my mind, I wont up again into the same room where I had been before. I found 
 the widow sitting outside the door. I remained there about half an hour, when first 
 the Maharaj came out and turned pale on observing me. I also saw the young female 
 come out : she was smiling and laughing. I thereupon thought that plaintiff had 
 carnal intercourse with her. She had , not the silver goblet in her hand : it must 
 have been given to plaintiff. The widow and the young woman then left. I told 
 plaintiff I had some business and he had better send his own man to the printer. I 
 also left and visited plaintiff again in the evening, when he took 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 
 ' Maharaj, this is all a sham ! you profess to be a reformer, while inwardly you 
 commit such 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 
 convez'sation. On another occasion, I had conversation on the same subject with plaintiff. 
 I said you told me that you accepted sweetmeats from female devotees openly and 
 how it was that you went inside the other day with the young woman. Plaintiff said 
 he did so at the desire of the woman. I then said why he kept the widow cut ; 
 to which plaintiff made no reply. I have seen male and female devotees touching the 
 soles of the Maharaj 's feet, and I have seen him press with his toes the hands of 
 females, young and beautilul. About a week subsequently to what I have said above, 
 I saw plaintiff taking some medicine. I had another conversation in the bed-room 
 with plaintiff the same evening. He directed me not to fathom him and said ' What 
 income do we derive from you, males ; if you make arrangements for large profits to 
 us, I"ll undertake to root out adultery from the practices of the Maharajas.' Plaintiffs 
 lather or grandfather having committed a theft in Oodeypore or the neighbourhood, 
 he would not at any time be allowed to enter those territories without a pass. 
 Plaintiff said he suffered from syphilis. I said, ' Maharaj ! I am now perfectly 
 convinced you have not reformed your conduct as yet.' Plaintiff said do not fathom. 
 Our income is chiefly derived from females ; if you make other arrangements for it, I 
 will undertake to root out the practice of adultery from among the Maharajas. He 
 said it was impossible to give up at once such practices ; but I have made some reform 
 in my conduct. Plaintiff asked me to bring in Dr. IBhav/oo Dajee. I took Dr. Bhawoo 
 Dajee to the plaintiffs residence. Eao Saheb Tishwanath was with us at the time. (Wit- 
 ness describes what occurred then and in the evening.) Some days afterwards plaintiff 
 informed me that he was under the treatment of Dr. Dhirajram. Pie became pale and 
 sickly. I took Dr. Bhawoo Dajee to plaintiff about the middle of September I860- The 
 general reputation of the Maharajas as regards adultery is very bad. I have personal 
 knowledge of the Ucentious conduct of ten, twelve, or fifteen of them. After the meeting 
 of the Bhattias in 1855, I had conversation with Jeevunjee Maharaj on the subject of the 
 conduct of the other Maharajas. I as well as others were sent for by him. We said the 
 printers were discussing, and he had been served with a summons. Dr. Bhawoo, Yenayek- 
 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." It was a long lecture that Dr. Bhawoo 
 gave : I merely give the substance. Jeevunjee said he would not be able to control the 
 acts of the other Maharajas ; as their principal income was derived from females. Cursetjee 
 Cama, who was present on the occasion, said a great deal to Jeevunjee Maharaj. The 
 39 
 
146 
 
 Maharaj said, " As regards myself, I am ready to give my signature to any arrangements ; 
 I will now leave off such practices." He offered to give, but did not give his signature. 
 Jeevunjee, on finding me on one side, accused me of, and reproved me for, divulging 
 secret matters. No arrangement took place. I was invited to the general meeting of 
 Yaishnavs held last year ; my consent was not taken, as it ought to have been. I discon- 
 tinued my visits to plaintiff afterwards. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " The plaintiff was about 28 years old when I saw 
 him at Beyt ; he is now about 40 years of age. At that time, I considered such acts as 
 plaintiff was guilty of, as religious. My views have changed since the " slavery bond," to 
 which I put my signature as did several Justices of the Peace put theirs. I knew from 
 her dress that the young female I saw at Beyt was a married woman. Plaintiff presided 
 in the year 1860 at an exhibition for the distribution of prizes to the female schools, of 
 Munguldass Nathoobhoy. Plaintiff expressed an opinion against the system of education, 
 saying the girls should have been taught religious doctrines only. Venayeck Wasudewjee 
 remonstrated against this. The subject of remarriage was talked about everywhere at the 
 time. A meeting was convened by plaintiff to discuss the question of remarriage. It was 
 largely attended. I discontinued going to the plaintiff on account of his bad conduct. I 
 am not acquainted with the two females who visited the plaintiff at his residence in Bom- 
 bay. Plaintiff is said to be a gooroo of religion, but he does not act so ; he never gives 
 instruction. It is true he ought to do so. I signed the " slavery bond" unwillingly. By 
 my coming here to give evidence, I have forfeited that bond. To the Court. — " I have 
 spoken five or six years ago to my friend Mr. Dhunjeebhoy Framjee, partner in the house 
 of Wallace & Co., about the immoral practices of plaintiff, I saw at Beyt. I had also 
 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 Gokuldass Tejpal 
 when my maternal uncle Damoder Dewjee was there. He is now at Zanzebar, I have 
 also spoken to Mr. Munguldass Nuthoobhoy at Matheran last year." 
 
 (13.) Kalabhai Lulloohhai, examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am a Kyast, and a 
 student of the Elphinstone Institution. I know the plaintiff whom I saw in Surat about 
 three years ago. He was a friend of my father. I had a conversation with him on the 
 subject of widow remarriage, I visited him frequently and saw him in different rooms in 
 his house. I used to receive from plaintiff folded jxiwn soparee when I went to him. I 
 was sitting one day with him on the first story when a Banya girl came in company 
 with a female servant of the Maharaj. She was about fourteen or fifteen years. She 
 passed across the hall into a side room, and a Banya who was sitting near us got up and 
 went away. Plaintiff left the hall and went into the side room. The female servant sat 
 in the hall. Pour or five females came into the hall afterwards. I went to have my 
 usual paren soparee from plaintiff towards the side room, and on opening the door of it, 
 saw 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 
 give you the usual pawn soparee ;' so saying he came out with me and d^ired his atten- 
 dant to get 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. On one occasion, I saw two 
 or three " chachias" sitting near plaintiff who advocated in their presence the adulterous 
 doctrines of the sect. Plaintiff said there was no sin in 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 I was standing in the house yard 
 of plaintiff's residence, two or three Vaishnavs who were speaking among themselves said, 
 (pointing to a female) that Jadunathjee Maharaj was in love with h-r. Some days after 
 when I did not attend the school on account of a holiday, I saw the same female passing 
 by the Kalbadevi road. I was going on some business ; but on seeing her I followed her 
 to plaintiffs. She went into the private room of the Maharaj and I went to the visiting 
 room where plaintiff" was sitting. After a few minutes plaintilT followed the young woman- 
 and I remained sitting in the visiting room. About half an hour after, he came out and 
 I smiled at him when he asked me why I smiled. I told him you are effecting a great 
 reform. He smiled at this and made no remark. The young woman came out after a 
 time and went away smiling. Her dress was rufliled when she came out. From the dress 
 and the jewels she had on, I presume she was a respectable woman. I had some conver- 
 sation with plahitiff about the " Propagator of our own Keligion ' ; he said it was published 
 on his behalf. One day at Surat, I saw plaintiff" refuse to i\'!ow some females to touch 
 the soles of his feet ; and he told them to touch the feet of his wife in the zenana. He 
 explained to me afterwards, that allowing females to touch his feet might give rise to 
 suspicions as to his chastity. After this, while at Eombay, I saw him allowing females to 
 touch his feet. To my knowledge, the plaintiff tells lies. His general reputation in Surat, 
 was that he was immersed in adultery. My father is Sheristedar in the Sudder Adawlufc> 
 at Bombay. The respect paid to the plaintiff has not diminished since the publication of 
 the libel. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Scoble.: — " I am 16 years old, and am the nephew of Dr. 
 Dhirajram. I am acquainted with the defendant. Plaintiff was a married man when 1 
 saw him at Surat. I told Narmadashunker of the plaintiff's acts which I had seen. 
 
 Ee-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am sure that the female whom I followed was 
 not the plaintiff's daughter." 
 
 (14.) Curseljee Muncher/ee, examined by Mr. Dunbar. — " I am the manager of the 
 Chabook newspaper, and know Purbhoodass, the plaintiff's secretary, who manages this case. 
 He brought to me this hand-bill (produced in court) and a small pamphlet of " gurbees." 
 I took the printed copies to plaintiff's residence, where I was told by a servant of tha 
 Maharaj that the money would be paid us by Purbhoodass." 
 
 (15.) Canoba Gunputroic, examind by Mr. Dunbar. — " I am a printer and remem- 
 ber having printed the " Propagator of our own Religioa" and other pamphlets, the 
 n;anuscript which was brought to me by Jadunathjee's men. The proof-sheets were sent 
 to the Maharaj's house, to one Goverdhundass. This is the written order I received for 
 sending proofs to Goverdhundass, at the house of Jadunathjee Maharaj." 
 
 Mr. Anstey offered to put in the evidence and judge's notes in the " Bhattia Conspi- 
 racy Case." 
 
 Mr. Bayley objected, on the ground that those proceedings did not concern the plaintifP. 
 
 Islr. Anstey argued at some length that the proceedings were closely connected with 
 this case ; there being this difference that, in the former, the plaintiff acted through his 
 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 to cross-examine each witness 
 as to whether or not he signed the " bundobust" in question. It 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 
 the view to save pubUc time, no more evidence which was merely corroborative of what 
 has been already adduced, should be formally recorded, but that such ' witnesses should be 
 only submitted to cross-examination. Witnesses as to new facts would of course be allowed 
 to be examined. 
 
 Sivtecrdh Dcvj, FridoJi, 2\st Fehniary 1862. 
 
 Mr. Anstey gave the gist of the evidence each witness was expected to give, before 
 calling him into Court. 
 
 (16.) ChuUoorhhooj WaJjee, examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am a Bhattia of Val- 
 labhacharya sect. I know the plaintiff, whom I visited at his residence in Bombay. 
 One day, a female having gone into the hall, entered an inner room. A female servant 
 told plaintiff something in his ear, whereupon he left the hall on pretence of going to take 
 his dinner, and entered the inner room. Plaintiff went inside, 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. I never 
 saw the zenana. I had once been into the inner room, to which there is o'lly one door. 
 I was asked to go in by the Maharaj, who wished to tell me a secret story. I 
 presented him two or four books which he asked from me. I observed nothing in 
 the hands of the female above alluded to. I studied for a year and a half in a school 
 under the defendant Karsandass. I did not tell him anything about the female. I visit 
 the great temple of Jeevunlalljee Maharaj. I had conversation with plaintiff about 
 adultery. Kalabhai Laloobhai was present at the time. I asked plaintiff" how was it 
 that great men committed adultery of which there is prohibition in the Shastras. To 
 this plaintiff replied ' there is no sin in adultery ; on the contrary it gives strength 
 to and purifies the blood of man. And I say this from my own experience.' Then 
 he gave an instance of the athletes of the Gaekwar Court. 
 
 He-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " When I went into the inner room above alluded 
 to, I saw a bed there. The books I presented to the plaintiff' related to the Maha- 
 rajas. They were written against the Maharajas, and I gave them to plaintiff" within the 
 month after his arrival in Bombay." 
 
 (17.) — Cursctjec Naasermavjce Cania, cross-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I was 
 present with some other persons at the residence of Jeevunlalljee Maharitj, when a 
 
140 
 
 conversation took place. There was an understanding with me that nothing of the 
 conversation was ever to be divulged to any one or in a court of justice. Afterwards 
 there was a similar understandmg with Lukhmidass Gocuklass and others. I am unwilling 
 to divulge the conversation which was confidential. I had two conversations with 
 Jeevunjee Maharaj, on the second of which Lukhmidass was present." 
 
 Mr. Anstey did not wish to press the witness to divulge the conversation or the 
 subject of it. 
 
 (18.) — Damodhur Jetta, cross-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am a Bhattia Shrofl', 
 and know the plaintiff, with whom I had a conversation once at the house of Kur- 
 sondass Nensey about a year and a quarter ago. The Maharaj was sitting on a sofa, 
 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 
 of Gosavis. He said whatever evil is committed, it is through the Varkats. He did 
 not say he was corrupted by them. The Varkats are at present in the habit of living 
 in other persons' houses as a matter of charity ; they commit bad acts, and go con- 
 stantly to the Maharajas. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " Kursondass Nensey is absent from Bombay : he 
 was summoned as a witness in this case." 
 
 (19.) — Munguhlass Naihoohkoy, examined by Mr Anstey. — " I am a member of the 
 Bania caste of the Vallabacharya sect. I am a shett of my caste, a Justice of the Peace, 
 and a grand juror. I have founded the female school. I was present on one occasion 
 with others at the house of Jeewunjee Maharaj. Dr. Bhawoo opened the conversation on 
 the subject of the adulteries of the Maharajas. Jeewunjee said he was unable to control 
 the conduct and practices of all the other Maharajas. He expressed a wish to do all he 
 could. Dr. Bhawoo remarked that, if they adopted a virtuous course of conduct, none dare / 
 lish anything against them. At a private conversation with Jeevunjee (which witness 
 divulged on being ordered to do so by the Court) he was informed that it was impossible 
 to 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. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I invited plaintiff once to preside at an exhibition 
 of the girl's schools at my house." 
 
 (20)—K}aiUano Muckunjer, examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I am a member of the 
 Vallabhacharya sect. I am a member of the firm of Jewraz Balloo, and decide with him 
 any disputes in the Bhattia caste. . I was present in the garden of Goculdass Tejpall about 
 six or seven years ago. I was present at the Bhattia meeting in 1855. I remember 
 having been present at a meeting convened by a Maharaj for the purpose of raising funds 
 for himself. Several Maharajas ask for money when they want it, and I cannot give the 
 particulars of any one of my visits unless the Maharaj's name is mentioned. I remon- 
 strated with a Maharaj about the size of the gate to his temple, which could not admit 
 men and females separately. There is at the temples a promiscuous crowd of men and 
 women, which I consider improper. I have not observed an instance of indecency in the 
 crowd. I have heard some immoral and indecent songs addressed by females to the 
 MuhaiLijus, 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. 
 Mr. Bayley^Then, I wont ask you any thing. 
 
 (22.) — Tliackarsey Narronjee to Mr. Anstey. — " The plaintiff has a very bad reputa- 
 tion for his morahty and chastity in Kutch Mandavie since the last seven or eight years. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " I heard that he had a bad reputation tor his adultery." 
 
 (23.) — Roicjee Sitnderjee to Mr. Anstey. — " I knew the plaintiff in Kutch Manda- 
 vie. He bore a bad character as to his morality. 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — " It is well known that all the Maharajas are bad. In Kutch I 
 heard that the plaintiff's character was worse than that of other Maharajas. I also heard 
 that gambling was going on in his house." 
 
 (24.) — Kandass Munckarain to Mr. Anstey. — " I am Assistant Engineer in the 
 Garrison Engineer's Department, am a native of Surat, and know the plaintiff. He bore- 
 a bad character in Surat as to his chastity and morality. 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — " I don't think any but the over-devoted could have had a good 
 opinion as to the plaintiff. Plaintiff was of a frolicsome character, given to play and love." 
 
 To Mr. Anstey. — " I heard from those who visited the temple that plaintiff used to 
 laugh and smile and joke and appear gay in the presence of females who went to the 
 temple." 
 
 (24.) — Janai-dan Rmnchundra to Mr. Anstey. — " I am employed in the Post Master 
 General's Office, and am the author of a Marathee book called " Kavi Charitra," on the 
 subject of the Vallabhacharya religion." 
 
 (26.) — Narmadashunker Lalshunker to Mr. Anstey. — " I am a Naggur Brahmin,, 
 and have taken an interest in the question of widow remarriage. I am the man who had 
 a discussion with the plaintiff at a public meeting. lie declared himself against widow 
 remarriage. I furnished the manuscript to the last witness for the book on the Vallabha- 
 charya sect ; it was in reality my production. I have studied the books of the Vallabha- 
 charya sect, and have no doubt as to the meaning of tuti, mun, and dhun ; the dedication 
 thereof includes wives, daughters, sons, property, body, soul, &c. The plaintiff bears a bad 
 reputation everywhere, in Surat, Mandavie, Kutch, and Bombay. I know the witness 
 Kallabhai, who has communicated to me many things about the plaintiff. 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — " I have been a poet since the last seven years. I was delivering 
 lectures at my house on the improprieties of the sect, to bring the devotees to their senses, 
 and to make them shun the society of such nasty persons as the Maharajas. I do not 
 except Jeevunjee as being virtuous. I wrote my essay against the Vallabhacharya religion 
 from materials furnished me by Shastrees, from books, and by the devotees themselves. 
 The dedication of tun, 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 was a; proved 
 of as cerrect by several Shastrees. I informed the defendant of the plaintifllis bad ciiai'acter 
 in Surat before the publication of libel. 
 
151 
 
 To Mr. Anstoy. — My compiling a dictionary 'detained me last year from going to 
 Surat. The Shastrees who approved of my version would not like their names to be 
 known publicly in connection with the book. There is no morality of any kind 
 whatever in the doctrines of Yallabhacharya. The Maharajas are not preceptors of 
 religion, much less of the ancient religion of the Hindoos." 
 
 (27.) — Ramdass Bkanjee, to Mr. Anstey. — " I am a Bhattia and a member of 
 the Yallabhacharya sect. I have previous to the publication of the alleged libel written 
 articles in the Guzeratee newspapers against the Maharajas. I also wrote letters to the 
 Bombay Times on the same subject. I tried to expose the adulteries and the godly 
 pretentions of the Maharajas. 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — " I a member of the sect, though I hate some of its immoralities. 
 The defendant never assisted me in writing those articles. I have not abused any of 
 the Mahrrajas ; I have exposed their immoralities. I am the editor of the Khojah Dost, 
 v/hich is the organ of the reformers in the Khojah community." 
 
 (28.) — Trtbhoovandass Dicarkadass to Mr. Bayley. — " I am the first assistant teacher 
 in the " Goculdass Tejpall Anglo-Vernacular School." The Parsee defendant came tome 
 this morning to say that my evidence would be required in the Supreme Court : 
 I was served with a subpoena within the last half hour. I have written articles in 
 the Guzeratee newspapers on the conduct and character of the Maharajas. I have not 
 visited any of the temples for the last five years, though I am a member of the 
 Yallabhacharya sect." 
 
 (29.) — Nanahkoij Pestonjee, to Mr. Anstey. — " I am the editor of the Chabook 
 newspaper. I remember these papers (exhibits) having been brought to me by a man 
 whose name I believe is Purbhoodass." 
 
 Mr. Bayley admitted the papers were taken to the Chabook newspaper by Purbhoodass, 
 the plaintiffs alleged secretary. 
 
 (30.) — Kanabhai Rustomjee to Mr. Anstey. — " I am one of the defendants in this case 
 and managing proprietor of the TJtdon Press. I was the printer of the SaU/a 
 Prakash newspaper, and the co-defendant was the editor. The paper was not started 
 for profit to the proprietors, but in the cause of reform in the native community. 
 The receipts fell far short of the expenditure. I printed some numbers of the " Pro- 
 pagator of our own Religion" for the plaintiff. The manuscript was brought to me by 
 his secretary Purbhoodass, who manages this case. I sent the bills to Dr. Dhirajram, 
 who paid them on behalf of the Maharaj." 
 
 The dffendants case concluded here. 
 
 At Mr. Bayley's request, which was, he said, made with the view to save time, 
 
 the Court allowed the case to stop for a few minutes, to enable the plaintiff's counsel 
 
 to ascertain from his client whether it was desirable to call more witnesses on 
 his behalf. 
 
 Mr. Anstey protested against such delay as being unprecedented to his knowledge, 
 and as it might cause an unfounded impression among the natives. 
 
152 
 
 The Chief Justice said that the request was entertained wiUi a view to savfi 
 public time ; and the Court could not stop to enquire what impression might be produced 
 thereby. 
 
 The Court adjourned, therefore, for ten minutes. On the Juilges taking their seats 
 again, Mr. Bayley said he would proceed to examine witnesses for the plaintiff. 
 
 One LalloomuU Mohtoomull was called as the first witness, when Mr. Anstey stated 
 the witness was sitting in Court during the trial. The man denied having been 
 present in Court. Three witnesses swore that he was present in Court during the trial, 
 and was seen handing notes to Purbhoodass, the plaintiffs secretary. 
 
 Mr. Bayley cited authorities to show that the power of the Court was limited to 
 fining the witness who could not be prevented from being examined, for disobedience 
 of an order of the Court. 
 
 Mr. Anstey argued that the old established practice in England was the general 
 practice of this Court, and the Judge is left no discretion to dej)art from it. The 
 plaintiff had every opportunity to bring this evidence before ; and when it was borne 
 in mind that the men swore falsely as to not being present in Court, when several 
 persons were ready to swear that he was, the Court, the learned counsel trusted, 
 would not admit the man's evidence. 
 
 The Court was of opinion it had no power to object to the witness being examined. 
 The current of judicial decisions in England has been for some years one way, that is, 
 against rejecting the evidence of a witness. The Court had no power to exclude a 
 witness, though he might be made subject to observations for his conduct and disobe- 
 dience of the Court's order. 
 
 " As the witness was likely to take some time in examination, the Court rose at 
 half-past 5 p. m. 
 
 At the close of the proceedings, the Chief Justice ordered the man, Lalloomull 
 Mohtoomull, to be taken into custody by the Sheriff until next (Saturday) morning, for 
 contempt of Court and for wilful disobedience of the Court's order." 
 
 Scdenteenth Day^ Satiirdaij, 22nd February, 1862, 
 
 Mr. Anstey asked the Court to take a note of his objection to the reception of the 
 evidence of witnesses who, in disobedience of the order of the Court, were in Court during 
 the trial of the 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. — " I am a Mooltanee, and a 
 niember of the Vallabhacharya sect. I know the plaintiff, during the whole time of whose 
 
153 
 
 visit at Beyt, in 19' 7, I was there. I went to visit liiin every day : he was then about 
 23 or 24 years of age. His married wife was dead at the time. I know Lukhmidass 
 Khimjee now ; I never saw him visit the plaintiff at Beyt. Plaintiff bore a very good reputa- 
 tion at Beyt during that period : there were no stories current against his 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 to be in the house. He had a retinue 
 of ten or twelve servants, but had no Varkats with him. He had with him a Bhattia of 
 Mandavie. There are several temples at Beyt, one of which is that of Luxmijee. The 
 room in which the image is placed is about ten or twelve feet square. There is an outer 
 court to this shrine. A tax of one coree and two cents is levied by the officers of the 
 Graekwar Sirkar on all persons who visit the temple of Luxmijee. Jadoonathjee arrived at 
 Beyt in the month of February, and the festival of Vussunt Punchmee occurred three or 
 four days afterwards. During this festival golal is thrown on the image. It is not usual 
 at the temple of Luxmijee to throw golal on the Vaishnavs. In three of the thirteen tem- 
 ples at Beyt it is customary daily to throw golal on the persons of the Vaishnavs. In the 
 other temples, with the exception of Fagan-wud the 1st, no golal is thrown on the 
 worshippers. I deal in golal, piece goods, &c., at Beyt. On occasions when the Maharaj 
 throws golal on the image at the temple of Luxmijee, he is surrounded by the priests of 
 four other temples := women and men accommodated separately inside the temple. In the 
 court-yard there is a promiscuous crowd of males and females. The thirteen temples are 
 under the guidance of persons belonging to four " gaddees" or seats. The Gaekwar's men 
 keep order at the temples at the time of worship. There is one officiating priest at the 
 temple of Luxmijee, and four sepoys maintain order there during worship. AH the temples 
 at Beyt belong to the Vallabhacharyas. The images are worshipped from outside the 
 temple unless the tax is paid. The Maharaj makes a circuit of all the temples twice a 
 day, in less than half an hour. I never heard of a " Rus mundlee" at Be^t : I read of 
 it here in the newspapers." 
 
 In the cross-examination by Mr. Anstey, the witness, after shuffling a good deal 
 admitted that the witnesses who swore on Friday to having seen him in court, swore to 
 the truth. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I believe conscientiously that I did not come into Court." 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — Now, what reliance can you expect to be placed on the state- 
 ments of this man ? As far as I am concerned, I cannot attach any weight lo what he says. 
 
 (2.) Damlas Hunsraj, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a Bhattia and a native of 
 Dwarka. I am a Vaishnav. My gooroo Nuthoojee Maharaj, is dead. I know the plain- 
 tiff, whom I saw at Dwarka, and invited him to my house on the occasion of my daughter's 
 marriage. For chastity and morality, the plaintiff bore a good character. I heard no 
 stories against him. He remained my guest for four or five days : I kept him in a 
 separate house, a dhurmsalla, which was not distant from my house so much as half a 
 mile. I saw or heard nothing against him. Of the thirteen shrines at Beyt, seven, 
 including the temple of Luxmijee, are in charge of the Gaekwar, and to each is attached a 
 choubdar. I have never seen golal thrown on the worshippers at the temple of Luxmee ; 
 never heard at Beyt of the existence of the " Rus mundlee :" if I did, I should have 
 punished the members of it. I came to understand its nature through the Gujeratee 
 inewflpapers of Bombay. I know nothing at all about " Rus mundlees." 
 'JO 
 
154 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I was ordered into custody by the Gaekwar for 
 three years, for having apprehended robbers in a foreign territory. Major Shortt reported 
 against me, after having tried me. He did not fine me five thousand rupees. "During the 
 three years of my custody, I was not able to go to the temples. I subscribed to the 
 Parses Reformer, which contained articles abusive of the Maharajas. All I mean to say 
 is that I have • not seen golal thrown at the temple of Luxmee ; I do not know if it is 
 thrown there. There are only six temples at Beyt under the control of the Gaekowar. Five 
 of them are covered over with a roof The court-yard of Luxmijee's temple is also covered 
 over with a roof ; it looks like a house. 
 
 To Mr. Scoble. — " I was not tried by Major Shortt, the Resident. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — I did not appear personally before Major Shortt ; my man used 
 to go to him during the enquiry." 
 
 (3.) — Meetaram Pursotum, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I know the plaintiff, whom 
 I saw at Beyt in 1907. I was a clerk of the Coomavisdar's mehta, and was sent to the 
 Maharajas who came to Beyt. I was sent to plaintiff, and used to accompany him when 
 he visited the temples. He had put up at the house of Dwarkanathjee, and bore a good 
 character as to chastity during his residence there. I used to attend him with four sepoys 
 whenever he visited the temples. I never noticed any thing improper in his conduct, 
 though I stood close by him on such occasions. I have not heard of the existence of 
 ' Kus mundlees.' 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I first heard the name of " Eus mundlee" when 
 the counsel mentioned it just now. The mansion of Dwarkanathjee is the same as that of 
 Jugoonathjee. Jadoonathjee was the only officiating Maharaj at Beyt during the seven months 
 I was with him. Vallubhjee Maharaj was not ut Beyt at that time ; I never heard anything 
 up to this day against the plaintiff's character. I did not know him at any other place 
 except Beyt. I came to Bombay fifteen days ago : I heard today in Court that the 
 plaintiff had been charged with adultery. I saw the last witness in Court this day : he 
 was not Coomavisdar at Beyt during the time I was there. I would have disobeyed the 
 Maharaj if he asked me to leave him alone at the temples even for a few minutes. 
 There were the Sircar's sepoys at his house ; they would not have left him by his order. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Scoble. — " It is since my arrival from Eajcote that I heard of 
 the plaintiff's adultery, as alleged in the newspapers. While at the temples, the Maharaj 
 never asked me to go out. The sepoys followed the Maharaj from room to room, and 
 wherever he went. He slept in the store-room : he was attended by sepoys even in his 
 bed-room. He would not be left alone even for a moment ; his personal attendants would 
 not leave him even though he desired them to do so. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " The plaintiff was at Beyt in the month of February, and 
 remained there ten or twelve days. I saw golal thrown in the temple of Dwarkanathjee 
 during the time the plaintiff was at Beyt. In no other temple is golal thrown about. 
 The Maharaj and the Brahmacharyas throw about golal on the persons of the Vaishnavs. 
 Females and males, who pay a tax of nearly half a rupee are allowed to touch the feet 
 of the idol. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " If the Maharaj be present, the devotees pay him the 
 " durshun" after the image." 
 
(4.) — Raghowjee Natlia, examined by ]Mr. Scoble. — " I am a Bhattia of tlie Vallabh- 
 charya sect. I have a Maharaj for my gooroo. I saw the plaintiff at Beyt in the 
 month of February 1851. On the day I arrived in Beyt, the Maharaj left for Dvvarka. 
 While I was at Beyt, the Maharaj returned from Dwarka, and remained ten or twelve 
 days. I visited the plaintiff frequently to make " durshun." I heard or saw nothing 
 prejudicial to his morality either during his residence in or absence from Beyt. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I was at Beyt on a pilgrimage. I am quite sure 
 I was not in Bombay at the time doing my business as a Broker. It is a sin to 
 come and give evidence in this Court against the Maharaj or to divulge his secrets. 
 I did not sign the " bundobust" against giving evidence here, whilst in Kutch. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " If Mathooradas l^owjee gave evidence against the 
 Maharaj, he committed a sin. The whole world would say so ; even the Mahomedans ! 
 
 Witness is fined twenty rupees for not giving a direct answer to Sir M. Sausse. 
 
 To Sir ^I. Sause. — " I heard that there was a meeting of the Mahajuns held in 
 Bombay. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " If there be anything bad against the Maharaj, I 
 would tell it in Court. 
 
 To Sir M. Sause. — " I think the Maharaj would never do anything bad. lie is 
 our gooroo, and all the women are like his daughters." 
 
 (5.) — Preinjee Poonja, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a Pocurna Brahmin, 
 and have served in the temple of Radhajee at Beyt for fifteen or twenty years. I 
 have known the plaintiff since he visited Beyt ten or twelve years ago, about the 
 month of February or March. He visited the temple of Radhajee twice a day, always 
 accompanied by his attendants. I observed no improper or indecent conduct on the 
 part of the plaintiff or the female worshippers in the temple. I heard no reports 
 against him. It is not usual in our temple to throw golal on the followers upon any 
 occasion ; in our temple, as well as in the temple of Luxmijee, golal is thrown only 
 upon the image. In the temple of Dvvarkanathjee, golal is thrown upon the musicians 
 after the priests have throvm it upon the image. So far as my information extended, 
 the plaintiff bore a very good reputation as to chastity. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anesty. — " I have not heard any report against Jadunath- 
 jee's chastity up to this day. I am a follower of Runchorjee Maharaj of Mandavie ; 
 he is gone to his destination, to " lila" in heaven" 
 
 (G.) — Purshotumdass Doolubbhoy, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I was a resident of 
 Surat for several years, and know the plaintiff I knew his- father also. During the 
 time I resided in Surat the plaintiff bore a good character. I heard no reports against 
 his chastity or morality whilst I was in Surat, nor since I have come to Bombay. 
 I visited him in Bombay but saw nothing improper in his conduct. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I have never up to this day heard anything 
 against the plaintiff's moral character, except that I was told three or four months ago 
 that he was charged with immoral conduct in a newspaper. I heard that a meeting of 
 the Mahajuns was held for making u " bundobust" at the house of Jeevunlalljee" 
 
15G 
 
 (7.) — Purshotumdass Dayarcon, examined by Mr. Bayley. — I am a Bania and a 
 member of the Vallabhacharya sect. " I have been a resident of Surat for many 
 years, and know the plaintiff. In Surat I have heard he bore a good character as 
 regards cliastity. I heard that tlie newspapers here charged him with a great crime 
 which he committed in Surat. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I never heard anything against plaintiff" either 
 here or in Surat. I came here four or five months ago, when I heard that the 
 newspapers charged the plaintiff' with immorality. I don't know if it is right or wrong 
 that one should offer his wife to the Maharaj. I consider the Maharaj as my God, 
 and It would be a sin to give any evidence against him. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Bayley. — " My respect for the Maharaj would not induce me 
 to tell lies in Court. If I knew anything against him I would tell it. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " I do not know if the Maharaj can do anything wrong. 
 It would be improper in him to do an immoral act." 
 
 (7.) — Pnrbhoodass Dayaram, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a resident of Surat 
 
 and am the mooneeta of the firm of Kamdass Purshotumdass. I know the plaintiff, who 
 
 bore a good character for chastity and morality. I have not heard any bad reports 
 against him. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I get no letters from Surat except those con- 
 nected with the business of our firm. I have been in Bombay for twenty-five or 
 thirty years. I used to visit the plaintiff in Bombay. I did not hear before this 
 action was brought that he was charged with immorality. Since the last two or three 
 years I have heard rumours of the immorality of the Maharajas. I have never heard 
 till this moment of the existence of the " Eus mundlees." I have drunk the water 
 which is distributed to the devotees in the temples. A gooroo would not commit a 
 sinful act. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " If a trustworthy person told me that the Maharaj committed 
 a bad act, I would believe it." 
 
 (9.) — Narronhhoy Vijbhookhundass, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am a resident of 
 Surat, and came to Bombay about two months ago. I knew the plaintiff, who his 
 my gooroo ; I used to visit him once a day for ten or twelve years. He bore a 
 good reputation for chastity and morality. I have visited him occasionally in Bombay. 
 The plaintiffs father died in 1908. Plaintiff has established at his own expense a 
 Sanscrit school in Surat, — no girls school. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Ajistey. — " Jadoonathjee told me that he had opened the 
 Sanscrit school at his own expense. I never heard up to the day before yesterday any 
 rumours against the morality of the plaintiff or any of the other Maharajas." 
 
 (10.) — Morarbhoy Vijbhookhundass, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a Bania shroff" 
 carrying on business between Bombay and Surat. I was the man who, on the day of 
 the Royal Proclamation of 1858, released all the debtors in the Surat jail, by paying their 
 debts. I 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. On my last visit to Surat, I did not hear 
 that he had established a school there. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I have not heard any thing against plaintiff or any 
 of the other Maharajas as to their chastity. I never stated in the shop of Eduljee Framjee 
 tliat the Maharajas commit immortal acts." 
 
 (11.) — Munshookhratn Khooskaldass, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am a moomeyn of 
 the firm of Gopalrow MuUarow, and have come to Bombay since the last four years. I 
 resided in Surat for four years, and knew the plaintiff in that city. I am a member of 
 the Vallabhacharya sect. I went to the plaintiff almost daily for " durshun." He bore a 
 good reputation for chastity and morality. I heard no gup or rumours against him ; I 
 should have heard of it if any existed. I have seen him in Bombay. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I do not remember Jadoonathjee going to Beyt 
 whilst 1 was at Surat. I never heard a rumour against this or any other Maharaj until 
 a few days since this trial began." 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould.— Will you call the Maharaj, Mr. Bayley ? 
 
 ]Mr. Bayley. — I should call him if I think necessary. I am not called upon to pledge 
 myself. 
 
 E'u/kfernh Dai/, Mondaj/, 24/// February, 1862. 
 
 (12.) Nanabhoy Kursondass, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am a cotton dealer, 
 and am a permanent resident of Broach. I am in the habit of going to Surat every 
 year. I knew the plaintiff" at Surat. I am a member of the Vallabhacharya sect. I 
 never visited the plaintiff, but saw him going about. I did not hear anything against 
 his character. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I went once a year to Surat. I do not consider 
 it a sin to tell the truth against a gooroo. To-day is the first time I hear anything 
 against the plaintiff's character. I never saw him in Surat." 
 
 (13.) Nurrotumdass Eurrybhoy, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am the mehta of the 
 Nawab of Surat, and am a Bania by caste. I know the plaintiff", to whom and to 
 whose father I went once a day to make " durshun." To my knowledge, the plaintiffs 
 character for morality was good. I did not hear any reports against him. I know he 
 has established a school in Surat ; and I have heard that he pays its expenses. It 
 was opened three or four years ago. A few months ago I heard it had four or five 
 hundred pupils. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " The plaintiff* never visited me at my house. 
 He left Surat about November last to come to Bombay. I heard about a year ago 
 that some newspapers in Bombay and Surat published certain charges against his character. 
 Never before that had 1 heard any rumour against any of the Afaharajas. 
 
158 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " One may spread a rumour against the character of a Maharaj, 
 but I should not be satisfied with it. The Maharaj would not commit a bad act, by 
 which I mean anything contrary to rehgion. The religion is contained in the books ot 
 the Vallabhacharya sect. I would consider it a bad act if one offered his wife to the 
 Maharaj, &c., even though it may be enjoined by the religious books." 
 
 (14.) Bhookhniidass Kishordass, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am in the service of 
 Nusserwanjee Bomanjee Bhownugria of Surat, and came to Bombay about a year ago. 
 I am a member of the Vallabhacharya sect, and know the plaintiff, whom I saw very 
 frequently at Surat. He is my gooroo. He bore a very good character for chastity and 
 morality. I heard no bad report against him. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I cannot say whether or not the plaintiff had 
 to leave Surat for some years by reason of the ill-will of the inhabitants towards him, 
 in consequence of a bad act committed by him. I am bound to him by the " muntra" 
 (incantation) administered to me by his fathers. I do not consider it a sin to tell 
 the truth against a Maharaj. I never told a lie in my life. I do not regard my gooroo 
 as god. It is not possible that the Maharaj would do a bad act. Until a month or 
 two ago, I never heaid a report against any one of the ^laharajas" 
 
 (15.) 5^z<ryovm il/oo/c/^«^«(/, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a mehta in the firm 
 of Manockjee Bomonjee, Oursetjee Cama and Co. I know the plaintiff, who is my gooroo. 
 I knew him for several years at Surat, where he bore a good character for chastity 
 and morality I never saw any impropriety on his part at the temple. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I do not know the age of the plaintiff. We swing 
 the image ; I cannot say if the Maharaj is ever swung in a swing. I do not regard 
 my gooroo as an incarnation of God. I have seen golal sprinkled on the image in the 
 temple. The plaintiff left Surat in 1851, but I do not exactly remember whether he 
 stayed away five or seven years. I heard no report in Surat against any one of the 
 Maharajas. I heard rumours in Bombay about two or three months ago, as alleged in 
 the newspapers. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " I never heard that any Bhattia shetts were punished 
 coming to a resolution not to give evidence against the Maharaj. I simply heard that 
 some Bhattias were litigating and were punished. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " The Maharajas being gooroos, their conduct would never be bad. 
 I would not believe a bad report against a Maharaj, for he would not commit a bad 
 act. If any person told me that a Maharaj committed a bad act, I would not believe 
 him." 
 
 Sir M. Sausse suggested, with a view to economize time, that any further witnesses, 
 whose evidence was in effect similar to that already given had better be simply submited 
 to cross-examination, as was done in some instances with the witnesses for the defendants. 
 
 (16.) Ka7idass Doolubhdass, cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I heard no bad report 
 whatever against the plaintiff" in Surat. He is my gooroo. According to my religion, 
 liis good conduct must be told, but nothing must be said of his bad conduct as a 
 gooroo. 
 
 To Mr. Baylej. — " The truth must be told without shame, even against a gooroo. 
 
159 
 
 To Sir Joseph Aniould. — " If there is anything bad against the Maharaj, it must 
 be proved here." 
 
 (17.) Balkrishnadass Oo^nedrarn, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a shroff of Ahmeda- 
 bad, and a member of the Vallabhacharya sect. I saw the plaintiff in Ahmedabad in 
 1848 or 1849 : he resided there five or six months, during which time I went to him 
 every second or third day to make " durshun." He bore a good character for chastity 
 and morality. I heard no report against him. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — "I never heard in Ahmedabad of the elopement of 
 a Maharaj with a young Brahmin female to Baroda. The first time I heard anything 
 against a Maharaj was three or four months ago, through the newspapers. I have been 
 in Bombay since the last five or six years." 
 
 (18.) Bhoijchund Kaivul, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I come from Ahmedabad, and 
 have been frequenting Bombay for the last three or four years. I saw the plaintiff at 
 Ahmedabad in 1848 or 1849, and went to him once or twice a day to make " durshun." 
 He bore a very good character for chastity and morality. I did not hear any report 
 against him. 
 
 To Mr. Anstey. — " I heard only two months ago bad reports against the plaintiff 
 through the newspapers. I never heard before this a bad report against any one of 
 the Maharajas. My Maharaj has not carried off any Brahmin lady ; I do not know 
 anything else. I belong to the Vallabhacharya sect. I heard that the temples were 
 closed for eight or nine days in 1859. I did not sign the " bundobust" on account 
 of which they were closed. I heard of the Bhattia Conspiracy Case on my return from 
 Ahmedabad. We regard ths Maharaj in the place of God, but he is my gooroo. I 
 regard him as an incarnation of God : and if he chooses, he can commit a sin. If 
 he commits a sin, God will punish him. I would tell the truth even of a gooroo. 
 Five or six years ago, the Maharaj told me to make " durshun" and to take the name 
 of God. ]\Iy .Maharaj is Kanyalaljee who is at present in Kotah. 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — I regard the Maharaj the same as the image, but less than Thakorjee. 
 I regard Thackorji as God." 
 
 (19.) Bapoolall Malhooradass examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a Bania and a 
 member of the Vallabhacharya sect. I am a Mehta to a shroff, in Bombay. Until the 
 last two months I was in Baroda, where I saw the plaintiff for about three months. 
 I used to go to him every second or third day to make " durshun." There is a temple 
 built by the Gaekowar for the Maharajas. The plaintiff is the gooroo of the Gaekowar, 
 who very highly respects him, and on his arrival in the city, sends out his sons with 
 elephants, &c., to welcome him. The plaintiff bore a good reputation in Baroda as regards 
 his chastity and morality. 
 
 To Mr. Anstey. — " The Gackwar is a Mahratta ; I don't know of what caste 
 he is. The Gaekwar is a follower of all rehgions, and respects everybody. It is true 
 that he built a mosque some days ago, and, to please a Mahomedan fakeer caused all 
 the hogs in Baroda to be killed at once. I never heard of the touching loves 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. I heard no bad report against him. I am a Bhattia by 
 caste. The Bhattias of Baroda do not wear the same sort of dress as those of Bombay. 
 
 To Mr. Anstey. — " I heard people talk of the Bhattia Conspiracy trial ; I don't 
 know what the charge was in that case. Being a resident of Guzerat, I would not 
 understand the language and manners of the Bombay Bhattias, and therefore would not 
 have attended the Bhattia meeting, of 1855. There is no harm in telling lies for a 
 good object. To save a Brahmin charged with murder, I would not tell a lie. I would 
 not tell an untruth for even a good object. I consider my gooroo as an incarnation of 
 God, and accordingly bow to him. The Maharaj would not commit sin. 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — " I had never my attention pointed to such questions as the 
 incarnation of God, &c. I consider the Maharaj inferior to the Thackorjee : he is so 
 regarded by all Vaishnavs." 
 
 (21.) Purshotum Permanund, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a Bania merchant 
 of Baroda, and at present ship goods from Bombay. I saw the plaintiff" in Baroda in 
 1904 : he bore a good character for morality. I observed no impropriety of conduct 
 on the part of the plaintiff" in the temple at Baroda during the time of worship. 
 
 To Mr. An3tey. — " We were very glad when the Maharaj came to our city and 
 aff"orded us an opportunity of making " durshun." Our females and we all were very 
 glad when he came and resided amongst us. I heard nothing against any one of the 
 Maharajas before this action was brought. ^ 
 
 To Mr. Scoble. — " How can I say whether or not it is a calumny on my sect, to 
 say that any of its members off"er their wives to the Maharajas. Nobody off"ers his 
 wife to the Maharaj ; it is false." 
 
 (22.) Nanahhoy Dayabhoy, examined by Mr. Bailey. — " I am a resident of Surat 
 I know the plaintiff" from his infancy. I was at Shree Gocul Muthra when he came 
 there on a pilgrimage in 1903. I arrived there when he was there : we remained 
 there for about a month. I accompanied him to Buldewjee, and travelled with him 
 for about a month. I used to be in his company when he visit«d the temples. He 
 bore a good character for chastity and morality at those places. There were some 
 forty or fifty people who formed his retinue, and whose expenses were defrayed by 
 him. I heard no stories against his morality. 
 
 To Mr. Anstey. — " I was not with the plaintiff" at Oodeypore. I don't know if he 
 was prevented from touching the image in the temple there. On the pilgrimage, fe- 
 males used to visit him for " durshun" and touched his feet. He never presses with 
 his toes the hands of females. It is the custom to touch the teet, not from below, 
 but at the top. I did not laugh when you asked me of the cause which led plain- 
 tiff" to leave Surat. 
 
 Sir Joseph A mould, — O yes, you did. 
 
161 
 
 Witness to Mr. Anstey. — '• I simply heard that some Bhattias were fined in this 
 Court for holding a caste meeting ; not for making a " bundobust" against giving evi- 
 dence in this case." 
 
 (23.) Lalljee Natha was called as the next witness, when Mr. Anstey stated he 
 was observed sitting in Court during the trial. 
 
 Lalljee admitted he was sitting in Court one day. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Scoble.— " I met the plaintiff on a pilgrimage at Gocul Muthra a- 
 bout four or five years ago, and was with him for about a month and a half He 
 had a hundred or a hundred and fifty servants with him. His tent was pitched at 
 some distance from that of his servants. The Vaishnavs, about a thousand in num- 
 ber, followed him in a procession from place to place. He bore a good character for 
 morality, and I heard no report against him. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I was in Court during the examination of Drs. 
 Bhawoo Dajee and Dhirajram. I did not sit in Court on any other day. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould. — If I mistake not, I saw this man in Court certainly for more 
 than one day. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — There are several persons who observed him. 
 
 Witness to Mr. ^instey. — " I have signed the " bundobust" made at the Bhattia 
 meeting. I know eight persons were punished for making that " bundobust" which I 
 signed because the whole of my caste signed it. I did not sign the " slavery bond" 
 three years ago. I know the temples were closed for eight or nine days. I do not 
 know if I was caricatured in the Bagai Naskeat newspaper as a member of the 
 " Rus mundlee." I don't know of a society of which Dayalbhoy is the chief : I 
 know Dayalbhoy. By " Rus mundlee" I mean a dramatic representation of Thackorjee. 
 My partner's name is Muckonjee ; I don't know of what society he is the principal 
 member. 
 
 Witness to Mr. Scoble. — " I did not understand anything of the evidence given by 
 
 the doctors in English, whilst I was in Court. I did not hear the Crier give the 
 
 order that day for witnesses to retire. I think it was this book (produced in Court) 
 
 in which I signed my name. [It refers to the celebrated " bundobust" made at the 
 Bhattia meeting.] 
 
 Mr. Anstey objected to the book being tendered in evidence, on the ground that it 
 was not though demanded, produced at the trial of the Bhattia Conspiracy Case, that 
 the learned Puisne Judge's notes in that case would show that the " bundobust" was 
 not wholly reduced to writing ; and that the judge's notes were not admitted. 
 
 Mr. Scoble argued that he had a right to put in the book through the first wit- 
 ness, who admitted having signed it, and particularly because the device was resorted 
 to, to prejudice the mind of the Court against every Bhattia witness in this case by 
 constant referrence to an unlawful " bundobust," which never existed, as the book would 
 show. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse remarked that the book might be referred to as containing the " bundo- 
 21 
 
162 
 
 bust which the witness signed ; and Mr. Anstey would be allowed to cross-examine 
 lum. 
 
 Witness to Mr, Scoble. — " The " bundobust" in this book was read to the meeting 
 before it was signed by myself and others. There was no supplementary " bundobust," 
 nor have I signed any. 
 
 Mr. Anstey was addressing the Court at some length against the admission of the 
 book, complaining that there was no official translation to enable him to cross-examine 
 the witness, when 
 
 Mr. Bayley said it was not tendered or put In, as the official translation was miss- 
 ing and another copy was being prepared in the Translator's office. 
 
 Witness to Mr. Anstey. — " I saw Arrut Kirpal, one of the conspirators, reading from 
 the book and giving explanations. I did not notice that the sense of the meeting was 
 taken with referrence to certain resolutions. I did not hear persons shout out " We 
 will do it, we will do it." Canjee Samjee also addressed the meeting holding a pa- 
 per in his hand, the contents of which I did not read or hear. 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — " I did not sign any other " bundobust" but this, nor was I ask- 
 ed to sign any. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " My object in signing this book was not to assist any 
 body ; it was because the editors of the newspapers had published something about per- 
 sons offering their wives to the Maharajas. Those did not offer their wives were ask- 
 ed to sign the book ; those who did offer, were told not to sign. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " I was not aware that witnesses in this case were ordered not 
 to sit in Court. Before the day on which I came into Court, I had been sitting 
 outside four or five days. I have received a subpoena in this case." 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — The Court has no doubt that the witness was perfectly aware of 
 the order, and sat there in contempt of the Court's order. The Court therefore fines 
 him twenty-five rupees. 
 
 (24.) Nandoo Jadhowjee, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am a Bhattia, and serve 
 as a muccadum. In the year 1903, when I left Muthra on a tour, I was in plain- 
 tiflTo company for about a month and a half I use to go about in the jungles : it 
 is our religion to visit rivers, tanks, &c. I did so with plaintiff and with about eight 
 hundred other persons. He had a separate suite of tents. He bore a good character 
 for chastity and morality, I have not heard anything against him. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I was present at the Bhattia meeting held on 
 the 6th September last. I am not aware of any resolutions being passed thereat. I 
 cannot say that the witness (for the prosecution) at the Bhattia Conspiracy Case swore 
 to anything but the truth. At the meeting, I signed In a book. Arrut Kirpal 
 read from a book and gave explanations, of which I heard one word. On the day 
 of the meeting, I went with one Madhowjee to the house of Jewraz Balloo, where 
 Goculdass Tejpall said to us that the adulteries of the Maharajas ought to be put a 
 stop to. I said it was a matter for the Shettlas to settle or make arrangements 
 about it. I heard about four years ago of charges against the Maharajas through the 
 
163 
 
 newspapers. I never in my life saw an instance of impropriety on the part of any 
 one of the Maharajas. 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — " I heard a person crying out at the meeting, " If you send 
 your wives and daughters to the Maharajas, then do not sign ; but if you do not send 
 them sign." Thereupon I signed." 
 
 Nineteenth Day, Tuesday 25tk February, 1862. 
 
 (25.) Bhimjee Purshotam, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I was present at the 
 Bhattia meeting held in 1855. I remember that a portion of the resolutions, was that 
 Bhattia women should not go about in their Garries without " purdas" or screens. It 
 was also resolved that the women should not sit in the roads on the occasion of any 
 deaths in the caste ; also that they should attend early at the general caste dinner, &c. 
 It was also proposed to prevent women from going astray on the pretence of visiting 
 the Maharaja's temples ; but that proposition was not acted upon. I am one of the 
 twelve Shetts of the Halayee caste of Bhattias. I have seen a " Ras mundlee," a dramatic 
 performance by the inhabitants of a village near Gocul Muthra. The performers are 
 Brahmins ; some of them are at present in Bombay. I don't know what is meant by 
 " Rus mundlee." 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " I was present in Court during part of the exami- 
 nation of Mathooradass Lowjee. I was summoned last Saturday (the summons is dated 
 23rd January last). I signed the " bundobust" in September last. It was not to the 
 effect that it was better to give false evidence to the Court rather than that the Maharaj 
 should lose the action. I did not agree to any such arrangement. I went to the Hon'ble 
 Mr. Westropp to ask him to take in hand the Maharaj 's case ; but he said he had the 
 Governor's business in hand and had no time. I went to the Bhattia meeting of Septem- 
 ber last about three hours after the business commenced. I am a resident of Porebunder, 
 and believe a copy of the " bundobust" was sent for signatures there. I regard the 
 Maharaj simply as a gooroo. 
 
 To Mr. Bayley. — " A false charge was brought against me by some Subedars, but 
 the prosecution was abandoned." 
 
 Mr. Scoble put in the book of " bundobust," with the official translation, in connection 
 with the evidence of Lalljee Natha. 
 
 Shri Nathjee is true. 
 
 "We the undersigned, all the Vaishnavs wearing the Kanthe* have jomtly made this 
 writing. The reason is as follows : — For some time past, most unmoral calumnies have 
 been published in the newspapers, against our religion, and our Guru, and our reputation. 
 Our Maharaj Shri Vallabhacharyajee has composed a work (called) Sidhant Eahasya, and 
 Bramhsamund, Shri Gocalnathji has made commentaries on this work, to enable us 
 
 * A sacred uecklace worn by the Vaishnavs. 
 
164 
 
 to understand it. Most of the Vaishnavs have most Hkely 'read these commentaries. 
 But the meaning of those commentaries has now been reversed, and published to the 
 effect, that one should make over even one's lawful wife to the Gosaiji Maharaj 
 befose one has enjoyed (her) that one's sons and daughters also should be made over 
 to them, that after one has married (a wife), and before he has enjoyed (her) 
 one should make her over to Gosaiji Maharaj, after which, one should take (her) 
 for one's own use, that to this effect Shri Goculnathji has made the commentaries, and that 
 in the same manner, the Maharajas enjoy at present, the virgin and maiden daughters and 
 daughters-in-law of their devotees. In this way a false rendering has been published. 
 Therefor^-, any person, who may have been convinced ia his mind, that this published 
 account is true, should not put his signature to this writing. But it is resolved, that such 
 persons only should put their signatures to this writing, as have been convinced in their 
 minds, upon their true faith, that the publishers have falsely published these accounts. 
 Because, these acco'mts of our religion have been published in a very improper way, and 
 a very great slur has been cast on the character of all the Vaishnavs, the publishers thereof 
 and his abettors will be asked (about them,) according to the rules (or law). Therefore 
 this writing has been made, in order to make arrangements (or to adopt measures) respect- 
 ing the same, in some way or other, and to protect our religion and our religious pieceptors 
 and our preceptors' reputation. Therefore such persons, as may believe their religion to be 
 true, should put their signatures to this writing. This writing, which has been made by 
 us with our free will and pleasure, and in our sound sense and understanding has truly 
 been agreed to by us the undersigned, in our true faith. S. 1917 Bhadarva Sud the 2nd 
 the day of the Friday. The 6th day of September 1861. 
 
 (26) Damodhur Madhowjee, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " 1 am one of the Shettiasof 
 the Bhattia caste, and carry on no business at present. I was present at the Bhattia 
 meeting of last year, at which something was read out from a book. I don't recollect 
 whether I was present at the Bhattia meeting of 1855. 
 
 To Mr. Anstey. — " I am related to Lukhmidass Damjee, one of the conspirators. I 
 signed letters sent to Porebunder and other places, calling upon all true Vallabhacharyas to 
 join the Bhattia meeting in supporting the religion of the sect against the libels published in the 
 newspapers. Those who did not sign we would not have considered as members of our sect. I 
 remember an action on the Plea side of this Court brought against a Maharaj by 
 one Maneckbaee. She paid Rs. 1600 to the Maharaj, and the case was compromised. 
 I have not squandered the property of Ruttonsey Dharsey. One of my gardens has 
 been purchased by Jeevunjee Maharaj. I sent a man to Goculdass Tejpall and 
 Lukmidass Khimjee to ask their permission to hold the meeting in September last. 
 They replied that they would not join any meeting of the caste unless some arrange- 
 ment was made to prevent the immoralities of the Maharajas. We rejoined that the 
 object of the meeting to be held then was quite different. I was present at the 
 meeting held at the house of Chimunlaljee Maharaj to arrange the preliminaries of 
 the Bhattia meeting. Purbhoodass, who manages this case, was standing at some 
 distance from the meeting. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " I heard that the Slaya Prakash was supported by some 
 of the leaders of the Vallabhacharya sect. If any member of the sect held opinions 
 at variance with those of the majority, he must remain isolated in his own house, 
 and the sect would have no communication with him. I would not invite him to any 
 caste dinners. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " I would regard as practically outcasted any persons 
 v/ho said that the Maharajas were guilty of wicked practices." 
 
165 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " I would regard as an outcaste any person who charged the 
 Maharajas with immorahties. I would not speak to Goculdass, Lukhmidass, Muthooradass, 
 and others. I am a Murjadee (staunch devotee)." 
 
 (27.) — Devidass Asurdass, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am a member of the 
 Vallabhacharya sect, and a native of Shikarpore. I saw the plaintiff when he was at 
 Shikarpore about eight years ago. He remained there about two months and a half. 
 I used to visit him for " durshun." Any Maharaj I would regard as a gooroo, being 
 a follower of Vallabhacharya. He bore a good character for chastity and morality. I 
 heard no rumour against him. I have been in Bombay five years." 
 
 '; (28.) — TuUopchund Tejban, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a resident of Mooltan, 
 where I saw the plaintiff about eight years ago. I regard all Maharajas as gooroos. 
 I used to visit plaintiff once a day for " durshun" He bore a very good reputation 
 as to chastity and morality ; every body went to him to make " durshun." I am a 
 mooneem in Bombay to Amirdas Chimunlal." 
 
 (29.) — Kuttonmull Mookhund, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am a resident of 
 Hyderabad in Sind, and am a jeweller. I saw the plaintiff in Hyderabad five or six 
 years ago ; he resided four months there. There are many Vallabhacharyas in Hyderabad. 
 I visited the plaintiff daily for three months in the house which he occupied. He bore a 
 good reputation, and I heard nothing to his discredit. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " I went to make " durshun" to the plaintiff; there were 
 no images there " 
 
 (30.) — Permanund Heinraj, examined by Mr. Scoble — " I resided lately at Umritsur 
 and am a native of Shikarpore. I know the plaintiff whom I saw at Umritsur ten or 
 eleven years ago. He remained there ten or fourteen days. I use to visit him for 
 " durshun." He bore a good reputation, and I heard no report against him. The plain- 
 tiflf next proceeded to Mooltan and Lahore." 
 
 (31.) — Ramdass Dhitnoomull, examined by Mr. Bayley. — "I am a native of Shikar- 
 pore. I saw the plaintiff in Mandavie in Cutch, where he stayed four or five months. 
 I visited him for " durshun." He bore a good character, and I heard no report to his 
 discredit." 
 
 (32.) — Nundram S/iastree, examined by Mr. Scoble. — " I am a JN'aggur Brahmin 
 and a Pooranee. I know the books of the Vallabhacharya religion, and have read Goculnath- 
 jee's commentary. This manuscript (produced in Court) contains the commentary ; it was 
 copied by me four months ago from an ancient document. I am a member of the Vallabha- 
 charya sect. I got the ancient manuscript of the commentary from the plaintiff'. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " There are six sections of Naggur Brahmins, which 
 are separate from each other since the origin of the Vallabhachai'ya sect. These sections 
 hold no communication with my section and with each other. There are about two hun- 
 dred houses of my sect. It is not considered m the Shastras, particularly in the Bhagwut 
 which contains the doctrines of my sect, an offence or impropriety to tell lies to save the 
 life of a Brahmin or a cow, for the sake of marriage, &c., &c. 
 
166 
 
 (33.) — James Flynn, Chiet Translator and Interpreter, deposed to having translated 
 the commentary alluded to by the last witness. The translation was made from the copy, 
 and not from the original." 
 
 (34.) — Veljee Muckunjee, examined by Mr. Scoble.— " I am a Brahmin of the Sachora 
 caste, and have been in the service of the plaintiff for the last fifteen years. I went with 
 him on his travels, and was every moment with him. I accompanied him on his visits 
 to the temples, when four of the Sircar's sepoys and a Karbharee attended him, as also 
 his own sepoys and a number of Vaishnavs. At noon, the females went to him for 
 " durshun," No " durshun" was allowed after six o'clock in the evening. During the 
 plaintiff's residence at Beyt, women came for " durshun" up to the Maharaj's dinner 
 time. They were always accompanied by some males. Males accompany females when 
 the latter go to the temples at all places. Plaintiff had two rooms, one a bed-room and 
 the other a cook-room, and he took his meals in the latter. There was a separate room 
 to which only the fellowers were admitted. I never saw a female enter the bed-room. I 
 did not see the plaintiff throw golal upon any one at the temple of Luxmee. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr, Anstey. — " It is usual at the Maharaja's house to pay three 
 rupees a month to servants of my class. I put in order the Maharaja's clothes after he 
 has taken them off. I do not leave him for five minutes. It is my custom to sleep outside 
 the door when the Maharaj sleeps in his bed-room. I will suppress stooling is necessary ; but 
 will not leave the Maharaj alone. Even if he told me, I would not go ; not that we suspect him, 
 but because some one must be constantly within call. I and the other servants are not 
 procurers to the MBharajas. He is standing downstairs, and is watched by one Choberjee. 
 
 To Mr. Scoble. — " At Beyt, the Maharaj's wife was not with him ; she was at her 
 father's. He has two children who, with his wife, reside in Bombay at present. 
 He has a son of seven years and a daughter of four. If the Maharaj did anything wrong 
 I would tell him that, and also inform the people of it. I never observed any impropriety 
 in his conduct. I get three rupees a month besides board and lodging." 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " The Maharaj travelled continuously for five or six years 
 dui-ing the whole of which time his wife was not with him." 
 
 The name of Jadunathjee Brizruttonjee Maharaj, the plaintiff in this action, was here 
 called out by the Crier, and all eyes were strained in every direction of the hall of justice 
 to see His Holiness coming in. There was a rush of persons in one part, but from 
 the midst of them the hero did not come forth. The large mass of his followers 
 in Court stood up in reverence to the Maharaj's shadow, and whispers of " he is 
 coming" went round the lines of the spectators. The legal adviser rose up in medi- 
 tation from his chair, and perhaps satisfied with an answer from the Crier, sat down 
 again. A few minutes of intense curiosity and wistful glances elapsed, when two tall in- 
 dividuals entered the Court followed by the Maharaj and his attendants and admirers. 
 His Holiness, supported on either side by Mr. Vurjeevundass Madhowdass, J. P., and 
 others, was conducted into the witness-box, in which he showed a wonderfully bold front 
 considering the weight of the charges levelled against him. Judunathjee is a young man 
 of about thirty-five, of a well-knit and robust constitution, of a dark colour, and of a 
 middle stature. He seems to have taken particular care of his whiskers, which were 
 rather exuberant and shown to advantage. The swearing priest of the Court asked him to 
 take the required oath on a sacred book, which was held out before him. Mr. Anstey 
 
167 
 
 wished him to take off his shoes, which he did. The Maharaj seemed unwilling to take 
 oath on the book. 
 
 Maharaj to priest. — What is the necessity of making me swear on this book ? I 
 cannot speak anything but the truth. 
 
 Priest. — Do take the oath according to the Sircar's regulations. 
 
 Interpreter to Court. — The Maharaj says he need not be sworn. 
 
 Maharaj. — I will make solemn affirmation. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — If he wishes his evidence to be taken, tell him he must take an 
 oath on the book. 
 
 Maharaj. — I speak the truth all my life, but if the Court wishes, I will take the oath. 
 
 He then took the required oath. At Mr. Bayley's request the Court allowed him a 
 chair to sit in while giving his evidence. 
 
 (35.) — Jadunathjee Brizruttovjee Maharaj, examined by Mr. Bayley. — " I am the plaintiff 
 in this action, and am above thirty-five years of age. I have never been in a Court of 
 Justice in my life before. To my knowledge no other Maharaj has attended in a Court of 
 Justice. Besides Gujeratee, I know the Punjabee, Marwaree, and Hindoostanee languages, 
 Oordoo more or less, Sanscrit for the most part, and the Brij Bhasha. I have seen those 
 of the books of the Vallabhacharya sect which are necessary. I have opened a Sanscrit 
 and Gujeratee school at Surat, the expenses of which are defrayed by me. One Shastree 
 gives instruction in Sanscrit, and five or six teachers teach Gujeratee. Since I first came 
 to Bombay I have taken an interest in female education. I first paid a visit about nine- 
 teen months ago to the ' Munguldass Girl School.' It is the duty of all Hindus to go on 
 pilgrimages, the length of which varies with the kind of pilgrimage and the place. I set out 
 on a pilgrimage, and arrived in Beyt in 1907. I visited twice a day the temple of Luxmee. 
 Golal is thrown on the image in this temple. In the temple of Dwarkanathjee it is also thrown 
 on the followers. I never threw golal on the persons of the devotees at the temple of Luxmee. 
 How can I touch the breast of any female, when I regard all female devotees as my children ? 
 I never did so. I know Lukhmidass Khimjee, with whom I first became acquainted about two 
 years or two years and a half ago. I did not see him at Beyt in 1907. Any story he may 
 have told against me is false. The last witness Veljee is my personal attendant, and was so on 
 my pilgrimage. He is daily in my presence. It is the custom amongst all of my class 
 to have at least three or four personal attendants constantly near them. I have visited 
 Baroda, Gocul, Muthra, Umritsur, two Mandavies, Mooltan, and other places. I saw 
 Goculdass Tejpall and Lukmidass Khimjee at Byculla where they came to me. I was 
 married in 1905 or 1906 before I went to Shikarpore. I did not leave Surat because of 
 a charge of rape against me. My wife was not with me on my pilgrimage to Beyt. I 
 have been subpoenaed by the defendants to give evidence here ; I was served by a Parsee. 
 I saw Goculdass Tejpall on my first visit to Bombay ; he introduced me to Lukhmidass. 
 I first put up at Byculla when I came to Bombay two years ago. Lukhmidass invited 
 me on one occasion when his brother was sick, and on another at the reading of the 
 Bhagwut. I have some faint recollection of having authorized the publication of some 
 articles in the Chabook newspaper. I did not tell Lukhmidass that the Maharajas were 
 running away trom Bombay in consequence of the articles in the newspapers, or that I 
 
168 
 
 had came to conduct a debate with them. I asked him if this action would proceed ia 
 my absence from Bombay. I have done nothing improper in respect to any female devotee 
 in Bombay. I know Kallabhoy Lalloobhoy, and remember having seen him in Surat and 
 in Bombay. (Denies another allegation of immorality.) As to making " durshun," 
 thousands of males and females used to visit me. Adultery is most distinctly prohibited 
 in our religion. It never formed the topic of conversation between me and Karrabhoy. 
 He discussed with me about the authenticity and genuineness of the religious books. 
 (Denies an allegation of immorality.) I don't remember having conversed with a doctor 
 on the subject of adultery ; I have never been guilty of it in my life. No female ever 
 entered my bedroom whilst I was talking to Kallabhoy. Many females daily visit my 
 wife and children. I had no conversation at Surat with Kallabhoy about touching the 
 toes. He came and used to read with other boys a book for children which I caused to 
 be written and printed at my expense. I assisted in its compilation. It is the universal 
 custom for my followers to touch my feet ; when I am sitting on a raised seat, the feet 
 are touched from above and below, but when the foot is on the ground, it is touched at 
 the top. Generally it is touched at the top. Kallabhoy said to me that all the Hindoo 
 Shastras are false, and that he had become a perfect disciple of JSTarmadashanker. As I 
 maintain and am convinced that the Shastras are true, he perhaps thinks I am therefore 
 guilty of telling falsehood. Narmadashanker is a Naggur Brahmin of Surat ; he holds 
 opinions contrary to mine. I had no conversation with Lukhmidass or any one else about 
 the Vurkuts, nor did I ever say to any body that they had corrupted me. I don't know 
 what is the meaning of " Euss mundlee ;" I know " Has mundlee" and have seen it 
 too. The latter is a dramatic representation, and there is nothing indecent in it. When 
 the deity is represented, we (Maharajas) get up for the time ; other spectators continue 
 sitting. The Vaishnavs worship me and other Maharajas as gooroos, those who cause 
 happiness through God and are guides to him. I have not heard any one say that we 
 are worshipped as gods. We are swung in a swing because we are gooroos. When any 
 money or present is given to us in the name of God, we take it. The devotees regard us 
 as gooroos, as guides to God : the Thackorjee is God. We spend from 3 to 8 or 10 
 o'clock in the morning, and from 4 to 6 o'clock in the evening, in the worship of Thac- 
 korjee. The idol in the temple is regarded as the image of God. In no book written by 
 Vallabhacharya is it inculcated that the Maliarajas are to be worshipped as Gods. I am 
 acquainted with Goculnathjee's commentary ; I allowed Nundram Shastree to copy it. It 
 is considered a book of great authority by us and by all the Vaishnavs. The first 
 Vallabhacharya is regarded as the incarnation of the head of God ; he lived about 350 or 
 375 years ago. He was the disseminator of the opinions of Vishnoo Swamee. Our faith 
 is not opposed to the doctrines of the Veds and the Shastras. In my school at Surat, 
 Sanscrit grammar is now being taught The manuscript of the commentary referred to, 
 was found in my house and was the property of my father, who died in 1908. It is 
 more than a hundred years old. I have read it. The Purshotum referred to therein is 
 the God of all gods, the Supreme Being. What is therein stated to be offered to God, is 
 stated in the defendant's article to be offered to me and the Maharajas. The sense of the 
 original is perverted by the defendant. " Tun, mun, and dhun" are directed to be offered 
 to God. It is not inculcated in that commentary or in any other book of the sect, that 
 one should offer his wife and daughter to the Maharaj. I have not heard that any of my 
 followers believes in a book containing such doctrines. 
 
109 
 
 Ticentieth Bay, Thursday, 21th February, 18G2. 
 
 Jadoimathjee Brizrutlonjee Mahavaj, further examined by Mr. Eayley. — " I know 
 Dr. Bhawoo Dajee. Since my arrival in Bombay he did not attend ma professionally. He 
 came to visit me once, in company writh Lukhmidass Khimjee. I saw him on one occasion 
 when I visited a girk' school. I was suffering from itches when Dr. Bhawoo visited me, 
 because I had taken heating medicines when I was sick. I have suffered from eruptions 
 occasionally. Some of the heating medicines v?-ere prepared by myself, and others by a 
 native doctor. When Dr. Bhawoo came to me, I told him I was subject to itches and 
 described my case to him, and told him I had taken heating medicines. The word 
 " chandee" was not used at all by either of us. I asked him to prescribe some medicine 
 for rie. I never suffered from the venerial affection. The next day I sent Goverdhundass 
 to Dr. Bhawoo to get back a manuscript book for girls' school, which I had prepared and 
 given him for an inspection. I asked Goverdhundass at the same time to bring any 
 medicine which Dr. Bhawoo might give. I did not tell him (Dr. Bhawoo) that the story 
 of the disease would be communicated to him the next day, and applied my ov;n medicines. 
 I know Dr. Dhirajram Dulputram, whom T saw at the exhibition of, I believe, Munguldass 
 Nathoobhoy's school. I consulted him and took the medicines he gave. I described my 
 case to him in the same manner as I had described it to Dr. Bhawoo. He prescribed 
 some pills and a powder for me. The colour of the powder turned black when it was 
 mixed with water. He came for six or seven days for treating me ; and also on other 
 occasions. He is a Yallabhacharya. Since my acquaintance with him, he visited me often. 
 I convened a meeting to discuss the question of widow remarriage ; in consequence of a 
 note addressed to me by Xarmadashunker, I attended the meeting, but expressed no 
 opinion on remarriage, because othei' and irrelevant subjects were mooted for 
 discussion and were discussed. The subject of remarriage was not disciissed. I said 
 some Shastra must be fixed upon as an authority upon the subject of remarriage. 
 N'armadashunker said the Shastras may be followed when advisable, or not. I said we 
 must acknowledge all the Shastras ; and my opinion was that, if the Shastras allowed, 
 remarriages might take place, but not otherwise. I have seen no authority in the Shastras 
 for remarriages. But I have no objection personally thereto. In my sect remarriages take 
 place, and I don't prohibit them. Lukhmidass was present when Dr. Bhawoo visited me ; 
 he was sitting by and heard what I said. I had no further conversation with him on the 
 gubject of the disease. I did not confess to him anything prejudicial to my chastity or 
 morality. On the same occasion. I did not speak to him about the practices of other 
 Maharajas. I have seen no instance of improprieties on the part of any Maharaj. I did 
 not tell Lukhmidass that I did not commit such enormities as I did before. I did not tell 
 him that any improvement in the practices of the Maharajas must be gradual, and cannot 
 be made at once ; nor that our income is chiefly derived from females. I told him I 
 intended to go to Shrijee Dwar, but not that I had fears of my life there. I have caused 
 a plan of my premises to be prepared. Tliousands of females go to the zenana, passing 
 on their way througk the " deevankhana." There are two doors to the " deevankhana," 
 one leading to the zenana and the other to the staircase. On the left side of the " dee- 
 vankhana" is a room in which my clothes and water are kept. There is another room at 
 a few cubits' distance, in which the other Maharaja's furniture and goods are kept, and 
 v^hich is 
 
 Crosg-examined by Mr. Amslcy. — The room last mentioned is in charge of Chimunjee 
 
 90 
 
170 
 
 Maharafs servants. One of the two staircases is closed, and is also in the charge of 
 Chimunjee Mahara''s servants. I am a man, and not a God. I am a man and a gooroo 
 to my followers. I am not an incarnation of the Deity and I am not aware that hitherto 
 any of my followers has ever regarded me as a God or an incarnation of God. Our 
 Acharjee is regarded as an incarnation of God, and we are regarded as his descendants 
 and gooroos. I do not remember whether Kursondass ISTensey once addressed me as 
 " Ishwur," God. I and other Maharajas are not addressed to as Maha Prabhoo, or 
 Purshotum, or Dev ; we are called the children of Maha Prabhoo. Vallabhachai ya and 
 his son Gosaijee are regarded as incarnations of God but not so the sons of Gosaiiee. The 
 Maharajas are styled Vallubh Dev (Vallubh the God). The words Agnee-swuroop (form 
 of fire) is not applied to us. The title of Poorn Purshotum (perfect God) is applied to the 
 Maharajas. I held no meeting at 10 o'clock on Tuesday night to consider what answers I 
 should make. Purbhoodass did not tell me I should say " I don't recollect." The words 
 referred to above are applied as titles to the Maharajas in books inaccessible to sucli 
 followers as understand Sanscrit. I have taught my devotees that they should regard us 
 as gooroos, not as Gods. This book contains the names and pictures of Vallabhacharya 
 and two of his immediate descendants. Vaishnavs worship these pictures. No Maharaj 
 of the nam.e of Dowjee is worshipped ; he was the proprietor of one of the principal 
 " gaddees" (seats). These pictures are sold in the bazar for purposesof worship by the Vaish- 
 navs. In the garden in which I put up there is a seat to which people resort for 
 " durshun." I don't know if it is the seat of Dowjee. I have seen a seat of Dowjee in 
 Surat. The name of Krishna occurs in a portion of the Veds. (Witness is examined as 
 to the extent of his knowledge of the Veds and Purans.) There is sin in telling lies, even 
 for a good purpose. (Witness is handed a copy of the Bhagwut and interprets a passage 
 therein.) Untruth may be told to women in sport, on occasion of marriages, when life is 
 in danger, when a cow is to be killed, &c. ; any one who tells lies on such occasions is 
 not to be despised, but he commits a sin nevertheless. Since the rising of the Court I 
 had no consultation with Verjeevundas and others. I believe everything mentioned in the 
 Bhagwut. The Shastras of the Vaishnavs are in accordance with the Veds. I have not 
 published any pamphlet : no periodicals were published by the Vaishnav Dhurma Sabha, 
 which were written by Goverdhundass. I was the originator of the society. Haryraijee 
 was a Maharaj ; I cannot say if he wrote any books in the Brij Bhasha. I cannot say 
 whether a few Maharajas only can read Sanscrit. The wives and daughters of the 
 Maharajas read books in the Brij Bhasha. I am unable to say whether this book (the 
 Vachan-amrut in Brig Bhasha) is considered a religious book. I have not read up to this 
 time any work in the Brij Bhasha relating to the Vallabhacharya religion, with the 
 exception of songs in praise of the Creator. I mean to say that I have never in my life 
 read a theological or philosophical work in the Brig Bhasha on the Vallabhacharya religion. 
 I now remember I have read in Brij Bhasha one of Goculnathjee's commentaries. I do 
 not read books of my sect in the Marathi language. I know Goverdhundass wrote an 
 essay in the " Propagator of our own religion" on adulterine love, in the opinions expressed 
 in which I agree in the main. I did not tell him to write that essay. It was written in 
 reply to an article in a Marathee magazine, but I cannot say if it was in reply to the 
 libel in the Satya Prakash. I cannot say whether it is the belief of my sect or not that 
 the ffopees loved God as their paramour, and that God loved them and made them happy. 
 (Witness was asked as to several of the doctrines of the sect, mentioned at length in the 
 pleas, whether or not they were believed in by himsel ^iby his sect. Several of the 
 
171 
 
 questions ho said he was unable to answer vvitliout reading a great portion of the 
 context in the books in which the doctrines were mentioned.) The writer of the essay 
 understands his subject, and I think it contains upon the whole, a fair exposition of 
 the doctrines cf the sect. Whatever is stated in the Shastras is accepta'-'le to 
 me. Besides the sacred bool<s of my sect, there are other Shastras, viz., the 
 Bhagwut, the Purans, &c. The young maidens of my sect swing Krishna in a swing, 
 (rod Krishna is their father, husband, lord, &c. They swing me and the other Maharajas 
 as a gooroo. We are swung by our fathers, mothers, sisters, and all devotees : but I do 
 not recollect whether we are addressed to as the amorous Kann (Cupid). These amorous 
 songs are addressed to the Maharajas. (Heads and interprets passages in Sanscrit in Gocul- 
 nathjee's commentary.) Since the last two or thrte days, I have been subjected to surgical 
 examination by two or three medical gentlemen. My face was not covered when one of 
 them saw me. I don't know if one of them refuses to give evidence that there is no trace 
 in me of the venereal affection. They examined me from a short distance. I don't know 
 their names, and I have not been told that only two of them are coming to give evidence. 
 Vurjeevundass Madhavdass, J. P., and Calliandass Mohundass, his nephew who conducts this 
 case, might have brought the doctors ; I don't know. The examination took place in the 
 shop of Kagoo Shauijce, one of the conspirators. 
 
 Tiveuty-Jirst Dai/, Friday, 'ISl/t February/, 1S62. 
 
 JadooiicUkjee Brizrultonjee MaharaJ, cross-examined by Mr. Anstey. — " Since my 
 cross-examination yesterday, I have not been again inspected by a doctor. I did not ask 
 Dr. Dhirajram to send me calomel from time to time whenever I wanted it. Once I put 
 calomel into chunam water and made a blackwash of it, and applied it. Dr. Dhirajram 
 told me to take a pill twice in the day, and I took five or six pills. I have purchased 
 now a glass scale for use in taking photographs ; I had none for measuring medicines. 
 When my throat became sore a preparation of borax was given me as a gargle. I had 
 sent for some iodide of potash and sarsaparilla. I tried the former ; the latter I adminis- 
 tered medically to another person. I have heard the name of Brahma-vivarta Puran ; I 
 have not read it ; it is believed in by the Vaishnavs. (Witness is shown a passage in the 
 book.) It runs thus : " Upon having seen the " Eas," the mistresses of the God were 
 tormented with the arrows of love ; upon having performed the " rutee-rus" Krishna, the 
 perfect and perpetual along with Radha, went to the waters of Yamoona ; with the gopees 
 went the magical forms of the exalted Krishna, which, tormented with the arrows of love, 
 and prevaded with joy, performed sport with the gopees in the water." The ti'anslation is 
 correct, but I am not quite certain of the meaning. I must collate the passage with 
 other books. (Witness is shown another passage.) It appears to be addressed to Kadha, 
 Krishna's principal Mistress as follows : — 
 
 " Why does thou weep, O Radha ! remember the lotus feet of Krishna ; during the 
 Ras mundlee night will fall thou will perform with Krishna the desired uninterrupted 
 ruttoe." I know the Vishnoo Puran ; I may have seen a passage in it here and there. 
 
172 
 
 I don't remember having read the following passage ; — " Whilst frolicking thus with tlie 
 (iopees, they considered every instant without him a myriad of years, and without the fear 
 of their husbands, fathers and brothers, they went forth there to perform sport at night with 
 Krishna." The Vaishnavs read the- Vishnoo Puran, not because they contain descrip- 
 tions of the sports of Krishna with the gopees, but because they contain Vaishnav 
 doctrines. We worship images of Krishna with the faith we are actually worshipping 
 Krishna. He is brought into the images partly by ceremonies, partly by faitli. The 
 images of Krishna are represented as if he were in the infantile state. I have never 
 seen him in the young or old state. (Witness is handed a picture of Krishna, at the 
 top of a tree with the naked gopees at the foot of it.) He is here represented between 
 the ages of 5 and 11 years. When the Maharaj dies, persons say he is gone to 
 his abode, or to the world of gods. Krishna, when he died, went to the Gowlowk ; 
 religious and pious Vaishnavs go there also= He (Krishna) remains all day in joy ; 
 the Vaishnavs are present there in his service. I have not observed in any book if 
 it is the doctrine of my sect, that true Vaishnavs, after death, become gopees and 
 have amorous and improper intercourse with God. I do not believe in this doctrine, 
 nor am I aware if any of my followers does or do believe in it. By " lila" I 
 understand sport, play. I believe it is impossible that Krishna should renew, in 
 paradise, his amorous dalliance with the gopees ; he may engage in " ras lila" with 
 them. The gopees are there in human form, but are not subject to early decay. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — I hope, Jlr. Anstey, you are done with the theological part of 
 the examination. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould remarked that the subject might well be taken up for a 
 theological discussion between Dr. Wilson and the Maharaj outside the Court ; but as 
 it was, the Court could not be made the arena for] such theological discussion. The 
 question now was as to the libel. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — I am near the end of this part of the examination, my Lord. 
 
 Witness continued to say. — I " am forbidden to repeat here the " muntra" pronounced 
 at the " kanthee" ceremony. The translation you give of it is correct. The dedication 
 referred to in this " muntra" is caused to be made at the feet of Krishna not to the 
 Maharaj. The gooroo at the ceremony is only the guide to Krishna. (Witness is 
 examined as to the meaning of another passage.) I asked Lukhmidass if an action 
 might go on in the absence of one of the parties. When I first arrived from Surat, 
 I had no intention of bringing an action against those who published anything against 
 the Maharajas. The reason for the delay of six months, in bringing the present action 
 was that I am not acquainted with such matters in this island, and found it necessary 
 to consult and take advice. (Witness is shown a passage of an article published in the 
 Satya Prakash on the 9Lh September, against all the Maharajas.) When all the 
 Maharajas are libelled, how could I alone bring an action. I do not remem.ber if I 
 consulted Mr. I;eathes about this article. I do not remember if I read it ; I heard 
 that all the Maharajas were libelled, I cannot say if it was in consequence of this 
 article or not; that a handbill was published with my name to it, what is stated in 
 the handbill as to the lessening authority of the Maharajas accords with my view. 
 The words " Asatya Prakash" in one of the numbers of the " Propagator of our own 
 Religion" icfers to the defendant's paper; I think it is an error of the printer, or 
 
173 
 
 the letter " a" (not) may have fallen in by mistake near the word " Satya." I don't 
 know if this article in the magazine was written in answer to the libel ; I cannot say 
 without reading over the whole ot it. 
 
 Sir 'M. Sausse. — Xow tell this witness the manner in which he has been giving 
 his evidence latterly, is such as to impress the Court with an unfavorable view re- 
 garding it. He must be able to answer without reading over everything about which 
 he is questioned. 
 
 Witness. — " I cannot answer v.'ithout reading it over 1 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — The man has too much intelligence and collected manner not to 
 recollect or to know what he says he 'cannot answer. 
 
 "Witness continued. — " Then the article may be in answer to the libel. I have read 
 part of the book called the " Debauched Gooroo." It refers to " rus mundlee." I 
 have read the article containing the libel ; it reflects upon me. The article says, " You 
 ^Maharajas, acting up to that commentary, defile the wives and daughters," &c. This 
 is libellous, though not directed against me individually. Being charged with the 
 immoralities of the " Eus mundlee." I do not consider it libellous, because I do not 
 understand what " Rus mundlee" means. 
 
 Witness proceeded to say. — " The book of Ilaryriajee is in Sanscrit. I have never 
 ueen it in Brij Bhasha. I have heard of a work in ilarathee by Janardhun Ram- 
 chunderjee, entitled " Biographies of Eminent Men."' The story of the 252 and of the 
 84 is not considered a book of authority in our sect. This book of songs was not 
 published by me, nor do I know if it was published by Goverhundass. 
 
 " I don't know if it is a libel upon the defendant. The representation of a Maharaj 
 drawing a triumphant chariot over the prostrate bodies of the reformers does not refer 
 to me ; the printer must know who the Maharaj is. 
 
 Maharaj. — Ko one should touch me. 
 
 Sir. M. Sausse. — " I saw no one attempt to touch you. 
 
 Maharaj. — " I am afraid some of the persons going from behind might touch me. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — Why should you not be touched? I am not going to touch you. 
 You are not a God. As for me I won't touch you with a pair of tongs. Mr. 
 Hastings has already touched you the first day. 
 
 Witness proceeded. — " The chief temple of our sect is that of Shreenathjee at Cancrowlee. 
 An image thence was not stolen by my father or grandfather ; my grandfather sat on the 
 " gaddee" at Surat. There was a suit about the gaddee which was litigated in England. 
 I have never gone on a pilgrimage to that temple, although I was seven years abroad. 
 The Maharaj receives presents and contributions from the Vaishnavs. Fines are also 
 levied, the money received by way of fine being eventually applied to the use of the 
 Thackorjee. I am not a Brahmacharya ; I was one before my marriage. I am not 
 a Sanyasee. I believe in Poorn Purshotum, who is one. Poorn Purshotum (perfect God) 
 is applied as a title to the Maharajas, as " My Lord" is applied to the judges. I 
 don't know if the gooroos of other sects are swung in a swing like the Maharajas. 
 I have never seen the water from a Maharaj's lanjotee rinsed and drunk by the 
 
174 
 
 Valshnavs. The "joolhun" (remnants of food) left by tlie Maharajas is eaten like that 
 of all other gooroos. It is the custom in all sects of Hindoos. It is written that the 
 Brahmins should partake of the leavings of gooroo's food. I don't know if there is a pro- 
 hibition in Menu. We give for the purpose of being thrown away the leavings of our 
 " pan soparee." They may be eaten by some persons. The Maharaj applies his foot to 
 the eyes of a dying person to relieve him from sin ; no fee is paid for this. I don't know 
 if the gooroos of any other sect do this. Males, females, and children apply and wash 
 with saffron water and scented oils the bodies of the Maharajas. I don't allow my 
 followers to eat the dust of my feet : I don't know if other Maharajas allow it. Lights 
 are waved round the Maharajas heads. All this is enjoined in the Shastras ; I don't 
 know what Shastra. The wooden shoes of my . ancestors are worshipped as also of 
 other Maharajas. My shoes are not worshipped. I do not go into private rooms to 
 receive presents of fruit and sweetmeat from female devotees. I don't know if others 
 do it. Vaishnavs bring them and present them to the Thackorjee and we then receive 
 them. I don't know if other Maharajas go into private rooms for this purpose. Female 
 devotees do not sing songs of a licentious character in the presence of the Maharajas ; 
 songs of various kinds are sung. Golal is thrown by Maharajas on the persons of all 
 devotees, not expressly on the persons of females. The gooroo is to be worshipped in 
 the same way as the image of Thackorjee, which represents God. I have not read 
 in " Gooroo Seva" that all the Vallabhacharya Gosaijees are to be considered as in- 
 carnations of God. Ever since I arrived at a proper age I have told my followers not 
 to believe in this doctrine. Before my admonition, the doctrine was believed in. It 
 was believed in by some persons in Bombay, not the majority. I cannot remember 
 the names of any one person whom I instructed not to believe in the doctrine. Did 
 I say yesterday that I did not know whether any one regarded the Maharajas to be 
 incarnations of God ? Perhaps I did. I do not know if I swore to that effect. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — Tell him the Court has taken down clearly what he said. 
 
 Witness. — "I don't recollect it. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — 0, his memory is very short ; but the Court has taken down 
 exactly what he said. 
 
 Witness proceeded. — " The Vaishnavs believe their obligations to their gooroos to be 
 greater than their obligation to God. The Vaishnavs are not allowed to touch the 
 image ; and they can make offerings through the Maharajas or the Brahmins who bathe 
 or wash their bodies inside the temple. I believe that by Brahma-sabandk the sins 
 of the eleven organs (including those of generation) are washed away. I don't know 
 if it is the doctrine of my sect that Vaishnavs should not divulge the secrets of the 
 gooroo. It is good among other things, not to see the faults of others. I am a Brahmin ; 
 you may think I have not the physical appearatice of one. My ancestors were Tellinga 
 Brahmin's ; they were not excommunicated. We take their daughters in marriage, but 
 d^n't give any. With reference to Telinga Brahmins in this country, we interman-y with 
 them. I don't know if they are very poor ; they are called Bhutjees. They are not 
 excommunicated for giving their daughters to the Maharajas. Sometimes we find it necessary 
 to give sums of money when the parents of the bride are poor. Menu prohibits the selling 
 of daughters ; I don't know of any prohibition against selling marriages. I believe the 
 Maharajas to be innocent of adultery ; if they are guilty thereof, they don't deserve the 
 rank of gooroos. Kursuna-raiajee, my cousin, has married the daughter of a Tellinga 
 
175 
 
 Brahmin. I don't know of any scandals about him and a widow devotee. I don't 
 know if his son Goculoochewjee was expelled by a Eajah from his territory. Wallubhjee 
 Maharaj was expelled by the other Maharajas, for interfering in a dispute between a father 
 and his son. I don't know of any scandals connected with him. I was the first Maharaj 
 to go to Damaun, I went there through ignorance. There is a prohibition made by Maha- 
 rajas against going there. I don't know if the reason of the prohibition was, that a Maha- 
 raj was killed under the lash for larceny by order of the Portuguese government. Vitti- 
 eshjee Maharaj was under surveillance at Patna ; he was accused of sorcery ; I don't know if 
 he was accused of poisoning the Raja ; I don't know of Vrijpaljee Maharaj looting the houses of 
 his devotees at Lakput Bunder. I left Surat on a pilgrimmage for seven years. There was no 
 charge of rape ever made against me. I hear it this moment. I don't remember if I was asked 
 about it the day before yesterday. I have heard of the daughter of Petamber Popa. There was 
 no charge against me of having defiled her. I was not taken before the Surat magistrate on 
 that charge, twelve or fourteen years ago. I have no knowledge of such a charge having 
 been compromised for me by the then Sheristadar of Surat. I have not summoned any 
 brother Maharajas to give evidence on my behalf. None of the Maharajas intimated to me 
 that he cannot deny the adulteries of the Maharajas in this Court because the fact is too 
 notorious. The son of one Maharaj is at present in Bombay except myself; all other 
 Maharajas have left Bombay. I don't know of a disturbance near Jeevunjee's temple three 
 months afler my arrival in Bombay. I don't know Luckmeebaee, the daughter of Thawor 
 Mooljee. I did not know her fifteen years ago. Up to the time of the discussion on the 
 subject of remarriage, I was on good terms with the defendant, who praised me in his 
 newspaper. ■ I did not prohibit the Vaishnavs from subscribing to defendant's paper. I 
 don't know of having published any handbills against the Sati/a Prakash being subscribed 
 to. I have heard of the Bhattia conspiracy case. I have not arranged with the other 
 Maharajas to shut the temples against those Vaishnavs who might give evidence against 
 me in this case. I don't remember if Purbhoodass told me that he managed the Bhattia 
 case. I either heard or read somewhere that Purbhoodass took some message to one Gopal - 
 dass, and that the latter gave evidence of the visit and the message. I heard also a 
 rumour to that effect. I first spoke to Purbhoodass on the subject during the trial ot 
 the Bhattia conspiracy case. Purbhoodass came to me to Surat to call me here. I 
 spoke to him then. He told me of the " bundobust" which was made here. I said 
 " what is the necessity or object of making this bundobust" ? He said they must 
 know. I did not authorise him to conduct or assist in the management of the case. 
 There were no consultations between the nine conspirators at my house. One or two 
 of them came to my house. The bundobust was in reference to the offering of virgin 
 daughters, but I don't know for what case it was. I heard of the Bania bundobust 
 from a number of persons who came to me and said what they had heard in this Court. 
 I never reproved Purbhoodass for his part in the making of the bundobusts : he did 
 neither right nor wrong. I believe what Lukhmidass has stated against me must be 
 false ; because if he saw me commit any immoral act, he would not have continued 
 visiting me. I have never been guilty of adultery or immoralities. I took the heating 
 medicines at Hyderabad where I was sick. I took dry ginger, black pepper, chillies, 
 &c., and these produced internal heat. With tha exception of six or seven months, 
 my wife was with me on my pilgrimage. About four or five years before 1!)09, I 
 travelled without the society of my wife, who had then died. 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — " Neither of my wives were with me at Beyet. 
 
176 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — I once travelled five years, la the course of which I went to 
 Jeypore to call my wife. I was away from Surat for two years in the course of 
 which I proceeded to Beyt. I have married two wives. I married before I set out 
 for Beyt, and was away for two years from my second wife, who was then of the 
 acre of nme or nine and a half years. She came to live with me at the age of thirteen. 
 
 Ti£enty -second Bay, Saturday, 1st March 1862. 
 
 Jadunathjee Brizruttonjee 3IakaraJ, re-examined by Mr Scbble.^" There 'was no 
 meeting held at my house on Tuesday evening for the purpose of a consultation. It is a 
 common form of salutation among Hindoos to apply to each other, at a meeting, the names 
 of Earn and Purshotum, although they may not be the real names of the persons ad- 
 dressed to. (Mr. Scoble said he was addressed to by the names Purshotum when in 
 Guzerat !) There are two seats of Dovvjee, who established them and also worshipped 
 them in common with others. All the sacred books of my sect are in Sanscrit ; they 
 are regarded as authorities even in Brij Bhasha, if they correspond with the Sanscrit 
 originals. All the Maharajas are ex-officio Presidents of the Valshnav Dhurm-parsaruck 
 Society, or the Society for the Propagation of the Vaishnav religion. Since my arrival 
 from Surat, I have made exertions to propagate the Vaishnav religion. I was asked 
 in reference to the specific offence of several Maharajas ; I heard them for the first time 
 in Court yesterday. I have heard of those offences through several prints also ; not of my 
 relatives in particular, but of the Maharajas generally. I heard of the charges, for the 
 first time yesterday, brought against the Maharajas by name. The " Debauched Gooroo" 
 is not a book of authority in my sect ; it is a lampoon. It is believed in by persons who 
 are our enemies. The Maharajas have authority to outcaste any one from the sect, with 
 the approval of the members of the sect. Without such approval, no one can be excom- 
 municated. Thd Maharaj has power to prevent a person from coming to the temple over 
 which he has jurisdiction. All the Maharajas can combine to prevent a person from coming 
 to any of the temples. Such a combination, however, has not taken place within my 
 knowledge. 
 
 To Sir M. Sausse. — " I have said that adultery is a great sin according to the Shastras 
 of my sect. The recommendation in the essay, already referred to, which I approved of, 
 is not to commit adultery, but to love God with love akin to what is called adulterine love. 
 Adulterine passion is intense love, and the same intensity of love should be shown towards 
 God. Such love towards God is very good ; towards a strange woman, it is bad. Such 
 an illustration is given in the Bhagwut. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse. — Tell him that we are under the impression that, when asked before, 
 he could not name any Shastra which contained such an illustration. 
 
 "Witness. — " I do not remember. 
 
 Mr. Anstey. — I asked him several times, and he could not name any. 
 
 Witness to Sir M. Sausse. — I believe it is stated in the Bhagwut that love should be 
 entertained towards God akin to the love of the qojwes. 
 
177 
 
 To Sir Joseph Arnould. — "1 said that God is tu be gained by worshipping him in any 
 form or manner. 
 
 Maharaj (on retiring), — " I bless your Lordships"' ! ! 
 
 The examination of witnesses closed here. 
 
 Mr. Anstey addressed the Court on behalf of the defendants. The learned counsel 
 stated that his clients had been placed in a difficult position, as by far the great part of 
 the evidence which had been given for the plaintiff had been kept back until every one of 
 the defendants witnesses was called and every document was put in. The defendant had 
 not, therefore, the opportunity and the advantage which the plaintift' had, to call witnesses 
 on their behalf to contradict the enormous mass of falsehood which it would be the duty 
 of the learned counsel, in the course of his observations, to unravel and lay bare. The 
 circumstance, however, would not escape the Court's observation, that the witnesses whom 
 the defendants had called were men of position and respectability, and who would therefore 
 claim, in the decision to which their Lordships might eventually come, a much greater 
 weight for credibility than the unfortunate devotees of the Mahara as who had been drawn 
 from the lower classes of society. This was the third time the learned gentleman had the 
 honor to address the Court on the principal features of this case. On the first occasion, in 
 the demurrer case, when one of their Lordships was present, he (Mr. Anstey) showed 
 that the very libel itself being considered, it was impossible for the plaintiff to support his 
 plaint upon a general demurrer. The result was, that though, with respect to nineteen- 
 twentieths of the alleged libel, the Court thought there was no cause for calling upon the 
 defendants for a justification, yet that there was a sufficient case in the eight or ten lines 
 in the concluding part of the article. Mr. Anstey would not revert to all the arguments he 
 addressed to the Court upon that occasion. It must be remarked that this action was 
 brought by a person professing a different morality and different doctrines from Christian 
 morality and Christian doctrines, and what the learned counsel urged was that the precedents 
 of Erglish law which it was sought to apply to this case, can have no universal 
 application. 
 
 Mr. Scoble contended that the learned counsel must confine himself to the rebutting 
 evidence. 
 
 Mr. Anstey said this was impossible from- the very nature of the case, and it was 
 impossible to draw a line of distinction between the portions of the evidence. 
 
 Mr. Scoble insisted upon his learned friend confining himself to the evidence offered 
 in rebuttal. He had shown no case or cited no authority for going over the whole of the 
 evidence. 
 
 The Court decided that Mr. Anstey ought to confine his observations to the rebutting 
 evidence. 
 
 Mr. Anstey submitted that the principal points and doctrines in the case were so 
 involved one within the other, that it would be really impossible to draw the distinction. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould suggested that the distinction might be drawn this way. Mr. 
 Anstey would address the Court upon the evidence for the defence and the rebutting evi- 
 dence, but not upon what he might have spoken about in the speech for the defence. 
 23 
 
ITS 
 
 Mr. Anstey said this was just the course he intended to take. In commenting upon 
 the rebutting evidence, he would alUide to, and remark upon, the evidence which it was 
 supposed to rebut. And first, he must refer to the points which were affected by the 
 evidence. He thought one of these point?? was, to use the words of one of their Lordships 
 in the course of the trial, that there is no standard by which we may judge of the 
 plaintiff. In the rebutting evidence, he had tried to set up one, which, however, it was 
 impossible for the courts of the English law to act upon. The learned counsel's first pro- 
 position was, that the plaintiff has no right to sue ; and second, that, if he has a right, 
 there is no libel upon him in what the defendants have pubhshed. 
 
 Mr. Scoble again applied to the Court to confine Mr. Anstey to the rebutting 
 evidence. 
 
 Sir Joseph Amould remarked that the question of a justifiable occasion was still open 
 to the defendants ; and Mr. Anstey had thought it proper to address himself to two pro- 
 positions : 1st, that the doctrines of the sect being such and such, the plaintiff had no 
 right to sue for redress for the enunciation and publication of those doctrines by the 
 defendants ; and 2nd, that even if he has the right, there is no libel. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse observed that the Court had already directed the counsel to restrict 
 himself to the rebutting evidence. 
 
 Mr. Anstey said he had every intention to attend to the direction of the Court ; and 
 that much time would be saved if the officious and useless interruption by the counsel for 
 the plaintiff was not repeated. 
 
 Mr. Scoble said he never heard such expressions used by one member of the Bar 
 towards another at the Courts where he practised before coming to Bombay ; and he would 
 take the opinion of the Court whether his objection was such as to be called officious and 
 useless and by other similar epithets. He had equally with the counsel for the defendants 
 a duty to perform to his client, and he would ask the Court whether a legal argument was 
 admissible in a rebutting case. He had to learn from their Lordships, whether general 
 observations on law were to be allowed in answer to a rebutting case. 
 
 Sir M. Sausse observed that the learned counsel for the defendants had given an 
 assurance that he could, Imva fide, support the observations he would make by the evidence 
 and the Court gave him credit for that assurance, taking it for granted that he would 
 sustain his propositions by referring to the rebutting evidence. With reference to the 
 objection made by the plaintiffs counsel, his Lordship certainly did not think that he de- 
 served to be censured with the words which had been made use of. It was proper -and 
 becoming in him (Mr. Scoble) calmly to raise such objections as he thought were necessary 
 for the benefit of his client. 
 
 Mr Anstey then proceeded to say that the position in which the plaintiff sued is a 
 position offensive to the laws of nature and of natural morality. The doctrines he professed 
 and taught were horrible *to think of ; he preyed upon the blind ignorance and credulity of 
 his followers, and in the prosecution of his unholy ends brought his peculiar Shastras to 
 his aid. The practices of this and other Maharajas became a matter of notoriety, and 
 were considered unendurable even by members of the sect. The defendant had, therefore 
 done nothing more than attempt to abate a common nuisance. The circumstances, the 
 
179 
 
 learned counsel said, were somewhat similar to the great Suttee case which George IV. 
 referred for the ophiion of the Privy Council of his time. fMr. Anstey here cited an 
 authority and alluded to the decision in the Suttee case.) Having thus adverted to the points 
 to which he would direct the attention of the Court and to those which were supposed to 
 have been touched by the rebutting evidence, the learned gentleman would turn to the 
 case which the plaintiif had to rebut. Their Lordships having expressed an opinion that 
 the plea of " not guilty" and justification is open to the defendants, he would ask the Court 
 to bear in mind the evidence offered on that point. The counsel for the plaintiff had put 
 questions as to the morality and status of the Maharajas, which, at the time, struck Mr. 
 Anstey as irregular, and he would now take advantage of that irregularity. Then as to 
 the last two pleas, if the averments are proved, the plaintiff has certainly put himself out 
 of Court. It must have been seen whether the defendant has failed to prove the justifiable 
 occasion, warranted by the occasion, whether the Maharajas are preceptors of the Hindu 
 rehgion, whether they hold a high position as Brahmins, &c. It certainly could not be that 
 this pretended teacher is one whose principles, both religious and moral, are to be tried by 
 a different standard from that applied to all other suitors of the Court — principles which 
 make good evil and evil good, adultery lawful, and vice to be pursued with the desire of 
 one who seeks eternal salvation ! 1 The learned counsel argued that this person is one who, 
 committed to such practices of immorality, as came into light during the course of the trial, 
 was disentitled to any redress for the alleged libel. The defendant is a member of the 
 sect to which the plaintiff belongs ; its immoralities and the licentiousness of those who 
 pretended to be religious teachers, attracted his attention from an early age ; he set himself 
 to the study of the sacred books, and instituted enquiries and researches into the past his- 
 tory of the Maharajas, the result of which forced upon him the necessity, as it would 
 have forced itself upon any other reflecting mind, ot exposing this rotten and monstrous 
 system, and of laying bare its enormities and the excesses of its professors, to those who 
 were aware of its existence as \ve\i as to those who haJ recently withdrawn from its 
 influence. Keferring to the plea of justification Mr. Anstey urged that, if it appears from the 
 plaintiffs own evidence, offered in rebuttal, that the enormities and practices alleged 
 against him do exist, and if he has attempted to grapple with what the defendant says, 
 and has failed to disprove it, he certainly has no right to be in court. 
 
 Now, said the learned counsel, let us look to the evidence. It is proved by some of 
 plaintiffs own witnesses, and by none even attempted to be disproved, that the passages 
 put in as exhibits contain substantially the doctrines of the sect. Some witnesses were 
 more positive than others, but there was not one who dared call into question the authen- 
 ticity of the books or the correctness of the translations. For present purposes, therefore, 
 Mr. Anstey would take it for granted that these two points were not at all disputed. 
 Now, as to the Maharajas' pretensions to Gudhead, the plaintiff, though he at first, denied 
 to be a God himself admitted that the doctrine of the Maharajas being incarnations of the 
 Diety was taught in the sacred books used by the sect. Amorous songs, he also admitted 
 are addressed to the Maharajas by their female devotees. But, says he, "I deny that 
 they sing obscene songs." Probably, to his perverted sense, or rather want of the sense 
 of decency or shame, being provoked to unlawful love and those passages containing licen- 
 tious sentiments appeared to be lessons of piety and morality ! It was in evidence that 
 every Vaishnav is bound to hold the Shree Thackoorjee (the image of God) and^ooroo to be the 
 same ; not only to hold, but to cherish the notion with all the religious fervour ot which 
 ignorance is capable. That i.s the doctrine ol Huryriajee Maharaj. To make things stilt 
 
180 
 
 clearer, we have the " Chutoor Slockee," a sacred book of the sect, which inculcates 
 
 that they must regard the gooroo as God, nay, as greater than God ; because, if God 
 
 is displeased, the gooroo interferes and obtains pardon for the sinner ; but if the gooroo 
 
 be displeased, there is no mediator and therefore no pardon ! It is the opinion of 
 
 Dr. Wilson that this man (the Maharaj) is regarded as a mock Christian mediator ! ! 
 
 The plaintiff, moreover, in answer to the Chief Justice, stated distinctly that the favors 
 
 from the gooroo are greater than those from God ; and in another place, admitted 
 
 that the obligations to the gooroo are greater than the obligations to God ; because the 
 
 former is the only guide to the Divinity. The witness for the plaintiff, Bhoychund 
 
 Eylall, said that the Shree Thackorjee is equal to the image, and it is admitted by 
 
 the plaintiff himself that the God Krishna can, by faith and by ceremonies, be brought 
 
 into the image, which is an animated Divinity. One v/itness said that the Thackorjee 
 
 is to be worshipped, but that the gooroo is his representative. Jumnadass Sevuklall 
 
 says " we swing the Maharaj, as we cannot touch the image and swing it." Two 
 
 other witnesses go further and say, it is not possible for the Maharaj to commit sin. 
 
 The court was not investigating the doctrines of the ancient religion of the Hindus 
 
 contained in the Veds, which coiuprehends books of philosophy and morality, and which 
 
 is far different from the doctrines of this wretched, miserable, and pestilential sect of 
 
 the Vallabhacharyas. The religion of this sect is a new system set up at a modern 
 
 date ; and it is a distinctly established fact that, in the proportion that these new and 
 
 monstrous doctrines have gone forward, the ancient doctrines of morality have gone 
 
 back and have been superseded. Returning to the evidence adduced for the plaintiff, 
 
 it appears that he at first says, the Maharaj is not regarded as a god, and then, 
 
 subsequently, admits that a minority of the Vaishnavs do regard him as a god. 
 
 But, with the artifice of a perjured witness, he adds that he instructed his followers 
 
 not to worship or consider him as a god. When questioned, however, by the learned 
 
 counsel, if he could name a single person whom he enlightened in the manner alleged 
 
 by him, he (plaintiff) took time and said he could not recollect any person to whom 
 
 he conveyed the valuable instruction. On the other hand, he admits that Goverdhun- 
 
 dass was employed by him to publish books and pamphlets in the name of the 
 
 Vaishnav Dhurmprasaruk Society, of which he (plaintiff) is the founder, patron, and 
 
 presiding genius. In one of the publications of this Society, a passage occurs to the 
 
 following effect : " The whole Universe is pervaded by God's spirit, when God plays 
 
 with his creatures he is simply at play with his own spirit, and consequently the sin 
 
 of adultery does not affect him. The sin of adultery is ordained for the world." If 
 
 every Maharaj is considered an impeccable being, absorbed into the Divine essence by 
 
 the ceremony of Brahma-sambandh, by which the sins of the eleven organs are washed 
 
 away, and the agent is absolved, then it follows that these abandoned and licentious 
 
 men (the Maharajas) may do what they like, however immoral and abominable the 
 
 thing may be. Adultery with the Maharaj is, accordingly, " ras lila" and " rua 
 
 ruttee :" the god — this atrocious hypocrite, the Maharaj — is simply at amorous dalliance 
 
 with his own spirit ! (The learned counsel here commented upon another passage in 
 
 the pamphlet alluded to, and proceeded to say.) The meaning of this is clear, that 
 
 adultery between creature and creature is one thing, but that adultery between God 
 
 and the creature is sinful neither to God nor to the creature ! ! When with these 
 
 abominable, blasphemous doctrines is coupled the belief of the sect that Krishna is an 
 
 incarnation of God, that the Shree Thackorjee is the living image of Krishna, that the 
 
181 
 
 "Maharaj himself is an incarnation of God, and when these articles of creed are pro- 
 pagated through the sacred books, what can the people think but that eternal salvation 
 is to be gained by direct carnal intercourse with the God Incarnate's representative on 
 earth — the Maharaj ! ! The people are told distinctly : " If you want salvation, get 
 impregnated, as the gopees were, through the representative of God, for, in your 
 present state, you cannot approach or be acceptable to God." The same doctrine is 
 inculcated in the book of Haryriajee Maharaj, " God abides in the houses of the 
 Vaishnavs," &c. &c. But, says the plaintiff, Krishna was a child between five and 
 eleven years of age when engaged in amorous sport with the gopees. The learned 
 counsel was not here to explain all the absurdities of the Hindu pantheon ; but there 
 was one passage to place the point beyond dispute, " Thereupon the maidens laid 
 Krishna on the bed and enjoyed him." Proceeding with his observations, the learned 
 counsel said that, according to the doctrines of the sect, no sense of shame should 
 intervene between the Maharaj and his devotees ; and as to public opinion, such an 
 absurdity in Bombay was an abomination to him ! According to one of the sacred 
 books, the Maharaj is a bemg whose chief object is amorous sport. 
 
 The learned gentleman now came to another branch of the doctrines of the sect 
 — the practices of the Maharajas — with regard to which it became a matter of difficulty, 
 for very obvious reasons, for the defendant to prove all to which the truth entitled 
 him. The principal doctrine inculcated is, that the Vaishnav must not see any fault 
 in the gooroos ; he must not divulge any of the gooroo's secrets ; and if he saw any- 
 thing bad, he must regard it. as " myaia, a delusion." Acting up to this doctrine, 
 we had one of the plaintiff's witnesses, jSTurrotumdass, telling the Court, " I would 
 not believe anything against the Maharaj ;" another witness, Moonsookh Khoosal, who 
 said " I have the same respect for the Maharaj as ever before ;" another who says, 
 " I consider the gooroo equal to God, and he cannot commit sin ; Kaghojee Nathoojee, 
 who says, " It is a sin to give evidence against the Maharaj. Mathooradass Lovvjee 
 committed a sin when he gave evidence against the Maharaj. The Maharaj can do 
 nothing wrong." Damodhar Madhowjee swore to the following effect. " If any member 
 of the Vallabhacharya sect is found to entertain opinions contrary to the doctrines of 
 the sect, we would not believe him ; I would not associate with him. It a person gave 
 evidence of adultery against the Maharaj I would not speak to him." The evidence of 
 this witness, who is a Marjadee, Mr. Anstey considered to be very material. He also 
 admitted that there were persons who believed the Maharajas to be guilty of adultery, 
 that there was a " bundobust" to be made to prevent evidence of such adultery being 
 given, and that his reply was, there was no time for it. It is proved by the plaintiff, 
 Mr. Anstey went on to say, that the one hundred names of God and the Maharaj 
 are the same ; that the devotees eat the dust of the Maharaj 's feet ; that they show 
 greater reverence to him than to the image ; that in some of the rites the same 
 homage is paid to him as to God ; that the Maharaj is worshipped in other ways 
 peculiar to the sect, &c. 
 
 Eeferring, again, to the dedication of " tun, mun, and dhun," the learned counsel 
 said no attempt had been made to rebut the statement of Dr. Bhavvoo Dajee that in no 
 other sect is such a dedication enjoined. The " muntra," or " gaetri," is in other sects 
 recited mentally and laid up in the heart, whereas the Vallabhacharya people are made to 
 repeat to the gooroo a " muntra" appropriate to the monstrous doctrines of the sect. The 
 
182 
 
 meaning of this dedication is indeed very large, and is made clearer by the doctrine that 
 Krishna can be approached through the Maharaj or the image. The dedication to Krishna, 
 therefore, is made acceptable through the Maharaj, his representative. While in other 
 sects, the office of gooroo is attained to by learning and other accomplishments, in the 
 Vallabhacharya sect it is hereditary and inalienable, though the gooroo may be the greatest 
 idiot in creation. The members of the sect believe it to be criminal to give evidence 
 against the Maharaj, and, on the other hand, meritorious to give false evidence in his 
 behalf. The belief is a distinct conclusion from the same common premise, vi^., that the 
 Maharaj is incapable of committing sin and that he is above the sin of adultery. Some of 
 the witnesses have clearly stated that the old Shastras have been jjro tanto superseded by 
 the doctrines of stories such as those of the 252 and 84. Whether they are allegorical 
 or not, is a matter of little moment : the plaintiff" himself did not dare call them allegori- 
 cal, but said they were given as examples. According to him, adulterine love is the most 
 appropriate where with to approach the Almighty. Dr. Bhawoo Dajee, whose evidence the 
 plaintiff" was called to rebut, states distinctly that he knows the stories are understood liter- 
 ally. Now, so blind is the faith of the followers in the doctrines of these stories and the 
 sacred books that Gopaldass Madhowdass, the brother of the ever-to-be-sufficiently-com- 
 memorated Justice of the Peace, Vurjeevundass, stated that " If the Shastras enjoined the 
 off'cring of women, I would believe in the doctrine !" The plaintiff, probably from a 
 sense of terror in the presence of Englishmen and men of intelligence, said he was not a 
 god and was not worsliipped as such by his followers, a statement which he contradicted 
 in the cross-examination, and to which, therefore, the Counsel trusted, the Court would 
 attach no weight whatever. 
 
 Turning to the question whether the Maharajas are preceptors of religion, the learned 
 gentleman remarked the fact was too well established to require any comnient, that they 
 never instructed their followers in anything and that all their preaching was confined to the 
 " muntra" of a few words pronounced at the performance of the " kanthee" ceremony. 
 Then as to their learing the witness most friendly to the plaintiff sold that Jeevunjee Maha- 
 raj is the only exception, and that the rest are ignorant persons. There was not even an- 
 attempt to prove the allegation in the plaint that they are the preceptors of religion and hold 
 a high position as Brahmins. And this is the preceptor of religion who has been damnified 
 in his faith and his character as preceptor, who says " I know more of Sanscrit than 
 I did before the libel !" There Lordships had, moreover, a test of his learning ; he could 
 not give the names of the different Veds, and as to the number of the Brahmanas he had 
 no idea whatever. The plaintiff' called a number of witnesses as to his character, but 
 before proceeding to a consideration of this part of the evidence, the learned counsel must 
 say it was no part of the defendants case that these licentious and immoral practices were 
 indulged in secretly. The plaintiff attempted to prove that he was never alone, but whe- 
 ther he be always alone or surrounded by a crowd of attendants, it is proved that the 
 Maharajas are guilty of adultery and immoral practices. Veljee, one of his disciples, was 
 every moment with him, and, he said the Maharaj had no povvor to send him out of his 
 presence even for an instant. If the Maharaj ordered his personal attendants to leave him 
 alone for a few moments, his order would not be obeyed by his own servants. The , 
 question arises here that, either this man's evidence is altogether true or altogether 
 false ; there is no medium ; and it must be admitted or rejected in its en- 
 tirety. It argues a common purpose and a combination throughout the rest of the case to 
 secure that purpose ; it shows common fraud and is unworthy of belief The plaintiff 
 
183 
 
 contradicts Veljee in an important point, and says there were two females only in the 
 zenana and there was no male servant. The sepoy at the door of the zenana is a mere 
 fiction of the sepoy's brain. The plaintiff's two wives were each of the age of nine or nine 
 and a half years at the time of his marriage ; he denied the virtues of a Sanyasee ; and it was 
 for the Court to judge whether, not being a Sanyasee, he would abstain from unlawful 
 intercourse until his wives became of age. The plaintiff as well as every one of his 
 witnesses had not up to this moment heard of the existence of Rus mundlees ; 
 some of them had not even so much as heard the name ; and then, as to the 
 adultery of the Maharajas, there was the same tenour of evidence. Again Mr. Anstey 
 would say it was impossible to refine that evidence or to accept between the two courses ; 
 the Court must either receive it altogether or reject it altogether. 
 
 All the witnesses for the rebuttal of the defendants' case broke down signally. Isearly 
 all of them were cautioned ; two were fined ; one was sent to gaol ; one was under three 
 years' surveillance of the police at Baroda ; and another formed the subject of a report to 
 Government for being concerned in a double murder I ! Th s was the really unexception- 
 able character of the plaintiff's witnesses, many of whom had suddenly transported themselves 
 to Bombay within the last month or two, for purposes, apparently, of this trial. As to 
 the defendants' witnesses, on the contrary, not a single aspersion was attempted to be cast 
 upon any of them and not a single question was put as to their character. Considered, 
 again, from another point of view the evidence for the plaintiff was wholly partial and 
 interested evidence ; for every one of his witnesses was a member of the sect and a 
 devotee of the Maharaj. The plaintfF and all his witnesses had great interests at stake. 
 If the Court's verdict goes against him, were is he ? asked the learned counsel. Gone, 
 swept from the face of the earth. There is not a single female in the sect whose honor 
 is not under a shade unless it could be shown that she has fortunately been free of an 
 improper intercourse with her religious instructors. These were the motives for the 
 members of the sect to put forth their best effects in favor of the Maharaj, while those 
 who came forward now, and who were not indicated in the Bhattia case, had every thing 
 to fear from a verdict adverse to the plaintiff. And though the Court would not allow 
 Sir Joseph Arnould's notes in that case to be put in, it was the fact that not one of the 
 plaintiffs witnesses dared utter a word either against the justice of the sentence passed 
 upon the nine conspirators or against the truthfulness of the witnesses for the prosecution. 
 Here we had a lot of perjured witnesses and a body of suborned evidence for the reasons 
 already explained ; and every exertion was made to mislead the mind of the Court. These 
 lot of witnesses, drawn from so many different places within the last three or four months, 
 had heard nothing bad against the Maharaj. The absence of bad character, however, the 
 learned counsel observed, is not a test of good character. Dr. Bhawoo Dajee stated that 
 the plaintiff had a bad character. Dr. Bhawoo had nothing to gain, but certainly much 
 4o lose in coming forward to give his evidence, for he has an extensive practice among the 
 Hindus and among members of the sect ; whereas the plaintiffs witnesses had every thing 
 to lose in the adverse issue of the trial, and therefore it was that they made every possible 
 effort to injure the defendant's case. There was a singular combination among the plaintiflTs 
 witnesses, and according to the doctrine of the " myaia,"' delusion, they could not believe 
 what their eyes made them acquainted with. Really, said the learned counsel, the plaintiffs 
 witnesses were men who, according to the proverb, ought to have long memories. (The 
 learned counsel here commented upon the rebutting evidence of some of the witnesses for 
 the plaintiff.) Nov;, as to the pas.'^age containing the alleged libel, the Court had the 
 
184 
 
 opinions of the three persons that it was no libel ; — the defendant who knows the sense of 
 what he wrote, Dr. Wilson, and Dr. Bhawoo Dajee. There seldom was an occasion when 
 a witness was subjected to a closer and more searching examination than Dr. Bhawoo Dajee 
 was by the Court, and there seldom was an occasion when views, expressed at first, were 
 more consistently adhered to than by this gentleman. With regard to the meaning of 
 words in some of the translations, Mr. Anstey regretted to mention that an officer of the 
 Court (Mr. Narayen Dinanathjee) should have dreamed of referring to a Persian dictionary 
 for the meaning of a Sanscrit word, and giving a meaning to the word " vehvichar" 
 (adultery) which it was not capable of. After all, the result was to establish the accuracy 
 of Mr. Balajee's translation. 
 
 Now, as to the immoralities of the plaintiff, the learned gentleman would draw a 
 distinction between the specific acts mentioned in the pleas, which were abundantly proved, 
 and the facts which came out in the course of the examination. Making a few remarks 
 upon the distinction thus drawn, the learned counsel proceeded to observe that if the 
 plaintiff's witnesses were men ot credit, if they had not disgraced themselves, and even if 
 they obtained credit for their statements, the simple effect of their evidence would be, that 
 they did not hear anything against the plaintiff. But notwithstanding all that, it would 
 be no answer to the positive and reliable evidence on the other side. The evidence on one 
 side did not exclude the evidence adduced on the other. Besides, there was no doubt 
 whatever as to the particular disease from which the plaintiff suffered, after the confession 
 he made to Lukhmidass Khimjee and Dr. Dhirajaram. The plaintiff, in his cross examination, 
 admitted having been examined by three medical gentlemen, one of whom refused to come 
 and give evidence in court that he (the Maharaj) was free from any traces of the disease. 
 Where are those medical gentlemen ? the learned counsel would ask. In the absence of 
 their evidence, Mr. Anstey would say it were no hypocriticism if the defendant, through 
 him suggested that the traces of the disease were probably found in the plaintiff. The 
 probabilities were against the supposition of the existence of any malice in the two gentlemen 
 who swore to the plaintiff's being afflicted with the disease. What had they to gain by 
 a false disclosure ? Both had an extensive practice among the Vaishnavs, which they 
 would not willingly forsake. Moreover, the delay of nine months in the examination to 
 which the plaintiff thought proper, at the eleventh hour, to submit himself to, was 
 inexplicable. If the whole case, Mr. Anstey argued, depended upon the venereal 
 affection, and upon the plaintiff''s self accusations, there was more than enough to oust 
 him from the Court. 
 
 Now, look at the position of the defendant. He is a member of the Vallabhacharya 
 sect, he sees the error of his ways in earlier life, and withdrav.'s from the blighting 
 influence of the doctrines of his sect. He contrasts in the course of time a friendship 
 with the plaintiff, and engages with him in the discussion of the several public, 
 questions. Discussing upon the question of the practices of the Maharajas and the 
 doctrines of the sect, he addresses a separate expostulation to the plaintiff, who had 
 set himself up as an earnest propagator of their religion, to separate himself from the 
 abominations of the sect, and to warn and admonish his brother Maharajas. The 
 learned gentleman begged the Court to consider the difference in the position of the 
 parties ; and above all, to consider the serious difficulties which might overtake the 
 defendant in the event of an adverse verdict. Let him suffer by all means if his 
 case was futile, but the learned Counsel submitted that it was fully made out in every 
 
185 
 
 important particular. In conclusion, Mr. Anstey trusted confidently that their Lordships 
 would, by their verdict, place the liberty of the press upon an inaccessible height, 
 safe from the attack of the enemies of morality, of the well-being of society, and of 
 the progress of enlightenment. 
 
 Ticenty -third Dai/, Tuesday, 'ith March 1862. 
 
 Mr, Bayley this day rose to make a general reply to the defendants' case. The learned 
 Counsel considered it his duty to relieve the plaintiff from the filthy charges trumpeted forth against 
 him in the world. This was a case, so far as he could discover, unparalled in the history of 
 jurisprudence, and he would shew that this was only an infamous and trumped up charge, but 
 that the aspersions that had been uttered against the plaintiff were totally unfounded, and that 
 no other verdict for the plaintiff must be the result. No fewer than sixty-three witnes- 
 ses had been examined in this case — thirty-two for the plaintiff and thirty-one for the 
 defendant ; of the thirty-one witnesses which defendant had called, only four spoke as 
 to the impropriety of conduct of the plaintiff ; they were Kallabhoy Lalloobhoy, Dr. 
 Dhirajram, Luckmidass Khimjee, and Chuttoorbhooj. The learned Counsel asked the 
 Court to recollect the place where this trial was going on, for, if there be any country 
 there was no country like India where witnesses could be so easily procured to sup- 
 port trumped up charges. It was said that the plaintiff had no locus standi, but 
 this argument had been addressed to the Court months ago, and it could not be 
 listened to now. The learned Counsel said that his client was here suing in his 
 capacity of a British subject, and he referred to the 37th clause of the charter of 
 this Court. The mere suggestion of such an objection must have shewn what little 
 further the Counsel for the defence had in his case. To take a comprehensive view of 
 the whole case, take the respective position of the plaintiff and the defendant at 
 the time the plea was put upon record. Defendant must have believed that plaintiff 
 would not break through the rules of his caste to appear in Court to give evidence. 
 No Maharaj had sense and courage enough as Mr. Bayley 's client to face the Counsel 
 who opposed him. Plaintiff had been subpoened by the defendant and why was he 
 not called by him. These charges were trumped up against the plaintiff by Kalloo- 
 bhoy. Dr. Dhirajram, Luckmidass, and Chuttoorbhooj. The simple question which the 
 Court had to determine was libel or no libel, or whether the special pleas of justifica- 
 tion were proved or not. It was perfectly immaterial whether plaintiff had the disease 
 or not, but the question was whether the special plea was proved or not. In the 
 case of Queen vs. Neicham, there were five and twenty charges in the plea against 
 Dr. Kolly ; the jury found a few of the charges proved, and verdict was asked for 
 the defendant ; Lord Campbell, however, held that the whole plea should have been 
 proved, and that there could be no partial finding for defendant. Mr. Bayley therefore 
 contended that unless every little allegation was proved, the defendant could not be 
 said to have established his pleas. The Court had already expressed an opinion that 
 there was libel and the learned Coun-el hoped that it would not change that opinion. 
 \^Mr. Justice Arnould remarked that the Court held that opinion on the facts then 
 before it, but since then more facts had transpired, and it was for the Court to see 
 24 
 
186 
 
 wliether there was justifying occasion or not.] Mr. Bayley said that so far as the 
 evidence had gone there was nothing to shew a justifying occasion. It was no 
 justification of a libel to say that it had been previously published as a libel. As to 
 the question of justifiable occasion, what was the relative position of the two 
 parties ? Defendant had no acquaintance with the plaintiff, nor was he himself aware 
 of the alleged immoralities of any of the Maharajas, with the exception that when a 
 boy he observed some improper conduct on the part of Jeevunjee Maharaj. Defendant 
 said in the witness-box that he did not believe in the Bhagwut Gita, but it was 
 upon that very book that he was sworn in the box. So he came here in a different 
 position from that of a man who sincerely believed in the sacred books. So we have 
 defendant who does not believe in his religion, and we have plaintiff" who is a sincere 
 follower of his religion and who is in a position only inferior to Native Princes. The 
 evidence of character called by the learned Counsel infinitely outweighed the allegations 
 made by the witnesses for defendant. If the evidence of bad character be anything — 
 for it is nothing — it was fully and doubly met by the evidence of good character. No 
 man's character would be safe, if the evidence of the boys Kallabhoy, Chuttoorbhooj, 
 and Dhirajram, were to be believed, especially in this country where witnesses are prone 
 to invent charges of infamous character. The evidence of these witnesses and that of 
 the dealer in piece goods, Lukmidass Khimjee, was not entitled to credence against the 
 evidence of a man in the position of the plaintiff and his witnesses. Previous to the 
 publication of the libel, an acrimonious and bitter discussion was raging on the subject 
 of religion, and attacks were made on the ancient faith by editors and young reformers. 
 In the course of this trial, questions had been put to witnesses on religious points, and 
 they had been asked whether they believed in plaintiff" as a gooroo or an incarnation 
 of God ; and fault was found with their answers. But the learned Counsel observed, 
 that it was all very well for us habituated to European modes of thinking to give a 
 categorical answer to a question, but the universal mode for a native witness was to 
 answer a question, in the form of a question. Plaintiff who is held in high respect by 
 his followers has enjoyed good character ; he never committed any of the acts imputed 
 to him ; and all the charges levelled against him had no real foundation, but were 
 mere rumours suggested by native ingenuity. The marvellous critical powers of that 
 Calvinistic divine. Dr. Wilson, whom the learned Counsel did not give much credit, 
 found fault with the translation of the libel and described a word to be in suspensive 
 participle— a participle which Mr. Bayley never heard of before. From the interest 
 which Dr. Wilson took in this case, the learned Counsel believed that he must have 
 supplied defendant with the raw materials out of which the sixth plea was constructed. 
 Plaintiff" denied the several ridiculous acts imputed to him. Did he distribute water wrung 
 out of his dhotee to his followers ? No, he said. Did he press the breast of a dying 
 person with his foot ? He said No, and he denied several such acts which were attempted 
 to be fastened on him. Defendant himself never saw the filth and mass of obscenity 
 which his witnesses said they heard the Maharajas to have committed. The learned 
 Counsel said that credence should be accorded to plaintiff who is a moral and religious man, 
 while defendant was a man of no religion and consequently not worthy of belief. It was 
 evident that the evidence of bad character would not be true, because a person leading 
 an open life like the plaintiff could not have committed such enormities without being 
 known. Plaintiff held the highest rank among his sect and was treated with honors which 
 defendan t was never likely to obtain in his life. It was in evidence that "he was received 
 
187 
 
 with much pomp and high honors by the Gaekwar when he went on a visit to Baroda. 
 The relative position in life of the plaintiff and the defendant shewed that there was 
 rancour existing on the part of the latter who seceded from his religion. The learned 
 Counsel therefore said that whether the publication be justify able or not, the defendant must 
 have believed at the time he wrote it that it was a libel and that it was not justifyable. 
 Defendant confessed that it was true that it was a libel and that every fact in it was 
 true. If he believed it was a libel against plaintiff only, why did he not say so in 
 his letter in reply to the notice served upon him by plaintiff ? The learned Counsel 
 was of opinion that defendant did believe that the libel was levelled against the 
 plaintiff and his object was to bring him into disrepute. Defendant had ample 
 opportunities of retracting it, but he did not avail himself of them ; on the contrary 
 the manner in which he carried on his case shewed that he aimed at depriving 
 plaintiff of the sympathy of the court and his followers. Plaintiff might have, if he wished, 
 prosecuted defendant criminally for libel, but he did not do so and gave defendant every 
 opportunity to prove his case. Under all these circumstances plaintiff was entitled to ask 
 for heavy damages. Mr. Bayley then proceeded to address the Court in the considera- 
 tion of the evidence. He said that two considerations presented themselves on the 
 whole of the evidence, namely, that nine-tenths of the whole evidence was merely composed 
 of hearsay, and that the small portion of it which related to the acts of plaintiff with regard 
 to the libel comprised the testimony of four persons only. In like manner the evidence 
 miorht be divided into two branches, one forming an enquiry into doctrines of the Val- 
 labhacharya sect, and the other relating to the practices of the Maharaj. Now in con- 
 sidering this case, the Court would recollect the marked difference between one class of 
 evidence and the other. As to hearsay evidence, the whole of it related to the prac- 
 tices of the sect and the belief of the sect as to those practices. With the exception 
 of the plaintiff and one or two of his witnesses, there was not a single member of the 
 Vallabhacharya sect examined by the other side to give a satisfactory account of the opi- 
 nions of the sect. Let us look at the class of witnesses who had been called to give 
 evidence as to the doctrines and practices of the sect. We have Dr. Wilson, for com- 
 menting upon whom the learned Counsel was found fault with in public prints for using 
 language which he had purposely used. Coming as a Missionary to draw people from 
 their religion and holding a very low opinion of the Hindoo religion in general. Dr. 
 Wilson would naturally take an unfair view of the opinions and practices of the Val- 
 labhacharya sect. Would a Roman Catholic go to a member of the Scotch Church — a 
 Church peculiai'ly narrow-minded — for the purpose of gaining knowledge of the doctrines 
 of the Church of Rome ? So, is it fair to go to a person who comes to convert people 
 to his own religion, and expect from him a candid opinion as to the practices of the 
 Vallabhacharya sect. Dr. Wilson said that the Maharajas bore a low character and given 
 to obscene practices. The learned Counsel referred to the chapter 292 of the Penal Code 
 which expressly provides an exception for the peculiar customs and usages of this coun- 
 try ; by it all obscene books and publications are made punishable by fine or impri- 
 sonment, but an exception is made for pictures and representations on the walls of 
 temples and in religious books. Here then, said the learned Counsel, was a recogni- 
 tion of such pictures by the law. Defendant and Dr. Wilson were both antagonistic 
 to the Vallabhacharya belief, and consequently their evidence was not entitled to credit. 
 The learned Counsel then said that the libel might be divided into parts ; the first 
 part containing an hic^torical comment on the sect, and the second, a personal attack 
 
188 
 
 on the Maharaj. To prove the pleas of justification, the defendant must prove first the 
 general practices of the sect as stated in the plea, and having done that, he must 
 prove that plaintiff was guilty of the specific acts imputed to him. The Court had to 
 consider whether the pleas of justification were proved, and if there was any doubt as 
 to any one of the allegations, then both the pleas must be found in favour of the 
 plaintiff. A great part of the examination of witnesses, and arguments were directed 
 to the point that plaintiff came here not as a man but as something more, but the 
 learned Counsel asserted that plaintiff was a man and entitled to respect, and entitled 
 to more respect than was shewn to him in the course of the trial. Plaintiff very truly 
 described his peculiar character and stated that he was regarded as a Gooroo by his 
 followers. It was perfectly admitted that the old Hindu religion does not exist in its 
 original pure state, and therefore the modern state of society did justify Dr. Wilson 
 in calling the Vallabhacharya sect a new sect. There were mere rumours of persons 
 who had separated from that persuasion, and there were no witnesses of extensive 
 learning in Sanscrit, except Dr. Wilson, called to prove the alleged recent foundation 
 of the sect. Defendant Karsandass Mooljee himself was totally ignorant of the Sanscrit 
 language, nor was his witness Luckmidass Khimjee learned enough to pronounce an opi- 
 nion on the point. Now, the learned Counsel said, this was not a sect which had 
 sprung up within the last few years as Mormonism had done ; it was older than Pro- 
 testantism, and therefore it was unfair to look from a European point of view upon 
 those practices which even the legislature had sanctioned. There was nothing shewn in 
 the trial that these practices had any foundation, there was only hearsay evidence upon 
 that point, and mere rumours is not evidence. It was somewhat peculiar that Dr. 
 Wilson with all his learning, and with all his knowledge and languages dead and alive 
 did not draw distinction between works in Sanscrit and their version in Brij Bhasha. 
 Plaintiff, however very properly pointed out that Brij Bhasha works were not regarded as 
 religious authorities, unless they corresponded with the Sanscrit originals. Considerable 
 attempt had been made to blacken the character of the plaintiff in every particular. 
 When we have a man thus abused and villified, we must look to that passage in his 
 life with reference to the establishment of a Sanscrit school at Surat. It was esta- 
 blished and proved beyond a doubt that he established the school and defrayed its ex- 
 penses. It was no part of his religion to establish a school — a school not for teaching the obscene 
 books, but for teaching the Sanscrit language. We have thus plaintiff in a position 
 not inculcathig immoral principles, but promoting the cause of education by establish- 
 ing and assisting schools. Would the Court believe him, or believe the parcel of re- 
 formers who attack through plaintiff the religion which they have renounced. It was 
 a remarkable circumstance that not one of the witnesses who spoke as to the personal 
 character of the plaintiff, in any way corroborate each other. In dealing with this class 
 of evidence we have isolated transaction spoken to by isolated witnesses, and there is 
 no confirmation of the testimony of one witness by that of the other. No evidence was 
 adduced, nor an endeavour made to obtain the evidence of persons in whose presence 
 these three witnesses saw indecent transactions take place. Plaintiff negatived these trans- 
 actions, and it therefore rested with the defendant to have produced the witnesses pre- 
 sent. The evidence of the boy Kallabhoy Lullabhoy, who was said to be a witness 
 to an immoral act of the Maharaj entirely broke down ; this boy does not relate the 
 circumstance to his father or any other person, but he tells it only to the poet Ner- 
 muddashunker who is antagonistic to the plaintiff. The learned Counsel then adverting 
 
189 
 
 to the subject of Mnntra or dedication vow, wliich formed a good deal of the plea, 
 said that that had been entirely disproved ; the only marvel was that a great many 
 more witnesses were not called to prove the charges against the plaintiff. Plaintiff ne- 
 gatived these allegations, and considering his high position, he was entitled to the con- 
 sideration of the Court. With regard to Goculnathjee's commentary, the learned Counsel 
 remarked that the poet Nermuddashunker pronounced an opinion upon one part of it when 
 he had not read the whole of the commentary. His opinion was worth little or 
 nothing, for he was still a boy and had yet much to learn ; he was a poet in hj^ 
 own little sphere, and therefore incompetent to take a common sense view of a religi- 
 ous doctrine. The witness Narayen Dinanathjee had read what the poet had not read, 
 he had read the whole of tie commentary, and he expressly swore that he had not 
 the slightest doubt that the word " Purshotum" mentioned therein, did not mean Maharaj 
 but God, and that the dedication vow was addressed to God and not to the Maharaj.. 
 The poet ventured his reputation as a poet and said that Purshotum was the Maha- 
 raj. The Muntra did not bear the construction put upon it by defendant's witnesses, 
 and therefore it was perfectly reconcileable with the doctrines of the sect, shewing that 
 plaintiff^s religion was not a hypocrisy. The primary object of the dedication is not the 
 Maharaj but God, and therefore the monstrous doctrine of dedication and the offering of 
 wives and daughters to the Maharaj, falls to the ground. This infamous attempt to 
 prejudice the learned Counsel's client among his people and expose his religion had en- 
 tirely failed. It was unfair to have put a single isolated passage in a book into the 
 hands of a witness and try him by that selected passage, without allowing him to read 
 the context. This was a monstrous attempt to mislead the Court upon a most mate- 
 rial point, and shewed that the defendant and his witnesses were capable of resorting 
 to extreme measures for the purpose of gaining this suit. Now what was the evidence 
 as to " Rus Mundli." Most of the witnesses never heard of such a thing, and even 
 plaintiff never heard of it. There was not a single witness on this point, except Luk- 
 midass Khimjee who said that he was an eye-witness of the transaction of this Mundli, 
 Lukmidass goes to the 3]u77dli with his debauched old uncle, he sees the beds let 
 down, the light put out, and strangers ordered to withdraw from the room. Now, what 
 occurs in the room, no body knows, that is left to the imagination of the witness. 
 Are we to believe the uncorroborated testimony of this witness that such monstrous 
 acts of immorality are daily perpetrated among the Vallabhacharya sect? It is very 
 easy to change the word " Ras" into " Rus" and give a different version of the ex- 
 hibition of the " Ras Mundli" which is nothing more than a dramatic representation 
 and in which there is nothing improper. A paper had been put into plaintiffs hand, 
 and he was asked whether the word " Rus ' appeared there ; he said it did not, it 
 was the word " Ras" and his statement was corroborated by the Interpreter of the 
 Court. Referring to the evidence of Dr. Wilson, the learned Counsel said that there 
 was much verbiage in his answers. Plaintiff gave direct and simple answers to ques- 
 tions put to him, while Dr. Wilson gave his evidence in a roundabout way, and the 
 Court was often obliged to ask him to give direct answers. Dr. Wilson said a good 
 deal about Krishna and the wonderful powers he exhibited when he was of premature 
 age, but the learned Counsel remarked that Krishna was not only an object of worship 
 among the Vallabhacharyas, but among all the sects throughout India. There was 
 nothing definite in the description of the doctrines of the Vallabhacharya sect given by 
 Dr. Wilson ; he had no clear perception of it himself. Therefore judging from his point of 
 
190 
 
 view, nothing was proved by that Doctor inconsistent with the common principles of 
 moraUty, and there appeared nothing monstrous in the doctrines of the Vallabhacharaya 
 sect. A good deal was expected from Dr. Wilson from the manner in which he 
 trumpeted forth in the witness-box his various designations and connections with learned socie- 
 ties ; but so far from damaging the plaintiffs case, he had given only a confused and 
 hazy account of the Vallabhacharya sect. Then it was said with doctrinal matters, that 
 the essay on adulterine love in the " Swadhrama Vurdhuk Magazine" expressly sanc- 
 tioned adultery. This article, the learned Counsel said, by no means inculcated the 
 practice of adultery. The early part of the essay contained translations of stanzas from 
 Sanscrit works and adulterine love was mentioned to illustrate the intensity of 
 love. (Reads the translation of the essayj. The learned Counsel asked if there was 
 any thing in this article which inculcated the practice of adultery ? The only conclusion 
 to be drawn from it was that in the same way as a woman loved her paramour, sa 
 we must with such an intensity of love, worship God. The Court would see that the 
 justification was not, as it might have been, pointed to a particular part of the libel, 
 but it was a justification of the whole of the libel, and that as defendant had entirely 
 failed to make out the immoral doctrines which were alleged to have been preached by 
 plaintiff, the justification fell to the ground. Plaintiff had shewn that the passages in- 
 culcating immoral practices were not translations from Sanscirt works and therefore not 
 regarded as religious authorities ; consequently the defence in that point had entirely 
 failed. Referring to the book of ten principles, the learned Counsel said that is was a 
 mere lecture and not a word of authority. Dr. Wilson with all his learning did not 
 give an account of this book, nor was the plaintiff aware of its existence. The learned 
 Counsel believed that from beginning to end, the sole object of the defendant was tO' 
 gain popularity by exposing the practices of the Maharajas, but in this attempt he had 
 failed. He said that no competent person of a standing as high as that of the plain- 
 tiff, had been called by the other side to speak to the doctrines and practices of the 
 Vallabhacharya sect. Plaintiff had clearly sworn that he never allowed his followers to 
 resort to the practices which were imputed to them in refei'ence to him. The learned 
 Counsel asked the Court not to judge of the case by a standard of European notions 
 of morality and religion. Defendant had not done anything equal to what plaintiff had 
 done, defendant was a meie publisher of a newspaper, while plaintiff" had established a 
 school and took much interest in the cause of native education. The learned Counsel said 
 that the libel was not justified, and if one- fourth of the plea were not proved, the 
 Court must find in favour of the plaintiff. A great many things had been introduced 
 for the purpose prejudicing the plaintiff in the eyes of the people ; for example, the 
 Bhattia " bundobust" with which he had no connection whatever, nor was he pulling 
 the strings from behind. There was no attempt or suggestion made in that " bundo- 
 bust" to prevent witnesses from giving evidence in this Court. The learned Counsel 
 observed that all the evidence with regard to the doctrines and practices of the sect 
 was entirely hearsay, and given by persons whose object was to mislead the Court and 
 the people. He next contended that all the points in justification of the latter portion 
 of the libel were not proved, and that the probabilities were in favour of the inno- 
 cence of the party attacked. There was no proof that defendant at the time he wrote 
 the article was himself aware that the facts he had put into ihe plea were true. 
 Defendant learnt some of these facts from Lukmidass Khimjee which he subsequently 
 put into the plea and Lukmidass himself admitted that he did not communicate these 
 
191 
 
 facts to him until after the action had been filed. Mere supposition of the immoral 
 character of a man would not justify the publication of a libel, and subsequent know- 
 ledge of such character could not be pleaded in justification. Defendant had sworn that 
 he had no ocular proofs of the Maharajas. The testimony of the personal immoralities 
 of the plaintiff was confined to the three witnesses already mentioned, and that Dr. 
 Bhawoo Dajee's evidence in no way proved what ■ was asserted by these witnesses. Dr. 
 Bhawoo Dajee said a good deal, but what he did not say was far more important ; he 
 saw a little, but what he did not see was of far more important. Hecause other 
 Maharajas were of loose character, it by no means followed that plaintiff was so too. 
 It was a remarkable ci!-cumstance that Dr. Bhawoo Dajee spoke of a conversation 
 with plaintiff about a disease and the impression left upon his mind was that it was 
 a venereal disease, but he did not treat it so. Now, what was plaintiffs account of 
 the disease. He said that he had been subject for years to eruptions or ulcers since 
 he had been on a visit to Sind which is a very warm place. Supposing that plaintiff 
 had been suffering from the bad disease, was it likely that he would have employed 
 Lukmidass Khimjee to call Dr. Bhawoo Dajee, especially when Lukmidass held opinions 
 at variance with his. If he did have that disease, where did he get it. It could not 
 have been communicated to him by any other than a public woman ; but it would 
 be a most improbable thing for a man having such a range of female worshippers at 
 his command to have had intercourse with a public woman. Plaintiff was by no 
 means an ignoramus, and the examination and cross-examination he stood, must have, 
 in Mr. Bayley's opinion created a favourable impression in the mind of the Court. The 
 learned Counsel made severe comments on the evidence of Dr. Dhirajram with reference 
 to the disease : he denounced it as a simple tissue of falsehoods and unworthy of 
 belief. He then said that the evidence of acts imputed to the plaintiff had been so studiously 
 connected as to require a thorough sifting. Some of the witnesses as well as the plaintiff 
 had sworn positively that golall powder was not thrown in the temple of Luxmee at 
 Beyt and they gave reasons for that. The Court had been asked to believe that hor- 
 rible and disgusting scene of Bus Mundli depicted by the witness Lukmidass Khimjee. 
 It was an isolated fact and highly improbable one, and had received no corroboration from 
 any of the witnesses. The learned Council believed the account of the scene to have been 
 concocted by Lukmidass, and as it was so filthy and loathsome he thought it necessary to 
 pass over it. Witness Lukmidass Khimjee was contradicted in all the specific acts of im- 
 morality on part of the plaintiff mentioned by him, and his evidence was nothing more 
 than a tissue of falsehoods. The boy Kallabhoy Lulloobhoy gave evidence of a similar 
 character. He was a boy only sixteen years of age and he spoke of having had conversa- 
 tion with plaintiff three years ago on the subject of adultery, and remarriage of widows. 
 Was it to be believed, asked the learned Counsel, that a boy of the age of thirteen should 
 hold such a conversation with his Gooroo ? It was also highly improbable that he should 
 have been allowed access into a room where plaintiff was said 'to have had improper inter- 
 course with a woman. It was an isolated circumstance, and which could not be contra- 
 dicted, except by the evidence of plaintiff himself. This boy Kallabhoy appeared to be 
 an athiest and on the same footing with the defendant. [3/r. Anstey interrupting. — Defen- 
 dant swore that he was not an antheist]. Mr. Bay ley said that for all that he would 
 venture to call him an athiest. He said that all the three witnesses who spoke of the im- 
 moral acts of the plaintiff were in league with the defendant. Dr. Dhirajram was an in- 
 timate friend of the defendant, witness Kullabhoy was Dr. Dhirajram's nephew, and the 
 
192 
 
 witness Chuttoorbhooj was once a pupil of the defendant. They had concocted the charge 
 against the plaintiff, they were not persons of a free and independent character, nor of a 
 high class of life. These witnesses spoke of isolated facts, each telling almost the same 
 story, and they were not corroborated by each other or by other evidence. Upon them 
 alone rested the evidence of the charge against plaintiff. Then came, said the learned 
 Counsel a good deal of evidence on the other side as to plaintiff being a man of bad cha- 
 racter, but which carried refutation on the face of it. He ventured to say that of the 
 thirty-one witnesses examined by the defendant, the evidence resolved into that of only 
 three witnesses already alluded to. The learned Counsel next called the attention of the 
 Court to the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and said that all the witnesses gave a 
 good character to him and most of them directly contradicted Lukmidass that golall 
 was not thrown in the temple of Luxmee. Plaintiff being a man of high character 
 and leading an open life, any improper act on his part would have been known to 
 these witnesses. He entirely disclaimed the superhuman character ascribed to him. He 
 gave a distinct account of the sect, and shewed that he did not believe in the Brij 
 Bhasha works unless they corresponded with Sanscrit originals. He denied that he was 
 swung as a God, but said that he was swung as a Gooroo. He was asked as to having 
 been examined by three doctors during the progress of the trial, and comments were 
 made upon the fact of the medical men not having been called for examination. The 
 learned Counsel said that in the case of Queen vs. Palmer for poisoning Cook, experi- 
 ments had been made with poison on dogs and other animals ; but Lord Campbell and 
 the other judges refused to take that evidence. Mr. Bayley said that evidence could 
 not be given and it is not fair to draw unfavourable inferences for having withheld 
 it. It was ne\er suggested by defendant or his witnesses that plaintiff was a Gooroo 
 or preceptor of the old religion. The learned Counsel asked the Court to see whether 
 defendant had not characterised plaintiff as a Gooroo in the libel, which he afterward* 
 denied in the pleas. Defendant himself stated that Maharajas are in one sense precep- 
 tors of religion, and Dr. Wilson said the same thing. There was one witness on the 
 other side on whom only the learned Counsel relied — Vinaek Luxmon Shastree of the 
 Sudder Adawlut — so favourable was he to the plaintifTs case. This witness said that 
 the Vallabhacharya sect did not differ generally with other Hindoo sects, except in 
 some minor points. The natural construction put upon the article of the libel by the 
 Interpreters of the Court, Messrs. Flynn and Narayen Dinanathjee, was that it con- 
 taired a personal imputation upon plaintiff, and the learned Counsel therefore asked the 
 Court to support the evidence of its own sworn interpreters, in preference to the 
 amateur interpreters, such as Dr. Wilson, who merely believed that it had reference 
 to the commentary. The statement of the defendant that he did not make a personal 
 attack upon plaintiff, falls to the ground, for, if that was not the intent, why did he not 
 withdraw the article and tender an apology when asked to do so As to the libel 
 being published on a justifiable occasion, ^to justify it there must be circumstances in 
 the mind of the writer, and he must have reasons to know that what he writes was 
 true. The simple question was, was this a libel or no libel, on the plaintiff so as to 
 lower him in the estimation of the public. If there be no justification, the law im- 
 plies malice, and defendant must therefore be subjected to heavy damages for having 
 endeavoured to blacken the character of not plaintiff only, but the whole Vallabhacharya 
 sect. The learned Counsel said that the Court was bound to assess heavy damages, 
 considering the mass of filth and obscenity with which it had been polluted, and the 
 
193 
 
 endeavours made to bolster up a weak case. The Court was bound to support its 
 translation and hold it a libel, and Mr. Bayley maintained that it was a libel without 
 a justifiable occasion, for, defendant at the time he wrote it, had no personal know- 
 ledge ot the alleged impropriety of conduct on part of the plaintiff, and he could not 
 be justified therefore in singling out the plaintiff. On looking at the libel it would 
 appear that there was malice on part of the defendant, for he singled out the plain- 
 tiff's name, although there was nothing to justify his doing so, not having a personal 
 knowledge of the alleged immoral acts. Mr. Bayley repeated that every single material 
 fact in the plea of justification must be proved to find in favour of the defendant, 
 but he said that that had not been done, and therefore plaintiff was entitled to a 
 verdict. The whole of the issues must be found in favour of the plaintiff, if even 
 a portion of the plea was not proved. Plaintiff had done everything in his power to 
 meet the charge, and he had successfully met the imputation to his character which was 
 attempted to be blasted. His antecedents, and his honesty and integrity were not to 
 be lost sight of. The learned Counsel in conclusion asked the Court to assess heavy 
 damages considering the malicious character of the libel, and the foul attacks made upon 
 plaintiff in public prints during the progress of the suit. 
 
 The Court reserved its judgment sine die. 
 
 2a 
 
194 
 JUDGMENT. 
 
 Twenty-fourth Day, Tuesday, 22nd April 1862. 
 
 Sir Matthew Sausse, in giving judgment, said : — 
 
 This was an action on the case for the publication of a false and malicious libel 
 •in the form of an editorial article that appeared on the 21st October 1860 in a 
 Guzerattee newspaper published in Bombay called the Salya Prakdsh or the " Light 
 of Truih." 
 
 The publication is as follows : — [Reads the article.] 
 
 This publication may be divided under four heads : — 
 
 Istly. So far as it characterizes the sect of Vallabhacharya, as heretical in respect 
 of the Ancient Hindoo Religion. 
 
 2ndly. As it attributes to the Maharajs as the Spiritual heads of the sect, the 
 inculcation of heretical and immoral doctrines. 
 
 3rdly. As it charges the Maharajs as a body with immoral practices under the 
 pretence of Religion. 
 
 4thly. So far as it charges the plaintiff individually with the practice of immora- 
 lity with the females of his sect. • • 
 
 The plaintiff complains that these several charges are false and malicious and that 
 they have been published of, and injuriously affect him, in his individual character as 
 a member of society at large, in his religious character and conduct as a Brahamin, as a 
 Maharaj, as a Hindoo high Priest and as a member of the sect of Vallabhacharya. 
 
 He claims damages for the injury done to him in these several characters which 
 he claims to fill. 
 
 The defendants have pleaded several pleas. 
 
 Firstly. — Not guilty. 
 
 Secondly. — That the Maharajs were not preceptors of the Hindoo Religion. 
 
 Thirdly. — That they are not the heads or chiefs of the Bramins. 
 
 Fourthly.— Th2A the Plaintiff was not a Hindu Priest of high Caste or a preceptor 
 of the Hindoo Rehgion. 
 
 Fifthly. — That the sect of Vallabhacharya is not an ancient sect and that it holds 
 doctrines repugnant to the doctrines and practices of the ancient Hindu Rehgion. 
 
 Sixthly.— 1\iB.\, the translation of the latter portion of the Ubel as rendered in the 
 plaint, was not correct. 
 
 Seventhly. — That the charges made by the defendants in the publication were 
 all true. 
 
 Eighthly. '^Hhs) same plea in a general form. 
 
195 
 
 The Plaintiff joined issue on the first six pleas and replied " De injuria," to the* 
 seventh and eighth. 
 
 The seventh plea was of very great length, it set out various points of doctrine 
 from books alleged to be of religious authority in the sect of Vallabhacharya and relied 
 upon those passages as justifying the publication in charging heresy and immorality of 
 doctrine against the INIaharajs and the sect. It also put in issue various facts and 
 circumstances as proof of the evil reputation of the Alaharajs as a body for immorality, 
 and it finally charged specific acts of personal immorality to have been committed by 
 the plaintiff. 
 
 The Court has been thus compelled to receive evidence at great length upon 
 controverted points of doctrine amongst the members of that sect, and to receive it in 
 great part through the unsatisfactory medium of translations of isolated passages from 
 wrorks in Sanscrit or Brij-Basha, which are practically dead languages and not provided 
 for in the translator's department. 
 
 For the plaintiff there were examined thirty-one witnesses and for the defendants 
 thirty-three. The case was contested with all the obstinacy and acrimony which gener- 
 ally characterise caste and religious disputes, when they unfortunately force themselves 
 into a Court of law. The trial was thus prolonged to a most unusual length. 
 
 Publication by the defendants has been admitted. Upon the evidence, I entertain 
 no doubt that the alleged libel has been correctly translated into English as it appears 
 upon the plaint and think as so translated that the latter portion contains matter highly 
 defamatory of the plaintiff. It substantially singles him out by name and thus directly 
 charges him with leading a licentious and immoral life, and with defiling the wives 
 and daughters of his devotees. It then calls upon the Plaintiff to desist from those 
 practices and ends by assuring him that unless he does so, he cannot give religious 
 admonition or propagate his own religion. The applicability of that portion of the pub- 
 lication to the plaintiff has been controverted to some extent. 
 
 A very intelligent witness, Dr. Bhawoo Da;ee, stated after some consideration that 
 he understood the latter part as a " general expostulation" with the Maharajs as a 
 class and " that any intelligent reader would so understand it" and afterwards that " he 
 did not think it alluded to the Plaintiff." However he qualified that evidence in the 
 end by stating to the Court " that he could not say that the plaintiff was excluded," 
 that with his knowledge of the plaintiffs antecedents " he did include him amongst those 
 who were charged with defiling the wives and daughters of devotees," and his last 
 answer was " that as a reader not knowing the plaintiff's antecedents he would consider 
 it donhtful whether he was included or not." Now, if a writer expresses himself either 
 through design or negligence in such a manner as to render it doubtful in the minds 
 of one class of readers whether the defamatory matter applies to a person named ; but 
 leave no doubt whatever on the minds of others, that it does so apply, the writer must 
 abide by the consequences, and if otherwise liable he must answer in damages for the 
 injury he has done to the person so defamed. Libels are to be construed according 
 to the plain and ordinary sense of the language in which they are written, and the 
 suggestion of a possible construction by which the party complaining might not be in- 
 cluded is not to relieve the libeller from responsibility. 
 
196 
 
 The defence made at the bar, that the Ubellous matter was not intended to apply 
 to the plaintiff individually is scarcely consistent with the reply which the defendants 
 made to the complaint by the plaintiff in April 18G1, when the latter called for a 
 contradiction of and apology for, the statements " so far as they relate to the alleged 
 improper conduct ascribed to himself the reply of the defendants was through the 
 columns of their newspaper that they saw nothing to require " explanation, alteration, 
 or apology." 
 
 ' Then holding the publication to be libellous and consequently malicious, I have 
 next to consider the defence relied upon under the plea of not guilty, viz., That the 
 defamatory matter was published under circumstances which formed a justifying 
 occasion. 
 
 " A Justifying occasion" has been defined in very clear terms by Baron Parke 
 in Toogood v. Sparing I, Compton, Meeson, and Eoscoe. He states to be " the publica- 
 tion of defamatory matter, honestly made by a person in the discharge of some public 
 or private dutg, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs in 
 matters where his interest is concerned. In such cases the occasion prevents the infer- 
 ence of malice" and he goes on to say " that if fairly warranted by any reasonable 
 occasion or exigency, and honestly made, such communications are protected for the 
 common convenience and welfare of society, and the law has not restricted the right 
 to make them within any narrow limits." 
 
 The effect of the existence of a " justifying occasion" is to negative malice both in 
 fact as well as in law, either of which is necessary to maintain an action of libel. 
 The difference between malice'' in fact and malice in law is laid down in Bromage 
 V. Prosser, where the former is defined to be " ill will against a person," and mahce 
 in law " a wrongful act done, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse." And 
 in Duncan vs. Thwaites 3 Barnwell and Cresswell, Chief Justice Abbot further defines, 
 the meaning of the word " malice" when he says the use of the word "* malicious" 
 in declaration of libel is " rather to exclude a supposition that the publication had 
 been made in some innocent occasion, than for any other purpose." 
 
 In cases of this kind when tried before a Jury it is their province to find, 
 whether the communication was made bona fide or not and if in the affirmative, it 
 becomes the duty of the judge, as a matter of law, to decide whether the occasion 
 of the publication was such as to rebut the inference of malice or in accordance with 
 the definition in Bromage v. Prosser whether there was any " legal justification or 
 excuse' for the wrongful act." * 
 
 I have thus to investigate and decide first, whether the publication was made 
 bond fide by the defendants, and next, if it were, whether then a legal justification or 
 excuse, is to be found in the surrounding circumstances proved in this case for the 
 libel upon private character which the publication contains. In the present case I see 
 no reason to doubt that the defendant entered into this controversy with the honest 
 purpose of exposing to public reprobation doctrines which he conscientiously believed to 
 be subversive of social morality, and so far as he has commented upon those doctrines, 
 I see no ground for complaint. I consider his strictures not to have in any degree 
 exceeded the " licentious comment" as it has been termed which is allowable upon 
 matters more immediately affecting public interests, and I have no doubt that matters 
 
197 
 
 affecting the morality of a considerable portion of the public are undoubtedly matters of 
 that description. But the question remains whether under all the circumstances the 
 defendants were justified in leaving the region for commentary altogether and in mak- 
 ing a direct charge upon the plaintiffs private character, by accusing him of having 
 been engaged in the practice of defiling the wives and daughters of his devotees under 
 the pretence of religion. I thought the law on this subject was very clear, but in de- 
 ference to some difficulty, which my brother Arnould feels I shall examine it at 
 greater length than I would otherwise have considered necessary. 
 
 Now, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, the case stands thus. The plaintiff was 
 practically a stranger to Bombay prior to July 1860, when he arrived. At first he 
 united in some reformatory views of the defendants or others with reference to female 
 education and re-marriage of widows, but was supposed to have in part seceded from 
 them after. He set on foot a pamphlet or periodical called " the Propagator of our 
 own Eehgion" and invited extraneous or it may be hostile criticism, and discussion 
 upon the views it placed before the public. On the 21st October 1860 the libel ap- 
 pears and the plaintiff is charged in it with conduct which if true, ought to 
 deprive him of the respect and indeed communion with the members of any civilized 
 community. 
 
 The defendant, Karsandass Mooljee, was not personally acquainted with the plaintiff, 
 nor was he,according to his own admission, personally acquainted, with any act of immor- 
 ality committed by the plaintiff or any other Maharaj, but prior to the libel, one Lalshunkar, 
 an intimate friend of his, volunteered the information that the plaintiff bore a bad character 
 for morality in Bombay, in Surat and in other places in the Mofussil, where Lalshunkar 
 had been. Lalshunkar was a native of and an annual visitor to Surat, where the plaintiff 
 had a temple. So far as the plaintiff was individually concerned that was all the informa- 
 tion respecting his alleged immoral practices, that the defendants possessed at the time of 
 the libel. It does not appear that the defendants took any pains to make inquiries into the 
 truth of these general charges, but rested satisfied with the statements of Lalshunkar. 
 The defendant Karsandass states that it was after the commencement of the action he began 
 to make inquiries into the plaintiffs private life. In addition, the defendant, who was ori- 
 ginally a member of the Vallabhacharya Sect, appears to have entertained for ten or twelve 
 years the belief that the Maharajs as a body were guilty of adulterous practices amongst 
 their female devotees. That belief appears to have been founded upon general rumours 
 in the sect and upon a resolution passed by the Bhattia Caste in 1855, to put a stop 
 to such alleged practices by preventing their females from going to the temple of the 
 Maharajs ; and also upon reiterated charges of immoral and licentious conduct made 
 against the Maharajs as a body, by newspapers, pamphlets and periodicals from 1855 
 until some months prior to the publication of the libel. The defendant's conviction appears 
 to have been also influenced by the discovery in 1860 of a commentary by Goculnathjee 
 which appeared to the defendant to give doctrinal sanction to the immoral practices which 
 he had previously believed to be existing amongst the body of the Maharajs. It appears, 
 however, from Dr. Bhawoo Dajee's evidence that he has personally knovm some few 
 Maharajs whom he described, as men of unspotted character, and of piety, and good men. 
 Applying then the test of Baron Parke in Toogood vs. Spyring to these circumstances, 
 — were the defendants in making this defamatory charge on the private character 
 of plaintiff through the columns of a newspaper, discharging any legal or moral public 
 
198 
 
 duty or any kqal or moral private duty, or was the pulilication made in conduct of his 
 own affairs in matters where his interest was concerned ? There was clearly no lejal 
 duty either public or private cast upon the defendants to do so. Nor was there any moral 
 duty, public or private, cast upon them to make that communication to the public beyond 
 what might press upon any other individual who had heard a bad character of the plaintiff 
 for morality and believed that report to be true. It would be a novel and a dangerous 
 doctrine to lay down that every editor of a newspaper, or any one who had the command 
 of its columns, should be held justified even without inquiry in making specific charges of a 
 most defamatory character against the private life of individuals, simply because he had 
 heard them and honestly believed them to be true, and that from their character it would be 
 conducive to public morality to publish them. Were such a doctrine to prevail, it should be 
 maintained independently of the actual truth of the charges, and property in private charac- 
 ter which the law protects so jealously, might be ruthlessly swept away without redress. 
 In my opinion there is but one plea which can serve as a defence to a libel published as the 
 present has been, viz : That the charges contained in the libel are true. This principle is 
 supported by the view takenby Chamber J. in Rogers vs. Clifton 3 Bosanquet and Puller 
 587, and is cited with approbation by Mr. Justice Cresswell in Coxhead vs. Richards 2 C. 
 B. and I think it is further sustained by the decision and dicta of the Judges in Paris vs. 
 Levi 9 Weekly Keporter, which was cited to show that the doctrine of " justifiable occasion" 
 has been extended to publications in newspapers as well as to those which come under 
 the ordinary term of " confidential or privileged communications." But that case upon 
 examination will be found to range itself under the class of cases which from Tabart v. 
 Tipper 1 Campbell, down to the present time, have upheld the right of public comment and 
 criticism, upon documents submitted to the public consideration. The plaintiff in Paris v. Levi 
 published an advertisement calling the attention of servants to the fact that he was offering 
 unprecedentedly high prices for articles that servants were in the habit of selling out of their 
 master's establishment, this advertisement was commented upon by a heading of " Liducement 
 to servants torob their masters." There was no charge against the plaintiff of robbing anyone 
 but simply that the tendency of his advertisement to the public was to lead dishonest servants 
 to pilfer for the purpose of taking advantage of these unusually high prices. If made bona 
 fide, the comment does not appear to exceed what might reasonably be allowed, and it was 
 so held at the trial. It afterwards came before the full Court principally on the ground of 
 misdirection. With the direction of Chief Justice Erie, as reported in that case, I fully concur. 
 Treating the case as one of comment: he said that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover unless 
 he established that the defendant was actuated by malice ; that the law however did not 
 require that the plaintiff should shew personal malice or ill will in the sense of private hatred ; 
 but that the defamatory publication was published without any of those causes which the law 
 considers will justify them. " Such causes excuse the publication because they shew the 
 party was not actuated by any corrupt or malicious motives in saying that which tends to 
 defame the character of another." But in criticism on matters which have been pub- 
 lished by the complaining party. Lord EUenborough laid down in a case where a journal 
 had criticised books which had been published dangerous to morality ; " that liberty of 
 critcism must be allowed, or we, should neither have purity of taste or of morality ; that 
 publication, I shall never consider as a libel, which has for its object, not to injure the 
 reputation of any one, but to correct misrepresentation of fact, or to censure what is 
 hostile to morality." " That if the jury found their verdict for the defendant, it must 
 be on the principle so laid down. That had the defendant said one word against the 
 
199 
 
 plaintiff with reference to the plaintiff's private character, he would have felt himself bound 
 to say, ' there was no excuse of the publication.' " 
 
 So Byles J. says : the real question was, " does the comment go beyond what is sanction- 
 ed by law, was there a reflection on the plaintiff's private character." And Keating 
 J. states : — " Now it is conceded that whilst a newspaper is justified, nay it is rather 
 incumbent on them to comment freely on any publication. I see no distinction between 
 this handbill and any other publication for comment. Yet that is not to degenerate 
 into imputations of a personal character. What was said at the trial was " That 
 though a fair comment could be privileged, yet if of a personal character it would not." 
 The direction was perfectly right. In Carr v. Hood, 1 Campbell, Lord Ellenborough said : 
 " Shew 7ne an attack on the moral character of the plaintiff, or any attack upon his character 
 unco7inected with his authorship, and I shall be as ready as any Judge that ever sat here 
 to protect him.; but I cannot hear of malice on account of turning writers into ridicule." 
 Thus from Tabart v. Tipper and Carr v. Hood, from 1808 down to 1860 when Paris v. Levi 
 was decided, defamation of private character in public journals, has been treated as ordinarily 
 beyond the pale of " justifying occasion ;" and I see nothing in the present case to take 
 it out of that principle. The selection of a public newspaper as the medium for matter 
 defamatory of private character is one of the strongest proofs of such malice and will 
 withdraw the protection of a "justifying occasion." 
 
 It was also contended that the defendant Kursandass Mooljee was justified in pub- 
 lishing the libel by reason of the private interest which he had as a member of the 
 sect of Vallabhacharya in protecting it from the corruption of such immorality as was 
 charged against the plaintiff, but I much doubt on the defendant's evidence whether he 
 can be considered to be a member of that sect, whatever force there might be in such 
 an argument, is taken away by the mode of publication having quite exceeded the 
 bounds suited to the occasion. Had he taken means to have convened a meeting of the 
 sect and so published to the members interested the defamatory matter concerning one 
 of their spiritual heads with a view to investigation, perhaps he might have had some 
 colour for the defence, but the defendant selected a public newspaper, and without any 
 previous enquiry published the defamatory matter, not to the parties interested only, but 
 to the whole world. For the above reasons I think the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict 
 upon the plea of the general issue. 
 
 I now proceed to consider the plea of justification. In commenting upon the evi- 
 dence I will avoid as far as practicable any reiteration of its disgusting details and deal 
 with the credibiUty of the witnesses on general principles and in general terms. We 
 are not now called upon to express any opinion as to whether the plea of justification 
 covers the charge in the libel. That plea if proved, is on the record admitted to 
 contain a sufficient answer, and it is with it alone we have now to deal. 
 
 The text upon which this libel was founded is a commentary by Goculnathjee Ma- 
 haraj, upon a work composed by his grandfather Vallabhacharya, the founder of this sect. 
 In the Sanscrit original, the name of the person to whom an offering of wives and 
 daughters, &c. is to be made is not mentioned, and upon the evidence there can be no 
 reasonable doubt that the offering was to be made to " Purshotum" which is a name 
 for the Supreme Being. The compiler of a small work in Guzeratee entitled " Bio- 
 graphical sketches of ancient Hindu Authors" (and in wliich he gives an account of 
 
200 
 
 the various religious sects in India) acting upon his own knowledge of the Sanskrit 
 language and upon his own construction of this passage, introduced the word " Acharya" 
 to represent the name ot the person to whom this offering was to be made. That 
 word appears to be one of very general and undefined application in various Hindu 
 sects, but in the Vallabacharya sect it is synonymous with Guru or Spiritual Guide, 
 and is one of the hundred and more names applied to the Maharajs. The term " Pur- 
 shotum," i. e. Supreme Being or Lord, is also one of the names by which they are 
 addressed. The defendant took his text as it appeared in a Marathi translation of the 
 Goozeratee work, changing " Acharya" into " Maharaj." He had no means of con- 
 sulting the original as he was not acquainted with Sanskrit, and there is no apparent 
 reason to doubt that he relied on the accuracy of the compiler in introducing the word 
 " Acharya" into the text. It is not necessary to enquire and it would perhaps be 
 hazardous to offer an opinion, upon what the intention of Goculnathjee was, in making 
 use of those words, but it appears abundantly from works of recognised authority, 
 written by other Maharajs and from existing popular belief in the Vallabhacharya sect 
 that Vallabhacharya is believed to have been an mcarnation of the God Krishna, and 
 that, the Maharajs as descendents of Vallabacharya have claimed and received from their 
 followers the like character of incarnation of that God, by hereditary succession. The 
 Maharajs have been sedulous in identifying themselves with the God Krishna by means 
 of their own writings and teachings and by the similarity of ceremonies of worship and 
 addresses which they require to be offered to themselves by their followers. All songs 
 connected with the God Krishna, which were brought before us were of an amorous 
 character, and it appeared that songs of a corrupting and licentious tendency, both in 
 idea and expression, are sung by young females to the Maharajs, upon festive occasions, 
 in which they are identified with the God in his most licentious aspect. In these 
 songs, as well as in stories, both written and traditional, which latter are treated as 
 of a religions character in the sect, the subject of sexual intercourse is most prominent. 
 Adultery is made familiar to the minds of all ; it is no where discouraged or denounced, 
 but on the contrary, in some of the stories, those persons who have committed that 
 great moral and social offence are commended, and in one ot them, the actors are 
 awarded the highest position in the heaven of the Vaishnavas, although nominally, for 
 some attention paid on one occasion to the clearing of a temple of the God. The love 
 and subserviancy inculcated by the Hindu religion to be due in a spiritual sense to the 
 Supreme Being has been by those corrupt teachings materialised, and to a large extent, 
 transferred to those who claim to be his living incarnations. It is said to be cere- 
 monially effected by a mystic rite or dedication of " mind" " property" and " body" 
 (or mun, dhun, and tun) which is made in childhood by males, but by females at 
 the ceremony of marriage, and a popular belief appears to exist to a considerable ex- 
 tent that this dedication confers upon the Maharajs absolute rights over the " minds," 
 " properties," and " bodies" of their followers. The Maharajs, however, appear upon 
 the evidence to have undoubtedly availed themselves of the existence of those impressions 
 to gratify licentious propensities and a love of gain. These doctrines and practices are 
 opposed to what we know of the original principles of the ancient Hindu religion which 
 are said to be found in the Veds. They recognise no incarnations, but the well knewn 
 avatar and the Hindu code of law and morals equally inculcute chastity in females 
 before marriage, and fidelity m the married state. Therefore, so far as we may be 
 called upon to express an opinion upon this part of the plea, the defendant has sue- 
 
201 
 
 cessfully shewn, that the doctrines of the Vallabhacharya sect are in those respects 
 contrary to those of the ancient Hindu rehgion. He has proved that the Maharajaha 
 claimed to be and are considered and worshipped by a considerable portion of the sect 
 as Gods or incarnations of God ; and he has, we think, established that, this supersti- 
 tion has led to a lamentable want of moral feeling in the Vallabhacharyan sect, and to 
 the practice of gross immoralities. It is to the credit of the plaintiff, that in his evidence 
 he has disavowed for himself any claim to be considered as an incarnation of God. 
 He stated that he had so informed his followers, but was unable to remember when, 
 or to whom he addressed such advice. There was no other evidence offered of his 
 having done so, but it appeared to establish the generality or strength of such a belief 
 amongst the followers of the Maharajahs, when it became necessary for him to thus 
 disavow that character. The next branch of this plea of justification is that in which 
 it is alleged, that the immoral or licentious practices of the Maharajahs as stated in 
 the libel, were matters of notoriety in the Vallabhacharya sect as well as outside of it, 
 that they had been denounced by their own followers, and by others in pamphlets, 
 newspapers, and hand-bills published in all languages in Bombay. Several credible wit- 
 nesses of the Vallabhacharya sect were examined, who deposed to the existence of that 
 opinion in the sect, and in addition as evidence of the strength of that feeling, the 
 defendants put in issue a resolution passed at a meeting of the Bhattia caste in 1855 
 for the purpose of preventing the females going to worship at the temples, except at 
 period when the Maharajahs were personally occupied in the performance of the wor- 
 ship of their God. That resolution was proved to have been come to, in consequence 
 of its being believed that immoral practices were taking place between the Maharajah 
 and their female Bhattia devotees, under color of the latter going at night to perform 
 worship at the Vallabhacharya temples. Since that period, newspapers, pamphlets, and 
 handbills in various languages in Bombay have very frequently denounced the preten- 
 sions of tire Maharajahs to divinity, have charged them with the grossest immorality, 
 have held them up as objects for public reprobation, and latterly in 1859 have made 
 use of the strongest and sometimes the coarsest terms, in describing their alleged profligacy 
 of conduct and licentious vice. It also appeared in evidence that some Maharajahs had 
 committed acts of immorality and licentiousness to the knowledge of witnesses who 
 deposed to them, and whose testimony I do not see any reason to doubt. The plaintiff 
 and Jeevunjee Maharaj in Bombay were stated in the plea to have admitted in the 
 presence of some of the members of the sect the prevalence of the crime of adultery 
 amongst their body, and also to have said, that great difficulty would be experienced in 
 checking it, as the Maharajahs derived the greater portion of their incomes from female 
 devotees, and that no other sufficient means were provided for their support. Jeevunjee 
 Maharaj was not produced to contradict or explain these statements, although his name 
 is mentioned in the plea in connection with that fact, and the plea had been filed for 
 nine months before the trial. The plaintiff denied the admission, but we feel no difficulty 
 in discrediting that denial, and in believing that the conversation took place. The 
 credibility of the witnesses who deposed to it was not impeached, and the character, of 
 some of them was such, that we do not feel at liberty to doubt their truth. We have 
 therefore no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that this portion, also, of the plea 
 has been satisfactorily proved. 
 
 We now approach the last division of this plea, which so vitally affects the 
 character of the plaintiff, not only for immorality of conduct, but for truth on his 
 26 
 
202 
 
 oath in a court of justice. Any one who was present at his examination, and 
 the lengthened cross-examination which he underwent for the greater part of three 
 days, must feel that, he is a man of great intelligence, and of considerable native 
 attainments. Any contradiction to the testimony of other witnesses cannot have arisen 
 from confusion or mistake ; it must have been wilful and deliberate. He has contradicted 
 in the most direct terms every charge of personal immorality made against himself, 
 every conversation approaching to an admission of immoral practices upon his own part 
 or of licentious conduct of other Maharajahs. In a conflict of evidence where there must 
 be a wilful false swearing at one side or the other, it is desirable to select some one 
 material fact upon which there is a clear and direct collision, and through it, to test 
 the credibility of the witnesses at one side or the other. The plea charged as evidence 
 of the licentious character of the plaintiff, that in the year 1860, he was suffering 
 from a malady contracted from immoral intercourse with females. The defendants pro- 
 duced two medical men who were consulted by the plaintiff. Doctors Bhawoo Dajee and 
 Dhirajram Dulputram. Both are Graduates of the Grant Medical College, and the first at 
 least long distinguished for his scientific, literary and medical attainments. It is but 
 justice to those gentlemen to say, that they only gave medical evidence, upon the legal 
 compulsion, which it was the duty of the Court to apply. Dr. Dajee states that the 
 plaintiff sent for him professionally, and in giving a description of his ailment, made 
 use of a term of familiar and unmistakeable medical meaning, which coupled with the 
 history of its origin, left no doubt in Dr. Dajee's mind of the character of the disease. 
 The plaintiff having then declined to submit to an ocular examination, informed Dr. 
 Dajee that he would the next morning send Goverdundass to give more accurate details. 
 Goverdundass was the confidential agent and manager for the plaintiff, and he next 
 morning gave a description and history fuller but in substance and terms identical with 
 that already given by the plaintiff. This agent and manager was in Bombay during 
 the trial, and although several days elapsed between the evidence of Dr. Dajee and the 
 close of the plaintiff's rebutting case, Goverdhundass was not called to contradict or explain 
 that evidence. Dr. Dulputram who had been one of the Vallabhacharyan sect was 
 consulted professionally by the plaintiff in about three months afterwards, and was in 
 attendance upon him for more than a month. He treated the plaintiff for a similar 
 disease, which was described by the latter as having been contracted by him from 
 immoral intercourse with a female about the period when Dr. Dajee had been sent for. 
 The plaintiff was cured by the treatment of Dr. Dulputram after salivation, and upon 
 Dr. Dulputram's evidence, there could be no doubt as to the character of the disease, 
 or as to the mode in which it was described by the plaintiff to have been contracted. 
 Dr. Dulsookram had the opportunity afforded him of the necessary medical inspection. 
 Lukmidass Khimjee, who is one of the leading men in the sect of Vallabhacharyas in 
 Bombay, was at that time in the habit of daily intercourse with the plaintiff, and had 
 been requested by the latter to bring Dr. Dajee (who is a Brahamin) to visit him pro- 
 fessionally. He fully corroborates these two medical witnesses. Through the medium 
 of conversations with the plaintiff, the latter described his malady by name, and the 
 mode in which it was contracted, together with other details which it is not necessary 
 to mention. It was further elicited in cross-examination that the plaintiff had undergone 
 a medical examination on the preceding evening by three Doctors, with a view of 
 sustaining his own denial of the existence of the disease and of the truth of the state- 
 ments made by Drs. Dajee and Dulputram and by Lukmidass Khimjee. None of 
 
203 
 
 these Doctors were produced for the plaintiff to give an account of that recent examination. 
 Upon this conflict of evidence between the plaintiff alone, and the three witnesses Dr. 
 Dajee, Dulputram, and Lukmeedass, coupled with the non-produciion of Goverdhundass, 
 or any of the three medical men who made the last examination, I feel myself com- 
 pelled to come to the conclusion, that the plaintiff has allowed his personal interests to 
 overcome his respect for truth, while on his oath in this Court. And having reluctantly 
 but confidently arrived at the conviction that he has in this instance wilfully foreswore 
 himself, I can place no trust or reliance upon any denials he has given to the personal 
 acts of immorality with which he has been charged. The character of the principal 
 witnesses for the defendants have not been impeached. Many of them are members 
 of the Yallabhacharyan sect, and still frequent the temples of the ]\Iaharajs. It has not 
 been suggested that they entertain any personal hostility to the plainiiff. They have 
 apparently no personal interest to serve, but much caste or sect obloquy to undergo for 
 the part they have taken, and the evidence they have given against a Maharaj. The 
 account of Lukmidass Khimjee in support of the charge of the plaintiffs immorality 
 at Beyt is a strange and almost incredible story, but I cannot believe it to have been 
 invented for this trial. In answer to the Court, he stated the names of four persons, 
 members of the sect, in whose presence several years before he had detailed the 
 circumstances he narrated in the witness-box. None of those persons were produced to 
 contradict him, and when all of those who were in Bombay, were produced by the 
 defendants for cross-examination, the plaintiff shrunk from impeaching, through their 
 testimony, the truth of the statement of Lukmidass Khimjee. The plaintiff produced 
 evidence to his good character for morality at Surat, Beyt, and several other places in 
 which it had been impeached. He also sought to establish the falsehood of the testimony 
 of Lukmidass Khimjee respecting the act of immorality at Beyt, by calling witnesses 
 to shew that by night and by day, plaintiff had personal attendants waiting upon him, 
 who never left him alone for an instant, and which rendered it improbable in the 
 highest degree that he could have been guilty of the immoral act deposed to. That 
 evidence is in itself contrary to all probability and is contradicted incidentally by the 
 statement of Dr. Dulputram, who in his professional treatment always saw the plaintiff 
 alone. On examination of those witnesses, it appeared that the greater number were 
 followers of the sect of the Maharajs. Some of them avowed that they believed the 
 Maharajs to be incarnations of the Deity. Others, that they would not believe anything 
 against the character of a Maharaj, that a Maharaj could not do anything wrong, that 
 he could not be a bad man, and that it was a sin to give evidence against a 
 Maharaj in a court of justice, and that any one who did, should not be spoken to 
 and should be outcasted. 
 
 Bearing in mind the efforts that were proved to have been made to prevent evidence 
 being given by his co-sectaries against the plaintiff in this case, and looking upon the 
 description of that given for him, we cannot allow the negative character of the latter to 
 outweigh the clear, strong, and direct evidence given for the defendant, under those difficulties. 
 
 We think that the essential points in the libel, as the record stands, have been 
 sufficiently covered by the proof adduced in support of the plea of justification, and that 
 there must be a verdict for the defendant upon that issue. 
 
 As to the minor pleas, a verdict for the plaintiff will be entered on the 2nd, 4th, 
 and 6th ; and for the defendants on the 3rd and 5th pleas, in addition to the 7th atid 8th. 
 
204 
 
 After having found a verdict for the defendants upon the issues raised by the Plea 
 of Justication, the plaintiff can only recover a verdict for nominal damages on the plea 
 of Not Guilty. As we have felt obliged to disbelieve the plaintiff on his oath and also 
 the greater number of the witnesses produced to corroborate him, our verdict will be 
 «ntered without costs. 
 
 The defendant to be entitled to the costs of the issues found in his favour. 
 
 Sir Joseph Arnould, in giving judgment, said : — 
 
 In this case I shall make no apology for stating at some length, the reasons for my 
 judgment. In a matter of such general interest and importance the public have a right 
 to be satisfied that the minds of both members of the Court have been actively engaged 
 in sifting the evidence and arriving at a pains-taking and conscientious decision. I have, 
 besides, on one point not been able to come .to the same conclusion as the Chief 
 Justice ; and though that point does not materially affect the vital question in the case, 
 and relates not so much to the law itself as to the application of the law, it is yet 
 too important to be passed over in silence. 
 
 1, On the first issue the question that arises is this : Is the article complained of 
 a libel ; or is it so far justified by the occasion, i. e. by the whole of the circumstances 
 preceding and accompanying its publication, as to be, though defamatory, not libellous. 
 
 The doctrine of justifying occasion as deduced from the authorities is this : The 
 essence of libel is malice. Prima facie every publication containing matter tending to 
 defame or criminate another is held to be libellous ; — that is — malice, the essence of 
 libel, is legally inferred from the mere fact of publishing of another that which tends to 
 criminate or defame him. But this prima facie inference may be repelled : it may be 
 shown that the circumstances under which the publication took place were such as to 
 preclude the legal inference of malice arising from the mere fact of publication and to 
 constitute a justififing occasion for publishing that which tends to defame and criminate 
 another. 
 
 If such a justifying occasion be made out, the only enquiry remaining, in order to 
 ascertain whether a given publication be or be not libellous, is the enquiry whether the 
 publication, on the face of it, shows what is legally called express malice ; in other 
 words, whether the virulence and bitterness of the language employed by the writer so 
 far exceeds what the occasion warrants as to show that he was actuated by personal 
 rancour, by a malignant and vindictive desire to criminate and defame. Unless this 
 appears the publication though defamatory or criminatory is not libellous (see the whole 
 current of authorities from Rex. vs. Baillie, 21 Howell's State Trials 10 (in A. D. , 
 1778) down to Harrison vs. Bush 5 Ell and Blackb. and IG L. J. Q. B. 25 (A. D. 
 1855.) 
 
 As to what will constitute a justifying occasion the points principally to be attended 
 to are these : First. The publication must be bona fide, i. e., at the time of publication 
 the writer must honestly and upon fair reasonable grounds believe that which he publishes 
 to be substantially true. Secondly/, the publication must be with regard to a subject 
 matter in which the party publishing has an interest, or in reference to which he has 
 a duty. Thirdly, those to whom the publication is addressed must have an interest 
 and a duty in some degree corresponding to his own. 
 
205 
 
 The word duty here employed (as the late Chief Justice of England declared the 
 law in Harrison vs. Bush)— is " not to be confined to legal duties which may be 
 enforced by indictment, action or mandamus, hut must include moral and social duties 
 cf imperfect obligation:'' (See the well-considered judgment of the Court of Queens Bench 
 ^is delivered by Lord Campbell in the case of Harrison vs. Bush. 16 L. J. Q. B. p. 29.) 
 
 As to the extent of the privilege or the j'usif cation — that varies necessarily with 
 the nature of the subject matter of the alleged libel ; if it be a matter like the 
 character of a servant, &c. — in regard to which only one person or only a few persons 
 have an interest or duty corresponding to that of the writer, then he is only privileged 
 or justified in communicating to that one or to those few ; if, on the other hand, it 
 be a matter in regard to which the general public has an interest and a duty — if it 
 be a great social scandal and a great public wrong — if it be a matter in the exposure 
 of which all society has an interest and in the endeavour to discharge and put down 
 which all society has a duty — finally, if it be a matter beyond the cognizance of any- 
 other tribunal except the condemnatory judgment of public opinion — in such cases, the 
 writer, if writing bon<i fide, is privileged or justified in making the communication as 
 public as he can. 
 
 Such in my judgment are the principles of law applicable to the present case. In 
 applying them I propose to consider the following questions : — "What was the defendant's 
 professional and social position at the time the alleged Hbel was published ? What was 
 his consequent interest and social duty in reference to the subject matter of the alleged 
 libel ? What was his then state of knowledge and belief in respect to such subject matter ? 
 What or whom does he attack in the alleged libel ? To whom does he address 
 himself in publishing it ? What was the immediate occasion of publishing it ? Is the 
 language in which the alleged libel is couched in excess of what the occasion warranted ? 
 
 rirst then ; %cho or tchat was the defendant at the time of the publication of the 
 alleged libel 1 By birth and early initiation he was a member of the Vallabhacharyan 
 sect, but for some years before the libel was published, in consequence mainly of his 
 disgust at the practices which in the libel he denounces, he had ceased to worship in 
 the temples of the Maharajs. For some time before the publication of the alleged 
 libel he had been editor of the Satya Prakash, a native newspaper published in the 
 Guzerattee language, and principally read and circulated among the two wealthy and 
 extensive castes of the Bhattias and the Banyans. Both these castes are devout followers 
 of the Maharaj : of the Banyan caste the defendant was himself a member. 
 
 Such was the defendant's position, what was his conseqttent interest and duty ? 
 
 As a Vallabhacharyan addressing his co-sectaries, as a Banyan addressing his caste 
 fellows — above all as a journalist addressing his readers composed principally of followers 
 of the Maharajs, had he no interest, had he no duty in denouncing the malpractices 
 which it is the principal object ' of this alleged libel to expose ? It appears to me that 
 he had both an interest and a duty. 
 
 A public journalist is a public teacher : the true function of the press, that by virtue 
 of which it has rightly grown to be one of the great powers of the modern world — is 
 the function of teaching, elevating and enlightening those who fall within the range of 
 its influence. 
 
206 
 
 To expose and denounce evil and barbarous practices ; to attack usages and customs 
 inconsistent with moral purity and social progress, is one of its highest, its most im- 
 perative duties. When those evils and errors are consecrated by time, fenced round by 
 custom, countenanced and supported by the highest and most influential class in society, 
 when they are wholly beyond the control and supervision of any other tribunal, then 
 it is the function and the duty of the press to intervene ; honestly endeavouring by 
 all the powers of argument, denunciation and ridicule, to change and purify the public 
 opinion which is the real basis on which these evils are built and the real power by 
 which they are perpetuated. 
 
 As editor of the Satt/a Prakash, the defendant was, in my opinion, acting within 
 the clear limits of his duty (as defined in the case of Harrison vs. Bush) in denouncing 
 to a public principally composed of Bhattias and Banyans, the moral delinquencies of 
 the Maharajs. 
 
 When the defendant published his alleged libel what was his state of knowledge and 
 belief as to the matters of which it treats ? To the defendant himself, a member of 
 the Vallabhacharyan sect, and of the Banyan caste, the profligacy of the Maharajs had 
 been known as matter of general reputation and universal notoriety, from his earliest years. 
 
 " It is" says he " the general reputation of our sect that when girls are married 
 they are sent to the Maharaj to be enjoyed, before they are touched by their husbands. 
 This has been the reputation as long as I can remember, and" he adds " I have 
 known instances." 
 
 When as a youth he had attended the temples he had seen Maharajs pressing with 
 their feet the hands of their more favoured female devotees and, though young, he 
 knew perfectly well what this meant. 
 
 He was cognizant of the fact that in 1855, those devout followers of the Maharajs, 
 
 the members of the Bhattia caste, had held a caste meeting, at which a resolution was 
 
 passed " to fix hours at which their females should visit the temples ; that they might 
 not ham carnal intercourse with the Maharaj.'" 
 
 With regard to the plaintiff himself the defendant was informed before the publication 
 of the libel, on what he had every reason to consider good authority, that his conduct 
 formed no exception to the general conduct of his class. 
 
 " The general character of the Maharajs is that of debauchees ; the plaintiff has 
 also the reputation of a debauchee :" he was told this, before the publication of the 
 alleged libel by Nurmda Lallshunker, his intimate friend, and who, as being in common 
 Vfith the plaintiff a native of Surat and for some time a resident there, had the 
 amplest means of information as to the plaintiff's character. 
 
 The result of all this as to his state of belief when the libel was published is 
 
 thus stated in his evidence. " At the time I wrote the alleged libel, I believed the 
 
 Maharajs individually and as a class, to be guilty of what I call defiling the wives and 
 daughters of their devotees." 
 
 Although thus fully informed of, and on good grounds, firmly believing in the 
 immoralities of the Maharajs— it was not until a short time (some four or five months) 
 
207 
 
 before the publication of the libel, that he saw reason to believe that these imnioraUties 
 were sanctioned by the sacred books of the Vallabhacharyans. 
 
 It was about that time that he fell in with a popular compilation in the Mahratta 
 language, professing to give an account of the tenets of various sects, including those of 
 the Vallabhacharyans. 
 
 The portions of this Mahratta work relating to the Vallabhacharyans were supplied 
 by defendant's intimate friend, the young Nagar Brahmin, Nurmda Lallshunker, who 
 had shown the MSS, to the defendant before it was published. 
 
 In this Mahratta compilation the verse of Goculnathjee to which so much prominence 
 is given in the allged Ubel, is introduced thus : 
 
 " Besides this there are strict words of comment written in a book called the 
 Sidhant Rasi/a [this is the book which forms the text of Goculnathjee' s commentary] to 
 the effect that " all things should be offered and presented to the Ac/mp-ia" (i. e. 
 the MaharaJ) " and then enjoyed." It is then added, " To offer every thing means 
 that even our wives, sons, &c., .should not be brought into use without offering them." 
 
 From this publication the defendant would naturally infer that the commentary 
 of Goculnathjee enjoined the offering up of wives and daughters (for " daughters" are 
 without dispute included in the expression " sons, &c.") to the Maharaj by way of carnal 
 intercourse. 
 
 The defendant did not understand Sanscrit, but he could read Brij-Basha ; he 
 forthwith began to study several Vallabhacharyan works in Brij-Basha from these he 
 derived the conclusion that the statement of doctrine in the Mahratta compilation was 
 borne out by the authoritative works of the sect. 
 
 As to the Sanscrit verse of Goculnathjee, he satisfied himself, he says, from enquiry 
 among those who understood Sanscrit, that its meaning is as set forth in the hbel. 
 
 That meaning is set forth thus : 
 
 " Consequently before he himself has enjoyed her, he should make over his lawful 
 wife to the 31aharaj and he should also make over his sons and daughters ; after having 
 got marri-:'d he should before having himself enjoyed his wife, make an offering of her 
 to the Maharaj, after which he should apply her to his own use." 
 
 The friend to whom he applied for this translation would seem to have been N'urmda 
 Lallshunker, the young Brahmin who showed him the MSS. from which this part of 
 the Mahratta work was printed ; who represented himself as having a thorough knowledge 
 of Sanscrit, and who strenuously maintained in the witness box, that the meaning given 
 in the alleged libel to Goculnathjee" s commentary was correct, — that the dedication there 
 spoken of was a dedication not to the Supreme Being for spiritual purposes, but to his 
 personification, the Maharaj, for carnal purposes. 
 
 It has been elaborately and learnedly contended that this interpretation is incorrect : 
 — that Goculnathjee never intended, nor do his words, in their literal sense, import, the 
 meaning thus put upon them. It may or may not be so : the question as to the 
 precise grammatical meaning of the text, or the probable intention of the writer, does 
 
20S 
 
 not go to the root of the present enquiry. It is not a charge of libel on Goculnathjee 
 that we are trying, but a charge of libel on the Plaintiff. The question is not what 
 Goculnathjee originally wrote or intended, but what in practice, his text or other similar 
 texts have been construed to mean and perverted to sanction. It is abundantly clear on 
 the evidence, as it will presently be necessary to show more at large, that the INIaharaja 
 have for a lengthened period been so far identified by their followers with Krishna — 
 have been to such an extent regarded as Gods and worshipped as Gods, that it would 
 be exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to pronounce with any certainty,. 
 how far a text apparently contemplating a dedication to God, might or might not be 
 regarded in the Vallabhacharyan sect as authorizing a dedication to the Maharaj. 
 
 This, however, is not a question we are called upon to decide. The question for us^ 
 on this part of the case, is whether the defendant when he printed this alleged libel in 
 his paper, had or had not justifying occasion for publishing that the class to which the 
 plaintiff belonged, and the plaintiff himself, as a member of such class, acting on the 
 supposed sanction and authority of certain texts, whether rightly or wrongly understood, 
 whether wrested from their true meaning or not, defiled the wives and daughters of 
 their devotees. 
 
 That the defendant when he printed his interpretation of the text in the alleged libel 
 honestly and bona fide believed it to be the correct one is perfectly plain on the face of 
 the evidence, and was not indeed seriously questioned by the learned counsel for the- 
 plaintiff. Ignorant himself of Sanscrit (the language in which Goculnathjee's commentary 
 is written) he applied for assistance to those whom he honestly believed to be competent 
 authorities, and the interpretation with which they supplied him he made use of in 
 sincere and undoubting reliance on its accuracy. 
 
 Such having been the defendant's position, consequent duty and state of knowledge 
 and belief at the time he published this alleged libel, the next question is, what and 
 whom did he attack ? 
 
 Primarily he attacks a flagrant social enormity and scandal. Per generations the- 
 hereditary high priests of his sect, had as he believed, committed whoredom with the 
 daughters of his people. Like the sons of Eli they had done this openly at the gates 
 of the temple — like the sons of Eli they had done this under the pretended sanction, 
 and in the abused name of religion. This is the thing he denounces. It would be a 
 waste of words to point out that in denouncing it, vehemently, bitterly, indignantly — he 
 was within the strict limits of his duty as a public writer. The interests of Society 
 require that wickedness such as this, should be sternly exposed and unrelentingly hunted 
 down. If to write vehemently — bitterly — indignantly on such a subject as this be 
 libellous, then were the prophets of old libellers — then were the early fathers of the 
 church libellers — then have all earnest men in all time been libellers, who have published 
 to the world in the fit language of generous indignation, their scorn of hypocrisy and 
 their hatred of vice. 
 
 Such is the thing the defendant attacks in this libel. Who are the persons he 
 attacks ? The class who do this wickedness and the plaintiff as a member of this class ; 
 — the Maharajs, and the plaintiff as a Maharaj. This is throughout the language of 
 the alleged libel; "In the Kali yug (or iron age) many other heresies, and many sects 
 have arisen, besides that of Vallabhacharya, but no other sectaries have ever perpetrated 
 
209 
 
 such shamelessness, subtlity, immodesty, rascality and deceit as have the sect of ths 
 Maharajs" — " You Maharajs, acting up to the commentary, defile the wives and daughters 
 of your devotees." 
 
 He attacks the class as perpetrators of this great wickedness, he attacks the plaintiff 
 as one of the class. It is said that in so doing he inferentially also defames him as 
 an individual : I admit it, but I say the occasion justified it. A case had arisen in 
 which the possible injury to the individual was not to be weighed in the balance against 
 the great countervailing benefit, derivable to Society from exposing and denouncing the 
 evil deeds of tlie class : and the acts denounced were immoralities, not of the plaintiff 
 as an individual in his private life, but of the plaintiff as a Maharaj in his public life. 
 
 Then to lehom does the defendant addre.'^s hhnself in makhnj the attack ? To 
 the public at large : — the only power, the only authority, the only tribunal to whom in 
 such a case as this the communication could be made, or the complaint directed. The 
 Maharajs, the hereditary high priests of the "N'allabhacharyan sect are, in respect of the 
 practices denounced in the libel, virtually amenable to no jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal, 
 criminal or civil. As far as the evidence before us goes, they appear to constitute a 
 co-equal brotherhood of 65 or 70 members, owning a vague and shadowy sort of 
 allegiance to a nominal superior at Shree Nathjee — a remote shrine among the deserts 
 of Marvvar. This nominal superior appears to be a careless and Epicurean sort of God : 
 no instance of his interference was adduced before us : practically each Maharaj does as 
 seems good in his own eyes, especially as relates to the abomination which it is the 
 peculiar object of this alleged libel to expose. 
 
 From the tenor ot the evidence I thought, at one stage of the enquiry, that 
 Jeicanjee Maharaj (a high priest who appears honourably distinguished among his 
 brethren for learning, piety and comparative purity of conduct) I was led to think that 
 Jetcanjee acted in Bombay as a kind of superior or principal over the other Maharajs, 
 who from time to time came down here to officiate. But I was wrong : Jeicanjee was 
 merely an equal among equals, when appealed to by some of the most respectable 
 Vallabhacharyans in Bombay to interpose and put a stop to these practices, his answer 
 was that he could do nothing. He admitted the alleged immorality ; he deplored it ; 
 but he could not interfere with his brother Maharajs to prevent it : " Every man," he 
 said " is master in his own house : all my fellow Maharajs here are my equals in 
 rank, some of them my superiors in age, what can I do ?" 
 
 As there was no available spirUual tribunal, so neither was there any criminal or 
 civil tribunal which could take cognizance of these immoralities of the Maharajs. It was 
 profligacy, it was vice, but it was not crime, it was not ciml wrong, of which they 
 were accused. There was no violence ; there was no seduction. The wives and 
 daughters of these sectaries, (with their connivance in many cases if not with their 
 approval), went willingly— went with offerings in their hands, eager to pay a high price 
 for the privilege of being made one with Brahm by carnal copulation with the Maharaj, 
 the living personification of Krishna. 
 
 To what quarter then was a Vallabacharyan in Bombay to look for redress or 
 
 reform if he felt aggrieved at these misdeeds of the Maharajs ? He had one resource 
 
 and one only : to appeal to Public Opinion thmiigh the Press. This the defendant did ; 
 
 as a Vallabhacharyan it was his ricfht, as the editor of a native journal it was bis 
 
 27 
 
210 
 
 duty to do so ; for if evils such as these were, (in the language of Lord EUenborough) 
 •' to exist for ever without public animadversion, one of the great uses of a free press 
 is at an end." (I Campb. 117.) 
 
 And the pubHc which thus constitutes the only tribunal to which the defendant 
 could appeal had an interest and a duty in relation to the subject matter of the alleged 
 libel, corresponding to his own. No public can be conceived to exist which has not an 
 interest in the discouragement and suppression of such wickedness — upon which there is 
 not imposed a moral and social duty of taking all legitimate means for its discour- 
 agement and suppression. The offence attacked in the alleged libel is an offence against 
 the first principles of morality on which all society is based, and in the suppression of 
 which the highest interests and the highest dutie% of all Society, as such, are most in- 
 timately concerned. 
 
 If while writing with a single purpose to discourage and suppress this evil, the 
 defendant, in the course of reflecting on the class to which the plaintiff belonged and 
 on the plaintiff as a member of that class, published that which by inference, was defa- 
 matory of the plaintiff as an individual, the occasion, in my opinion, justified him in 
 so doing, and the defamatory matter, so published, is no libel, unless it can be shown 
 either that he wantonly singled out the plaintiff for attack, or, unless his language was 
 an excess of nshat the occasion warranted. 
 
 Now did the defendant single out the plantif for attack^ On the contrary it is 
 clear that the inunediate occasion of the attack, {if attack it can be fairly called') on 
 the plantiff, arose out of the plaintiff's own act in having himself had recourse to the press 
 for the purposes of controversy. This is plain on the face of the libel itself, and is put 
 beyond all doubt by the evidence. The plaintiff had for some time been publishing a 
 series of articles of a controversial character in the Bombay press, in some of which 
 the defendant as a writer on the opposite side, was or fancied he was reflected upon : 
 Some of those articles the plahitiff through his secretary Goverdhundass, had sent and 
 caused to be inserted in the defendant's own paper the Satya Prakash; others had ap- 
 peared in the Chabook, and other native newspapers ; others again were published in 
 the Swa-dharmavardhuk (" The Propagator of Religion") a monthly periodical of which 
 the plaintiff was the originator and principal manager. 
 
 There can be no doubt on the evidence that the prominence given to the plaintiff 
 among all the other Maharajs in the alleged libel, is owing to two articles of the 
 plaintiffs (or which the defendant supposed to be the plaintiffs) and which appeared, 
 the one in the Chabook, the other in the Susa-dharmavardhuk on the 16th and 29th of 
 Sept. 1860. 
 
 In these articles, says the defendant, " the Mahai-aj had spoken disparagingly of 
 those reformers who write without quoting the Shastras." " I therefore," he goes on 
 " proceeded on that hint to write according to the Shastras and produced the article which is 
 the subject of the present action on the primitive religion of the Hindus."' 
 
 The alleged libel was published on the 2\st October 1860. 
 
 The title is " On the Primitive Eeligion of the Hindus." 
 
 It commences by citing the Shastras (" the Veds and Purans") to show that in 
 
211 
 
 the Kali Yug (or iron age) many heresies and false rehgions will arise, but the Kali 
 Yug began 5,000 years ago and the Vallabhacharyan sect sprang up less than 400 
 years ago : it is therefore (the logic is somewhat at fault here), a heresy. 
 
 He then cites from one of the plaintiffs September articles a passage in which the 
 plaintiff represents the different modern sects as so many extensions, not divergencies 
 from the old religion, " just as some leave the Fort to proceed to Byculla, others to 
 Walkeshwar." 
 
 The defendant critises this illustration and then returns to his former point that 
 the recent date of the Vallabhacharyan sect proves it, on the authority of the Hindu 
 Shastras, to be heresy. 
 
 Then he adds, " Thus as regards the weapons with which the Maharaj has come 
 forth to defend himself, those very weapons will oppose the Maharaj and annoy him." 
 
 Then follows Goculnathjee's verse and the indignant comments on it ; and then 
 comes the conclusion of the article, ichich iijion the evidence as presented hy the 
 
 plaintiff' and apart from the fresh light which has been thrown vpon the case hy the 
 evidence for the defendant, the Court, on the application to nonsuit, considered to be 
 
 prima facie libellous. 
 
 " Jadoonathjee Maharaj (the Plaintiff) has commenced issiiivg a small work styled, 
 The Propagator of our own Eeligion.' We ask him. In what way do you wish to 
 effect the propagation of Religion ? Your ancestors, having scattered dust in the eyes 
 of simple people, made them blind : Do you wish to make them see ; or, taking a 
 false pride in the upholding of your religion, do you wish to delude simple people still 
 more ? 
 
 " Jadoonathjee Maharaj ! should you wish to propagate or to sp-ead abroad religion, 
 then do you personally adopt a virtuous course of conduct, and admonish your other 
 Maharajs, that as long as the preceptors of religion shall themselves appear to be im- 
 mersed in the Sea of Licentiousness, for so long they shall not be competent to convey 
 religious exhortation. Goculnathjee, having composed the commentary above mentioned, 
 has attached to your Vaishnava persuasion a great blot of ink. Let that be first 
 removed : scorn the writer of the commentary. Y^ou Maharajs, acting up to that 
 commentary, defile the wives and daughters of your devotees. Desist from that and 
 destroy at once immorality such as that of the company as the Eus festival. ^4^ long 
 as you shall not do so, for so long you cannot give religious admonition and propagate 
 your religious faith. Do you he assured of that." 
 
 Is it not plain that the whole of this portion of the alleged libel is addressed 
 prominently and pointedly to the plaintiff, simply because the plaintiff had put himself 
 prominently forward as the originator and editor of the periodical called the " Pro- 
 jpagator of the Faith ?" Is it not clear that the plaintiff's voluntary appearance 
 before the world in that capacity is the key-note to the whole of this part of the 
 article ? 
 
 From the whole frame work of the alleged libel as explained by the evidence, the 
 unavoidable conclusion is that the prominence given to the plaintiff throughout the article 
 is not forced, groundless and malicious, but is the natural result of his having himself 
 
212 
 
 entered into the lists of controversy as a champion of Vallabhacharyan orthodoxy, and a 
 Propagator of the Vallabhacharyan faith. 
 
 Then, lastly, is there on the face of the libel any evidence of erpress malice — is 
 there personal rancour — is there an excess of bitterness — is there an unfair singling out 
 of the plaintiff with a hostile desire to defame, to criminate, to malign ? I can see 
 nothing of the kind. 
 
 The plaintiff is not singled out ; he had voluntarily put himself forward as the 
 champion and defender of the Maharaj cause. 
 
 The attack is primarily on the class to which the plaintiff belongs ; incidentally the 
 plaintiff bears the main brunt of the battle as being the one amongst that class who had 
 invited attack by making himself its representative. 
 
 The attack is on acts hostile to public morality done by the plaintiff not in his 
 private capacity, but as Maharaj. The main object is not to attack at all, but exhorta- 
 tion, earnest entreaties to lead a purer life and desist from licentious practices, and that 
 tcith a view to the more successful propagation of relic/ion. 
 
 The paramount motive, as deducible from the writing itself, is not personal rancour 
 against the plaintiff ; but an ardent desire to put an end to a flagrant and shameful 
 licentiousness, in the suppression of which the defendant and his co-religionists were 
 vitally interested, and in the practice of which he had honest and bona fide reason to 
 believe that the plaintiff, like all the other members of his class, was implicated. 
 
 I agree with Dr. "Wilson in thinking that " all things considered, the alleged libel 
 is a very mild expostulation," involving " an appeal to the principle that the preceptors 
 of religion, unless they purify their lives, cannot expect success to attend their labours." 
 
 I agree with Dr. Bhawoo Dajee that any reader of fair " average intelligence 
 would understand the main object of the writer to be, not to make a personal charge 
 of mal-practices against the plaintiff, but to address a general exhortation to the class 
 to which the plaintiff belongs, to desist from such malpi'actices." 
 
 On these grounds I think there is no proof of " express malice ;" on the grounds 
 previously stated I think there was a " jii-stifijinf/ occasion." 
 
 I think the defendant, from his position and status, not only had an interest and 
 acted on a right, but also fulfilled a moral and social daltj, in denouncing a great 
 iniquity ; — I think he took reasonably sufficient care to inform himself of the facts 
 before he published, and that what he published he, at the time, bona fide believed to 
 be the truth ; — I think that, in addressing himself to the public he appealed to the 
 right, and under the circumstances, to the only available tribunal ; — he appealed to 
 those who, in relation to the subject-matter of the alleged libel had an interest and a 
 duty corresponding to his own ; — I think that in- giving the plaintiff the prominence 
 he has done in his article he was actuated by no malice, ' but simply dealt with the 
 plaintiff as he found him, the representative and champion of his class ; — I think that 
 in the language of the article itself there is no evidence of personal malice or malignity, 
 but strong evidence of a public spirited desire to denounce and put down a crying 
 scandal and wickedness which was a stain upon the credit of the writer's caste — on 
 the name of his nation — on the dignity and honour of human nature itself. 
 
213 
 
 For all these reasons I am of opinion that the article complained of is no libel, and 
 tierefore that on the first issue the verdict ought to be for the defendant. 
 
 II. The other great issue — (for on the minor points, on which I entirely agree 
 ,vith the Chief Justice, I shall add nothing to the reasons he has adduced in 
 disposing of them) — the other great issue in this case is on the plea of justification. 
 On this issue I am of opinion that every material averment — every averment which in 
 any way relates to the nature of the Vallabhacharyan sect ; the character and position of 
 the Maharajs in general, and of the plaintiff" in particular, is substantially proved. 
 
 I shall distribute the remarks I feel called upon to make on this issue under 
 four heads. 
 
 First : — The evidence adduced as to the nature and tenets of the Vallabhacharyan 
 religion. 
 
 Secondly: — The evidence as to the light in which the Maharajs are regarded by 
 the sect of which they are the spiritual chiefs. 
 
 Thirdly : — The evidence as to the general character of the Maharajs for licentious- 
 ness. 
 
 Fourthly : — The evidence as to the personal immoralities of the plaintiff. 
 
 I. As to the nature and tenets of the Vallabhacharyan religion. On this tonic it is 
 not my purpose to make any lengthened remarks : the passages cited in the plea of 
 justification have been proved and verified : that is, they have been shown to be genuine 
 extracts correctly translated from works received as authorities to a geater or less ex- 
 tent in the Vallabhacharyan sect. But it is obviously impossible to form any thing like 
 an adequate judgment of any religious system on any mere series of extracts, especially 
 when selected with an avowedly hostile object. It is only certain broad and general 
 conclusions at which, aided by the very learned evidence adduced on this point, we 
 can with any safety or satisfaction arrive. 
 
 Dr. Wiison, who has studied this subject with that comprehensive range of thought, 
 :he result of varied erudition) v\hich has made his name a foremost one among the 
 -ving Orientalists of Europe, Dr. Wilson says, 
 
 " The sect of Vallabhacharya is a new sect, inasmuch as it has selected the God 
 Krishna in one of his aspects, that of his adolescence — and raised him to supremacy hi 
 tl^t aspect." 
 
 "It is a new sect in as far as it has established the Puhshti marg, or way 
 of enjoyment in a natural and carnal sense." 
 
 This succinct statement seems to contain the essence of the whole matter. It is 
 Krishna, the darling of the 16,000 Gopees (or shepherdesses) ; Krishna the love-hero — 
 the husband of the 16,000 princesses, who is the paramount object of Vallabhacharya's 
 worship. This tinges the whole system with the stain of carnal sensualism, of strange, 
 transcendental lewdness. See, for instance, how the sublime Brahminical doctrine of uni- 
 tion with " Brahn" is- tainted and degraded by this sensuous mode of regarding the 
 Deity. According to the old Brahminical tenet, " Brahm," the All-containing and In- 
 destructible, the Soul of which the Universe is the Body, abides from eternity to 
 
214 ^ 
 
 eternity as the fontal source of all Spiritual existence : reunion with Brahm, absorption 
 into Brahm, is the beatitude for which every separated spirit yearns, and which after 
 animating its appointed cycle of individuated living organisms, it is ultimately destined to 
 attain. The teachers of the Vallabhacharyan sect do not absolutely discard this great 
 tenet, but they degrade it. I have no wish to wade through all the theosophic nonsense and 
 Hastiness of the plauitiff's own chapter on "Adulterine Love ;" but one of the myths he 
 thus cites on the authority of the Brahad Vciman Ptirdn, perfectly illustrates what I mean. 
 For many ages the incarnations of the Veds prayed Shri Krishna, the most Excellent 
 Being, for a sight of his form : the wish being granted, desire was produced in them 
 and they prayed to Krishna to satisfy their hearts' desire, so that they might enjoy 
 with him in the fo)-m of women : this desire also was granted, and the traditions, under 
 the form of women enjoyed Krishna as Gopees with adulterine love in the mythical 
 forest of " Vrij." 
 
 The comment of the plaintiff (for he is without question the writer or dictator of 
 this article) upon this is, that if there were any sin in adulterine love Krishna would 
 not have turned these Veds into Gopees for the purpose of enjoying them ; — but there 
 is no sin in such love when its object is God ; for " God is all form. He is in the form 
 of father, and he is in the form of husband ; he is in the form of brother ; and he 
 is in the form of son. In whatever shape one may wish to love God, his wishes are 
 complied with accordingly." 
 
 Thus then is the pure and sublime notion of the reunion of all spirits that animate 
 living but perishable forms, with the Eternal Spirit, not limited by form debased into a 
 sexual and carnal coition with the most sensuous of the manifestations or " avatars" of 
 God. 
 
 But it goes further than this : unition with Brahm in the Kali- Yu(/ (or Iron age) 
 being no longer possible through the medium of mystical intercourse with Krishna; it 
 must be obtained in some other way. 
 
 The witness Mathuradass Lowjee explains in what way : this to what he says : — 
 
 " The connexion with Brahm (necessary to the soul's " becoming one with Brahm) 
 
 in the Kali Yug is only possible through the Maharaj. The connexion is to be had 
 
 by carnal intercourse between the Maharaj and the Vaishnavas — the female devotees 
 of the Vaishnava persuasion." 
 
 This then is the order of descent : spiritual unition with Brahm : mystical coition 
 with Krishna: carnal copulation with the Maharaj. For, as Dr.V/ilson says, and as we 
 shall see more at large under the next head of evidence. "The Maharaj is considered 
 by a great many of his followers as an Incarnation of God, as God incarnate according 
 to Hindu notions, which are peculiar on that subject. The Vallabacharyans hold that 
 Vallabhacharya and his official descendants are incarnations of the God Krishna, without 
 holding that there is a complete embodiment of him in any one of* them." 
 
 The religion which thus degrades the pure idea of spiritual re-union with God, into 
 the gross reality of carnal copulation with its hereditary high priesthood, appears from 
 the evidence to be sensuous in all its manifestations. Ras-lUa, or " amorous dalliance" 
 is held forth as the highest bliss here. Ras-Ula is the principal employment of Paradise 
 hereafter; one of the many amatory names of the Maharaj is "Ocean of Ras-llla ; ^ 
 
215 
 
 and when a Maharaj expires he is not said to die, but to extend himself to an im- 
 mortality of Ras-Ula. 
 
 The hymns or sacred songs of a sect are generally the most fervid exposition of their 
 religious feelings. The hymns sung by the women of the Vallabhacharya sect in honor of 
 the Maharajs and in their presence are certainly no exception to this general rule. They 
 are passionate with all the passion of the East — Erotic pantings for fruition of a lover 
 who is also a God : as it is said of the Gopees in the Vaishnu Pur an, " every instant 
 without Krishna they count a myriad of years, and forbidden by fathers, husbands, 
 brothers, they go forth at night to sport with Krishna the object of their love." So 
 these hymns, sung at this day, as the plaintiff admitted, by the wives and daughters 
 of the Vallabhacharyans to their Maharajs express the most unbridled desire, the most 
 impatient longing for the enjoyments of adulterine love. 
 
 " I have often," says Mathuradass Lowjee, " heard songs of an adulterous character 
 sung by females before the Maharaj" — " Improper songs in favor of adultery," says 
 Khuttow Mucconjee, " very shameful and indecent" — " your followers," such is the 
 purport of the songs, " say that they are our husbands, but in fact you are our 
 husband." 
 
 Several translations of these songs v/ere before us, and they quite bear out the 
 character thus given : I give a few extracts — 
 
 " An excitement extrenae and great in my body is created." 
 
 " The azure-coloured beauteous husband with me is sitting." 
 
 " Without seeing his beauteous face even water will I not drink." 
 
 "The amorous and beauteous husband by seeing oft I will live." 
 
 " Restniin me not, oh my mother," 
 
 " To pay my homage to him daily I will go" 
 
 " As to connectionshi|\ that of Krishna appears the only true one." 
 
 " And all others seem to be imperfect." 
 
 " He who tellfe may tell, we will permit him to do so," 
 
 " And to him in indifference we shall listen." 
 
 " For your sake the sense of public shame I have not entertained ;" 
 
 " The descendaut of Valabh is the amorous Kama," 
 
 " To that dear soul having become a female slave." 
 
 "The sense of public shame no longer will I fear." 
 
 " The descendant of Valabh is the amorous Kama." 
 
 " The sound of the jingliug of his toe-rings has deprived me of mj' heart." 
 
 " The very personification of God you are." 
 
 " Having married the Valabh husband with extreme love," 
 
 "By our submitting to the Valabh husband happy we shall be." 
 
 " By his association the Vaikunt (Paradise) we shall gain." 
 
 There is only one point left for consideration under this head, and that is, how far 
 works regarded in the Sect as authoritative claim for the Maharajs the attributes and 
 the worship of Gods. 
 
 As 5,to this there can be no doubt that the extracts proved at the trial fully bear 
 out the correctness of those set out in the plea of justification. 
 
 "Whoever holds his spiritual guide and Shri Thakurji (or God) to be different 
 and distinct shall be born a Sirhana" (a kind of bird). 
 
 " We should regard our Guru as God, nay, as greater than God. For if God 
 gets angry the Gurudev is able to save us from the effect of God's anger, whereas 
 
216 
 
 if the Guru is displeased nobody is able to save him from the effect of the Guru's 
 displeasure." " Therefore God and the Guru are necessarily to be worshipped. The 
 " worship of the Guru is to be performed in the same way as the worship of God." 
 " In this world are many kinds of creatures. Of them all the most fortunate are we who 
 have sought the protection of the illustrious Vallabhacharyans, Shri Gosainji and their 
 descendants, who are manifestly incarnations of God, the .Excellent Being himself." 
 
 It is not necessary to go further : these passages claim for the Maharajs the same 
 worship as is paid to God ; they claim for them also the character of incarnations of God. 
 
 If these things are sanctioned by the authoritative works of religious sect, — if 
 union with God is figured under the emblem of sexual intercourse ; if love for God is 
 illustrated by the lustful longing of an adulteress for her paramour ; if paradise is 
 spoken of as a garden of amorous dalliance ; — finally, if the hereditary high priests of 
 the sect are directed to be worshipped as Gods and reverenced as the Incarnations of 
 God — it is not a matter of surprise that the ordinary devotees should make little 
 practical distinction between Krishna and the Maharaj — that they should worship the 
 Maharaj with blind devotion ; and that their wives and daughters should freely give 
 themselves up to his embraces in the belief that they are thereby commingling with 
 a God. 
 
 II. It remains to be seen upon the evidence adduced at the trial how far these 
 teachings are carried out in practice ; and this brings me to the second head of enquiry, 
 viz. in ichat light are the Mahamjs actualhj regarded hy their sectaries'^i 
 
 On this point the evidence is ample : there is the evidence of the witnesses called 
 in the first instance to launch the plaintiff's case ; there is the evidence of the de- 
 fendant's witnesses ; the evidence of the witnesses called by the plaintiff in rebuttal of 
 the plea of justification ; and the evidence of the plaintiff himself. 
 
 The witnesses called in the first instance for the plaintiff were nmch more candid 
 and explicit in their disclosures on this point than those who were called in rebuttal 
 of the defendant's case. The latter from the stereotyped uniformity of their answers 
 on certain points, and from the cautious restraint with which they spoke on others, 
 had evidently been warned and tutored against being surprised into admissions that 
 might be damaging to the plaintiff's cause. There was none of that caution about the 
 earlier witnesses. What says Gopaldass Madhowdass, one of the most respectable of 
 these witnesses ? 
 
 " We fall prostrate before the Maharaj, and offer incense and flowers and money 
 to him. Light is waved before him" (as it is to the image): "the female devo- 
 tees worship him by swinging him in a swing :" " Some people in the sect say the 
 Maharajs are Gods ; others deny it : some Bhattias and some Banyans believe the Maharajs 
 to be Gods. Then follows an admission of certain disgusting and degrading observances : 
 
 " The devotees take pan-sooparee after it has been chewed by the Maharaj and 
 swallow it :" " They drink the water in which his dirty dlioti has been washed :" — 
 " They call the water in which the Maharaj has put his toe the 'Nectar of the feet.' " 
 
 Verjeevundass Madoicdass (the brother of the last witness and a Justice of the 
 Peace), says — " Some Banyans believe the Maharaj to be God as well as Guru :" " When 
 
217 
 
 Maharaj dies it is said of him lie is gone to Bas Lila Bistarya, an extension of 
 amorous sport : When the Maharaj bathes himself I put saffron scent on his body : 
 This is on festivals :" " The image is bathed on holidays with the same ablution :" 
 " People in our sect perform menial offices for the Maharaj :" " I, though a Justice 
 of the Peace, once sat on the coach-box and drove the Maharaj among the shoutings 
 of the people." 
 
 So much for the witnesses called in the first instance for the plaintiff; those called 
 for the defendant brought forward a mass of evidence on the same point from which 
 I will extract the more important passages. 
 
 The defendant himself sa3'S, "The Maharajs are considered by their followers as 
 incarnations of Krishna, as the very personification of the excellent Being:" " I have 
 seen the devotees worship the Maharaj as God by waiving light, swinging, prostration, 
 &c. I have seen the managers of the Maharajs giving water to the Vaishnavs to drink 
 in which the Maharaj had bathed: it is from these things and from what they gene- 
 rally speak among themselves that I infer they regard the Maharajs as Gods." 
 
 Mr. Narrayen Dinnanathjee, one of the principal Interpreters of this Court, (but 
 who in the interpretation which he permitted himself to give of the words " Bebhichar" 
 and " Soorut," was, for the moment, more mindful, I fear, of his admitted friendship 
 with the respectable High priest Jeeounjee, than of the strict line of his professional 
 duty) — Mr. Narrayen Dinnanathjee was eager to establish that the jMaharajs in the 
 Vallabacharya sect were merely regarded as Gurus, and that " like the Gurus of all 
 other sects, they are worshipped with the same forms and ceremonies as the image, 
 but not as Gods." But in cross-examination this gentleman was compelled to allow 
 that " no other sects besides the Vallabacharyas have hereditary Gurus by natural descent 
 or adoption;" "that in other sects Gurus are sexually ascetic;" that "eating chewed 
 paiz-sonparee ; drinking the nectar of the feet ; swinging, rubbing and bathing the body 
 with oils ; eating the dust on which they have walked, are not practiced towards the 
 Gurus of other sects." 
 
 I shall only add the evidence of two more witnesses for the defence : that of 
 Malhuradass Loiejee and that of Dr. Bhaicoo Dajee. 
 
 Mathuradass Loicjee, a grave and reputable person, earnest, of considerable 
 reading, and unimpeached honesty ; a Vallabhacharyan by sect and a Bhattia by caste — 
 gave the following evidence as to the point now under consideration : — 
 
 " Puran-Purshotum is worshipped as God who is in Paradise; his incarnations 
 are Vallabli, Vitalnathjee and tlieir descendants : Vallabh was the incarnation of the 
 head of God." [ In this apparently extraordinary statement of doctrine this witness is 
 borne out to the letter by the plaintiff.] " The Maharajs are regarded as the incarnation 
 of God:" " the terms P uraii- P urshntiim and Maha-Prabhoo (Supreme God — Mighty 
 God) are applied to the present Maharajs, especially in the act of worship: The 
 major part of the Bhattia caste do worship the Maharaj as God and worship the pic- 
 tures of each of the Maharajs and repeat thjir names as ' Jewanjee,' ' Juddanathjee!') 
 in the act of worship, and worship them in a variety of ways. It is such worship 
 as is enjoined in our books, for the most part it is the same worship as that of God 
 in Paradise ; there is no such worship in any other sect ; they touch his feet ; they 
 28 
 
218 
 
 swing him in a swing ; there is a necklace put round his neck as there is round the 
 neck of the idol ; they take up the dust on which lie hns trcd and put it into thtir 
 mouths: When they worsliip they cry " j\Iaha I'raLlioo," " Shree PraMioo," &c. 
 "In doing all this 1 will swear they worship the Maharnj, because the image is inside. 
 Some members of my own family, my brother for instance — believe the Maliarajs to be 
 Gods. The Maharajs obtain their Godship from birth, without reference to equalities of 
 body or mind, or whether they may afterwards turn out to be ignorant, dtbauchcd, 
 or otherwise." 
 
 The last evidence for the defence I shall cite on this point is that of Dr. Bha- 
 woo Dajee — a gentleman wlio in learning, freedom from prejudice, and general superi- 
 ority of mind is among the foremost, if not the formost of the native citizens of Bombaj. 
 This gentleman, by caste a Brahmin, is not a Yallalhacharyan by creed, but he has a 
 very extensive medical practice among the more wealthy members of the sect, and 
 has attended all the Maharajs who for the last ten or twelve years have visited 
 Bombay. 
 
 Dr. Bhawoo Dnjee says: — " The majority of their followers regard the Maharajs as 
 incarnations of Krishna: they are worshipped as such, I have seen them wursiiipped." 
 After the Maharaj has worshipped the image his followers worship him : more time 
 is devoted to the IMahar j than to the image. I have seen women puc their hands to 
 the soles of the Miharaj's feet and then apply them to their eyes; 1 have seen the 
 water of the bath of the Maharaj distributed to his followers ; and I have seen them 
 crowding in hu.idreds to drink it." 
 
 Such are a few of the passages from the evidence of the witnesses or'ginally , called* 
 for the plaintiff, and of the witnesses for the defendant as to the light in v.iiith the 
 Maharajs are regarded by the devout majority ot their followers. 'io oppose this we 
 have the evidence of the witnesses called by the plaintiff to rebut the plea ot justifi- 
 cation, and the evidence of the plaintiff himself. 
 
 As to the evidence of these witnesses, I may say generally that, except when it 
 consisted of admissions in iiscreetly made, it produced very little cftect on my mind. 
 Tiiese witnesses all knew perfectly well that they had to deny certain spcitic allega- 
 tions, amongst which was the allegation that the Maharajs were regarded by their 
 followers as Gods, or as Incarnations of God. 'J"he mode in wiiich they gave their 
 testimony as to this point — the uniform and set styles of their answers to certain evi- 
 dently expected questions, necessarily led to the inference in any n.ind, accustomed 
 careiully to scrutinise testimony, that they had been tutored and trained as to the evi- 
 dence whleh on this point was expected from them. That evidence was to the effect that 
 they regarded the Maharaj as Guru, nut as God. In their examination in ciiief they 
 kept pretty steadily to the mark ; but on cross-examination they were more than once 
 incautiously betrayed into the expression of their real feelings and their geiuiine belief, 
 I say real feelings and genuine belief, because it was impossible not to draw this infer- 
 ence from the spontaneous earnestness of the one set of lepiies when contrasted with 
 the forced, parrot-like manner of the other set of replies. " I love my Guru said one 
 of these witnesses — Pursotumilass D(v/ram — " I worship him as I should God." " It 
 is not possible" said another — Gocalduss Kessowdass — " It is not possible for a Maharaj 
 to commit sin." " I regard the Maharaj as my Guru" said Bhoychand Cacelchund — 
 
219 
 
 "we re<*ard him in the plaoe of God; I regard him as an Incarnation of God." — "I 
 regard the Guru" said Mulncl^rnj/ Narrotum " as an incarnation of God ; The Guru 
 would not commit sin ; I caunut s:iy wliether what would be sinful in other men would 
 he lawful in the Guru." If we turn from the evidence of his witnesses to the evidence 
 of the ' plaintiff himself on this point, what do we find ?— a series of categorical nega- 
 tions absolutely neutializtd by an important admission. " I am not" he says " an 
 incarnation of Cod. 1 do not know that any of my followers regard me as an in- 
 carnation of God : I know they ought to regard me as a Guru : 'J hey worship me as 
 Guru ; as those wlio cause happiness through God ; — as guides to God : I have heard no 
 one snv we are worsliipped as Gods ! but because we give religious instruction they 
 worship us as Gurus." 
 
 Such are among the principal of the plaintiffs positive denials of the imputation that 
 any of the sectaries worshipped the Maharajs as Gods, or as incarnations of God. But 
 he too, with all his craft and caution, was compt-lled, under the pressure of cross-exami- 
 nation, to make an admission entirely fatal to the position thus taken up : the admission, 
 viz. that till he taught them better some of the sectaries even in Bombr.y did believe ia 
 the doctrine which he had previously denied that any of the sectaries ever believjd in 
 any where, or at any time. 
 
 " I have instructed my disciples" he says " that except two of the IMaharajs Vallabh 
 and Gosaniji — whom I regard as incarnations of I.-ihvar (God) they should regard us as 
 Gurus and not as Gods." As to Vallabh, the founder, the plaintiff agrees verbatim with 
 Ma'haradass Lmcjee in the apparently extraordinary statement of doctrine, that " he is 
 regarded «« the incarnation of lhe head of God;" but as to all his other descendants, 
 except Gosainji " I have taught the people" says the plaintiff that " they should 
 regard us as Gurus only. I prevented all persons from heliering such a doctrine (as that 
 all the descendants of Vallabh were incarnations of God) xmtil I presented them they 
 did believe it: when I came hers some persons belieced it and some did not; the 
 majority did not, the minority did." ! 
 
 "What then on this point is the result of the whole evidence ? In my opinion it b 
 this :— 
 
 First : That many passages in the religious works ot these sectaries authorize the 
 doctrine that the Maiiarajs are incarnations of God and ought to be so regarded and wor- 
 shipped by their followers. 
 
 2ndly. That in practice they are regarded and treated, at all events by the less 
 reflecting portion of the Valiabhacliaryan sect as a sort of God-like, powerful, and 
 mysterious beings who cannot couunit sin, who are to be worshipped with divine honours, 
 and whose persons are so sacred that observances which with reference to mere mortals, 
 would be infinitely disgusting, become pious and meritorious acts when done towards the 
 Maharaj. 
 
 The two next heads under which I propose to examine the evidence in support of 
 the plea of justllicalion, are, 
 
 3rdly. The eci lance as it rela'es to the c/eneral imm'yraUtics of the Maharajs. 
 
 4lhly. The coidcn:e as il relales to the parlicular immoralities of the ylainliff. 
 
220 
 
 Before going into this, a few general observations must be made on the comparative 
 
 value and credibility of the three principal classes of teBtimony with which we have to 
 
 deal, viz., 1, the testimony of the witnesses for the defendant. 2. That of the wit- 
 nesses for the plaintiff. 3. That of the plaintiff himself. 
 
 First, as to the witnesses for the defendant, it is impossible to have presided at 
 this Ifngtlient'd trial witlioiit becoming aware, not only by the positive evidence tendered, 
 but by the deaieanoiir and bearing of the crowds by which from day to day the 
 Court was thronged, that the defendant and his witnesses gave their evidence on the 
 unpopular side. The religious animosities of the sect, the social prejudices of 'the caste, 
 the personal hatred and alienation of former friends, were all arrayed against them. 
 They had to face sectarian obloquy and caste exclusion. They were not free even from 
 the risk of personal assault. I will take two passages from the evidence given by the 
 witnesses for the plaintiff to show the nature of the feeling that was arrayed against 
 
 them. " Two persons came to me," says Gopaldass Madhotodass, " on the subject of 
 outcasting the defendant for writing about the Alaharajs in the newspapers. They said ' as 
 the Bhaltias have made a bundobust, we (Bunyans) should make one also." This was 
 
 one or two days after the Bhattias had put their signatures to a paper got up to inti- 
 midate people from giving evidence in this case— the bundobust I mean which was made 
 a subject of prosecution for conspiracy in the Court last Criminal Sessions. The two 
 persons who came to me were Purbhoodass and Jeykissondass : they, I, and the defendant are 
 all Banyans." 
 
 Damodhur Madhoirjee said : — " If any member of the Yallabhacharyan sect is found 
 to entertain opinions adverse to the rest of the sect, we should not believe him : we 
 should have no intercourse with him ; he would be isolated in his own house ; we should 
 remain aloof from him. I would regard persons who think the Maharajs guilty of 
 wicked practices as outcastes : / icould not speak to Luckmklass KJnmjee and Mathu- 
 radass Loicjee, because tltey have given evidence here against the Maharaj." 
 
 To those who consider how little the Hindoo is accustomed to independent thought 
 and independent action — how his whole life is circumscribed within the sphere of the 
 family or the caste — how entirely the v^rhole social happiness not only of himself but 
 of those nearest and dearest to him is blighted by that terrible penalty of outcasting 
 — (equivalent to the excommunication of the middle ages) — those who think of these 
 things will probably be of opinion that nothing but a strong belief in the truth of what 
 they have stated, and a firm conviction of the duty of stating it, could have impelled 
 the witnesses for the defendant to come forward as they have done on his behalf. 
 For the majority of these witnesses are not students, or editors, or non-believers, they 
 are grave, reputable middle aged, family men, having a firm belief in the teachings of 
 their ancient religion and a profound reverence for the authority of their ancient scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 Luckmidass Khimjee, one of the twelve leading Setts of the Bhattia caste — Mun- 
 guldass Nathoohhoy ; the Banyan Justice of the Peace, the well known founder of 
 Hindu Girls schools — Khuttow Mucconjee, Mathuradass Loicjee, and other witnesses of 
 that stamp, are hardly likely to have come forward to give evidence they did not 
 believe, in order to encounter general odium in the sect and determined dislike in their 
 caste. Dr. Bhow Dajee is no*« indeed a member of the sect or caste, but he hua 
 
221 
 
 enjoyed an extensive and lucrative practice among the wealthy Vallabacharyans, and 
 for the last ten or twelve years has attended every Maharaj who, during that period, 
 has visited Bombay. It is scarcely probable, on the ordinary principles of human 
 nature, that Dr. Bbovv Dajee, by the evidence he has given, should risk the loss of 
 such a practice, except from a firm conviction that what he had to say was true, and 
 that, being true, he ought to make it public. On the whole the fair inference as to 
 the evidence for the defendants is, that being given at considerable risk and at consi- 
 derable sacrifice, it would only be given under a sense of duty founded on a firm 
 conviction of its truth and of its public importance. 
 
 The evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiff stands on a totally different footing. 
 It is true these witnesses, with the same care with which they denied all knowledge 
 of the fact that the Maharajs were ever regarded in any way except as Gurus, were 
 sedulous to declare their conviction that if they ever saw or heard of any misdoings of a 
 JVlaharaj, it tcould be their duty to tell the truth openly and not scruple to reveal the 
 secrets of their Guru. But the value of these declarations was considerably impaired by 
 the circumstance that several of these witnesses swore that till they came into Court 
 they had never heard the morality of the Maharajs called in question, and that others 
 declared that even if they had heard such reports they would not have believed them. 
 " It is not possible for a Maharaj to commit sin" says Goculdass Kessowdass. 
 " Every Maharaj is a good manj'' says Hiirgnmndass Moolchund, " a Maharaj can- 
 not be a bad man : if I heard any report against the moral character of a Maharaj 
 I would not believe it, nor could a Maharaj be guilty of bad conduct." " If' says 
 Narrotumdass Ilurribhai " I heard a report of the licentiousness of a Maharaj, I should 
 not believe it. A Maharaj would not do bad acts" 
 
 It is important to bear these expressions in mind when we consider the nature of 
 the evidence given by the plaintiffs witnesses as to the part of the case now under con- 
 sideration. It is all purely negative evidence. It amounts to this : you the witnesses for 
 the defendant say the Maharajs generally bore a bad character ; we the witnesses 
 for the plaintiff say we never heard of it. Again ; you the witnesses for the defendant 
 say the plaintiff himself bore a bad character at Surat, at Beyt, at Dwarka : well we 
 are witnesses for the plaintiff — some of us came from Surat, some from Beyt, some 
 from Dwarka, one or more of us from every place in which you have proved affir- 
 matively that the plaintiff bears a bad character, and we say that we never heard of 
 such bad character. In any case this negative evidence amounts to very little, for it is 
 obviously quite possible that the negative and affirmative evidence may both be true. It 
 is obviously no contradiction of a man who says of another that he bore a bad character 
 at such a place to bring lorward a third man, or, (if the place be a large one) half a 
 dozen other men to say they never heard of such bad character. But when amongst 
 those called to give this species of evidence you find a variety of persons who admit they 
 would pay no attention to, nay, would disbelieve, the bad character if they even heard 
 it, then this species of evidence, at the best singularly inconclusive, becomes for all 
 practical purposes of absolutely no value whatsoever. 
 
 There Is another consideration, if another were wanting, to show how little weight 
 IS to be attached to the evidence on this part of the case, of the witnesses for the plain- 
 tiff. They came forward at the call of what they and the great majority of their 
 
222 
 
 co-sectaries regaHed as a sabred duty of religion, to give evidence in fivour of their 
 Guru. Tliey asserted iiak-ed tliat it would be llit'ir duty to givo evid/nre aL'ainst their 
 Guru, if lie ums in t!ie wrong, but it was never alleged or pretended that it v.ns 
 not a duty to give evideiu'e in favour of the Guru, if he was in the right. And this 
 was a duty, tiiy neglect of which wouKl expose them to the rep''oach, — the due perform- 
 ance of which would entitle them to the applause of their sect and of their caste. 
 Accordingly there was an obvious eagerness and alacrity on the part of the phiintifT'a 
 witnesses to come forward and give their evidence on behalf of the Maharnjs — their 
 Gurus if not their Gods — whom their opponents the reformers have had the prolane 
 liardihood to attack. It is not to be denied that this feeling is an intelligible one-^ 
 lliat it is even in some degree a creditable one — but it is too obvious to need 
 remark that it materially detracts from the value and reliability of the testimony that 
 is mainly given under its i. fluence. 
 
 If we now turn to the evidence of the plaintiff himself, it is too clear to admit of 
 a doubt that the peculiar position in which he stands most materially affects the value 
 of the evidence he gives, especially in repelling the peronal charges that have been 
 made against himself. It has been urged, and with substantial truth liy the counsel for 
 the plaintiff, that, in repelling the charges male on this plea of justification, the plain- 
 tiff is in the same position as if he were a defendant endeavouring to clear himself 
 from a criminal accusation. He is so except in one res[)ect ; he can be ex-imined on 
 his onth in his own defence which the defendant in a criminal trial cannot. The law 
 of England, which allows no evidence to be given except on oath, recognises the exis- 
 tence of cases in which the sanction of an oath ceases to be any effectual guarantee lor 
 truth. Where a m m's life and liberty are at stake, it considers, and ri,.^htly, that his 
 mere oath, as a sanction for truth, would be utterly valueless, and therefore, as it ad- 
 mits tio evidence except on oath, it prohibi s the defendant in a criminal case from 
 giving any testimony at all as a witness on his own behalf It is not so in cases which 
 involve a man's reputation, though it is obvious that in all cases where the imputa- 
 tions on character are grave and serious — and in precise proportion as they are grave 
 and serious — ike value of the "plaintiff's oath as a sa>iction for the truth of his lesti- 
 mont/ becomes almost infinitesimally small. The plaintiff, as the old phrase runs, " gives 
 liis evidence with a rope about his neck :" lie has an interest in denying the charges 
 made against hitn, which becomes stronger in the exact proportion in which those charges 
 become graver — until, in ca-res of very serious imputation, it may well be doubted 
 whether, even in the most truth loving of countries, the sanction of an oath, as such, is 
 practically of any value at all as a guarantee for truth. The truth, in such cases, 
 nmst be tested by other means than those of mere oath against oath. 
 
 With these general observations I pass on to consider the evidence umlei' the third 
 of the proponed heads if inquinj, vi;:., as it affects the general character of the Mctha- 
 rojs for licentiousness and deb-mchery. 
 
 The evidence on this head is exceedingly voluminous, and I shall only select some 
 of the more prominent passages. I will pass by the evidence of the defendant, to which 
 reference has already been made, in considering the question of libel or no libel, and 
 jro on at once to that of Mathuradass Lowjee, a well-informed and highly respectable 
 witness, Vullabhachuryau by sect aaid Jihattia by caste. *' frum childhood," says Matliura- 
 
22S 
 
 dass Lowjee, "when my father used to tell me that the practice of adultery by the 
 j\!:ili;ir;ijs was not in accordance with the old religion, I liave had ii y attention turn- 
 ed to tliijse practices. Many persons know of those practices, but they don't avow 
 lliem fur many reasons. I began to explain to my friends about eight or ten years 
 ago that the Maliarajs practising adultery is wrong. In 'he year 1855 my caste took 
 measures to prevent the adultery of the Maharajs, and I joined them : they made a 
 writing and gave it. They proposed to put a stop lo it by preventing the women from 
 going at night to the Maharajs' temples. The Maharajs issued a handbill lately to pre- 
 vent that writing from being brought forward in evidence in this Court. It was resolved 
 at the time that the writing should not be brought into force till after the lapse of a 
 year. I'iiat was, lest the Bliooleshwur Brahmins should say something against the Ma- 
 harajs if the writing were published." 
 
 In oross-e.-^aniination he says, " I was present at this meeting. I will swear a 
 resolution was passed about adultery, a resolution prohibiting females from making d ir- 
 sliun at nii^lit tlirough the cold season. That was not owing to the danger of their 
 being in the streets at night : the reason teas to preumt their beimj defiled by tht Ma- 
 harajs.'' 
 
 The witnpss then goes on to describe the particular acts which he has himself wit- 
 nessed. "Several Maharajs p-ess the hands of their female devotees with their feet: 
 this is a sign for the purpose of connnitting adultery. When the woman looks towards 
 the Maharaj, he makes signs with his eyes and smiles, and minding these suiiles, the 
 woman goes accordingly into an inner room if the signs indicate tliat she should. I 
 know this of my own knowledge." 'J'he witness then mentioned the names of two Ma- 
 harajs whom he had often seen making signs to women, and, in one case, a grossly 
 indecent gesture capable of only one meaning : he swore that he had frequently seen 
 women going into anl co.ning out of the bed-roons of the Maharajs, and related with 
 minute de ail a scene of actual sexual intercourse between a .Maharaj and a liliattia fe- 
 male wliicii, he in common with several respectable witnesses whom he named, had 
 seen going on in the garden-house of Goculdass Tej[iall. 
 
 With regard to the dedication of " t't,7?, mnn, a'lil dJ/n/?," he said " This dedica- 
 tion does not lake place with females till they are goin.i to he mairied: it is made to 
 Krishn-1. The Maharaj represents Krishna as seated in the Sidhant Kahasya ; there is 
 no d. [Terence as far as the dedication is concerned, between Krishna and the Maharaj. 
 As to the women, after the dedication the Maharaj does as he likcs : lie commits 
 adultery with them ; there are names of the Maharaj indicating this ; one is ' Kas- 
 Lila — Mahodadhi,' ' the ocean of amorous sport,' meaning that he can have intercourse 
 with many women like Krishna. It is notorious among our peojile that, alter dedica- 
 tion, the Maharas do what they like with our wives and daughters. It is notorious 
 througii the whole world that the Maharajs are guilty of adulterous practices. Though 
 this is so notorious, they retain their intlueiice in the sect." 
 
 The witness then goes on to relate the result of an appeal to Jewanjee Maharaj, 
 to put a stop to these scandals — " Jewanjee said ' All persons are masters in tiieir own 
 houses ; adultery has increased very much ; it is difficult to put a stop to it. I can- 
 not say anything to my elders nor to my equals. If I were to attempt to say any- 
 tliing to any one. he would not mind me. All the Muharujs derive a great part of 
 
224 
 
 iJieir income from women : how can they keep up their expenses if their incomes rudilerdy 
 cease ? Like an opium eater, a man cannot suddenly give up the practice of lust to 
 which he is addicted : it is difficult to abolish such a practice at once ; have patience, 
 and I will endeavour to have it abolished gradually.' " 
 
 This evidence, entirely uncontradicted and unshaken, corroborated as we shall see 
 directly by other unimpeachable testimony, is to my mind conclusive as ' to the generally 
 known existence of such practices. Jevvanjee does not attempt to deny the evil ; he admits 
 and deplores his own powerlessness to suppress it. 
 
 Dr. Bhawoo Dajee says, — " My opinion of the character of the IMaharajs for mora- 
 lity with women is very unfavorable. I have attended three Maharajs (besides the 
 plaintiff; for venereal disease. I personally, once almost publicly, remonstrated with Je- 
 wanjee on the subject of these immoralities. He said he had no control over the others 
 to prevent them from committing acts of adultery." 
 
 Luckhmidas Khimjee says — "The general reputation of the Maharajs is very bad 
 as regards adultery ; to my knowledge that bad reputation is well deserved. / know to 
 my own knowledge of adulterous acts and general licentiousness on the part of the Ma- 
 hartijs, of ten, twelve, or fifteen of them. IVie plaintiff himself described to me the 
 acts and conduct of other Maharajs; naming eight or ten of them. He said they com- 
 viittcd adultery ; that he had spoken to several to dissuade them ; and that ivith the ex- 
 ception of one Maharoj whom he named, the others promised to desist from such practices. 
 He said 'Do n t press me now, what income do I derive from you males? Most of my in- 
 come is derived from females. If you make arrangements by which we may receive 
 large dues we will give up these things.' After the Bhattia caste meeting of 1855, I had 
 a conversation with Jeewanjee on the subject of adultery. Dr. Bhawoo Dajee was there, 
 he said — ' Beform yourselves ; establish schools ; make arrangements to prevent the Maha- 
 raj's from committing adultery to which they are addicted.' Jevvanjee said — ' The other 
 Maharajs will not obey me ; the arrangement is difficult, the income of the Maharajs being 
 prhicipally derived from women.' " 
 
 Mr. Munguldass Nathoobhoy, referring to the same occasion, says — " Jewanjee ex- 
 pressed regret at the existing state of things, but said some of the Maharajs get all their 
 maintenance from women, and it would be very difficult for them to give it up." 
 
 Such are some passages from the evidence given on this point by witnesses of the 
 highest character and credit ; it was evidence not in any way shaken on cross-examination. 
 How was it met on the other side ? What is there in the case of the plaivitiff to set against 
 this mass of positive, varied, and yet concordant testimony ? Kothing but blank 
 denial; the assertion of absolute ignorance or total incredulity. 
 
 Take the plaintiffs own evidence ; he positively denies the conversation with Luck- 
 midass Khimjee. As to the general subject, he says : — " I don't know whether any 
 Maharajs have committed adultery. I have never seen them acting immorally with 
 women. According to the prints, they are immoral ; I believe them to be innocent ; 
 if guilty, it is contrary to the Shastras." 
 
 The witnesses called by the plaintiff to rebut the plea of justification went much 
 further ; they had never heard a word against the moral purity of any of the Maharaja 
 
225 
 
 till a few months ago ; till they saw the imputations in the Bombay papers, till this 
 trial commenced; nay, till thei/ came into court and heard those imputations for the first 
 time suggested by the questions of counsel. 
 
 This proves too much ; it is absolutely incredible except on the supposition that 
 these people obstinately refused to see, or hear or believe anything unfavourable to the 
 character of their Gurus ; that, like Goculdass Kissordass, Hurgovindass Moolchund, 
 Nurrotumdass Hurribhoy, and others of their number, they believed it impossible for 
 a Maharaj to be a bad man, or to commit sin ; that, therefore, if they heard any 
 reports against the conduct of a Maharaj, they would steadily refuse all credence to them. 
 
 Applying, then, to this part of the ease the most familiar rules established in the 
 science of jurisprudence for the sifting and weighing of testimony, I find it wholly 
 impossible to come to any other conclusion than this, that the Maharajs as a class were, 
 and for years notoriously had been, guilty of the immoralities imputed to them by the 
 defendant in the alleged libel and in the plea of justification. 
 
 The fourth and last head under which I propose to review the evidence was that 
 of the personal acts of immoralii)/ charged against the plaintiff in the plea of justification. 
 
 Under this head the testimony mainly relied on, in rebuttal of the charges, is 
 naturally and necessarily that of the plaintiff himself. It is obviously therefore, very 
 desirable to obtain, if possible, some test or measure of the value and credibility of the 
 plaintifTs evidence when relied on in contradiction of the evidence adduced by the de- 
 fendant. Such a test of credibility presents itself — clear, decisive, not to be explained 
 away. It is unfortunately connected with one of the most repulsive parts of the case. 
 It is alleged by the defendant's witnesses — it is denied by the plaintiff — that, on two 
 occasions in the year 1860, one shortly before and one shortly after the alleged libel, 
 he was affected with siphylis. It is, moreover, alleged on one side and denied on the 
 other, that he admitted having had similar attacks on previous occasions, when he hud 
 resorted to a supposed mode of cure, not unheard of by those who have practised in the 
 Criminal Courts of Europe. 
 
 Now what is the evidence on this point? Luckmidass Khimjee states that the 
 plaintiff requested him to bring Dr. Bhawoo Dajee to see him, as he was suffering from 
 chancre (chandi) and had been so for seven or eight days ; that the plaintiff said that 
 he had caught it from an abandoned woman in Bombay ; that he had once tried to 
 cure himself of a similar attack by connection with an untainted woman, but that, 
 though allowed by the Shastras, he did not like to try that mode of cure again, as the 
 woman had caught the disease from him. So far Luckmidass Khimjee. 
 
 The plaintiff, in his rebutting evidence, admits that Dr. Bhawoo Dajee was called 
 in at the suggestion of Luckmidass Khimjee, but that it was with reference to the 
 management of some girls' schools. He denies categorically that he ever told Lukmi- 
 dass Khimjee that he had " chandi," or that he had any conversation with him in refer- 
 ence to his complaint ; or that he ever admitted having had connection with impure 
 women in Bombay, or that he ever said a word as to having formerly tried to cure 
 himself by connection with a second woman to whom he communicated the complaint. 
 
 Then comes the evidence of Dr. Bhawoo Dajee, who has medically attended all the 
 29 
 
226 
 
 Maharaja who, for the last ten or twelve years, have visited Bom))ay, and wlio, before 
 Ills visit to the plaintiff, had attended three of the number for the venereal disease. 
 Dr. Bhawoo Dajee says that, about the 20th of September 1860, he went to the plaintifTs 
 house with Lukmidass Khimjee and Wishvanath Narayan Mundlick. On the retirement 
 of these two witnesses, the plaintiff said he had " chandi :" he ascribed it to heat; he 
 said — " The full particulars of the case would be communicated to me afterwards. 
 Next morning,, the full particulars were conveyed to me by Goverdhundass, his Secre- 
 tary ; Goverdhundass told me plaintiff was suffering from " chandi." I told him I 
 must examine before I could prescribe. He wanted me to prescribe. I prescribed a 
 simple ointment." In cross-examination. Dr. Bhawoo Dajee says — " I understood the 
 plaintiff to say he had a discharge from the ulcer. I can say positively he used the word 
 ' chandi.' ' Chandi' has other meanings besides syphilitic ulcer : it is the slang term for 
 chancre. A common ulcer would not be described as ' chandi.' '' 
 
 In answer to this evidence the plaintiff says that when he consulted Dr. Bhawoo 
 Dajee, he said he was subject to itches caused by heat (this agrees with Dr. Bhawoo 
 Dajee's statement.) He admits that at the time he had sores on the private parts; he 
 denies that they were venereal ; he denies that he ever used the word " chandi,'' the word 
 he used was ' chatha' (a Guzeratee word for sore or eruption.) He declares that he 
 never told Dr. Bhawoo Dajee that he would send a person the next day to describe 
 his symptoms ; he admits that he sent Goverdhundass the next day to Dr. Bhawoo 
 Dajee, but that he so sent him in order to bring back a manuscript. " I said to 
 Goverdhundass, ' bring any medicine he may give you, and bring back the work.' 
 Goverdhundass brought back the prescription." 
 
 Now, apart from the use of the word " chandi," which Dr. Bhawoo Dajee posi- 
 tively affirms and the plaintiff positively denies — the important contradiction here is the 
 denial that the plaintiff ever promised to send, or did in fact send, Goverdhundass to 
 communicate to Dr. Bhawoo Dajee the history of his case. There was one person who 
 could set this point at rest, and that was Goverdhundas himself. "Was he called as a 
 witness ? No. Was any excuse offered for not calling him ? None. What is the legiti- 
 mate inference ? Why, that if called, he would have been compelled, under pressure of 
 cross-examination, to admit that he was sent by the plaintiff to relate the history of his 
 symptoms and that those symptoms were what Dr. Bhawoo Dajee stated them to be. 
 
 This was on or about the 20th of September : — about three months later, in De- 
 cember 1860, Dr. Dhirajram Dulpatram is called in : " The plaintiff," says this witness, 
 *' told me the nature of his complaint ; I ocularly inspected the part ; it was a siphylitic 
 ulcer on the ghns jjenis. The history of the case given by my patient quite confirmed 
 my opinion as to the ulcer being siphylitic. I personally inspected the parts six or 
 seven times. I attended him for a month. Externally black wash was appUed, internally 
 mercury : he continued the mercury treatment till he was salivated. The sore disap- 
 peared within a month. He told me he had suffered in the same way about three 
 months before, in consequence of impure connection with a woman. I am sure he did 
 not tell me he had eaten a great many chillies, nor that he had prickly heat. In the 
 course of my visits, I remember his asking me whether the disease could be removed 
 by intercourse with a fresh female ? I said • no.' He said he had tried it twice with 
 
227 
 
 fresh Banyan females, it had succeeded the first time, not the second, because he 
 was then somewhat out of condition. He said he had tried these experiments at Surat." 
 
 Such is the positive evidence of Dr. Dhirajram. What does the plaintiff say in 
 reply ? 
 
 "I consulted Dr, Dhirajram, and took the medicines he prescribed: I described my 
 case to him : it was of the same character as when Dr. Bhawoo Dajee came ; it had 
 recurred. I described it as I did to Dr. Bhawoo Dajee : 1 said it was caused by heating 
 medicines and scratching : I did not describe it as siphylitic ' chandt : he did not inspect 
 the parts. I had had no impure connection with a woman. Eow could I, it is contrary 
 to our religion to have such intercourse. I did not tell him I had such intercourse. I 
 did not tell him * chandi,' would be removed by intercourse with a clean woman; I did 
 not ask whether it could. I did not tell him I had tried the experiment twice, and 
 that the second time it had not succeeded." 
 
 "With regard to the medicines prescribed and the effect of them, the plaintiff says 
 — " He gave me some powders which were mixed with water : the liquid was dark. I 
 used this black wash ; the lime water for it was prepared in my own place. I put the 
 powder into it and so made black wash, which was applied. I took five or six pills. 
 Jfter I took the medicine for Jour or f.ve days, I suffered pain in the throat and left off. 
 After the pain in the throat came on, I did not go on taking a pill a day; he gave 
 me a jireparation of borax and water to be used when the throat became sore. My gums 
 pained me slightly. When this took place the sore had been cured.'' 
 
 Now what is the result of this evidence? Why that plaintiff admits he was 
 mercurially treated, both internally and externally till salivation was produced ; that when 
 salivation was produced, or shortly after the sore was cured, that that sore was an 
 ulcer on the glans penis — and yet that that ulcer was not siphylitic. An ulcer on the 
 glans penis, mercurial treatment, a doctor who, after six or seven inspections, declares 
 the ulcer to be siphylitic — this is the evidence on the one side. The mere denial of 
 the plaintiff, who has a life-and-death interest in making that denial, is the sole 
 evidence on the other. If the matter rested here, could any person accustomed to weigh 
 evidence, have the shadow of a reasonable doubt left on his mind as to where the 
 truth lay ? But it does not rest here : it was elicited from the plaintiff that the part 
 affected had been subjected to minute and microscopic observation by three medical 
 gentlemen in the course of the trial ; and yet not one of those medical gentlemen did 
 the plaintff venture to put into the ivitness-box. It would be idle to comment on such 
 a circumstance as this : even in a doubtful case it would have turned the balance against 
 the plaintiff; in a case like this, free without this circumstance from all reasonable doubt, 
 it renders it absolutely impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the 
 plaintiff was affected with siphylis, both in September and December of the year 1860. 
 
 And this conclusion is all important in its bearing on the value and credibility 
 of the plaintiff's evidence : it is not only that having deliberately perjured himself on 
 this one occasion, his oath where he stands alone in contradiction to credible testimony, 
 is utterly valueless for all purposes and on all occasions — it goes further than this : the 
 fact, as to which doubt is impossible, that the plaintiff had siphylis on two occasions in 
 
228 
 
 the year 1860, shakes to pieces the whole frame-work of his evidence and shows it all 
 to be conceived in a spirit of hypocrisy and falsehood. 
 
 With great tact and plausibility, the plaintifiF assumed, throughout the whole of his 
 very lengthened evidence, a tone of parental piety, an outraged purity. When asked 
 whether he had toyed with the bosom of the young lady in the temple at Beyt, his 
 answer was " How can I commit such an act as touch the breast of a woman, wJieti 
 I regard all women as my children." Again, when questioned as to his still closer in- 
 timacy with a young married lady in Bombay, he repeats the expression " I regard all 
 women as my children." Again he says " would I have told Kallabhoy Lallubhoy that 
 there is no harm in adultery when adultery is strictly prohibited in our religion? How 
 could I invent such a new thing" (as to say that illicit intercourse is good for the 
 health) " when I had no experience, never having committed adultery in all my life ; it 
 is a thing I hate. Amongst us these things are strictly prohibited ; it is laid down 
 that intercourse with one's own wife is lawful, but that intercourse with any other 
 woman is unlawful. That includes intercourse with cusbans" — he said in answer to a 
 question of mine, and we have just seen how in denying that he ever had intercourse 
 with an impure woman, he exclaimed " How could I, it is contrary to our religion to 
 have such intercourse." 
 
 Convinced as I am on evidence the most clear and conclusive that this man labored 
 under an attack of siphylis, the result of impure connection, about the very time this alleged 
 libel was published, I am constrained to regard these expressions of simulated purity as. 
 the offensive language of hardened hypocrisy. 
 
 There is another respect in which a material, but to me always a most incredible, part 
 of his evidence is utterly shattered by the conclusion at which I have been compelled to 
 come, as to his having been under treatment for venereal disease in 1860. The plaintiff 
 himself most positively swore, and his personal attendant swore quite as positively, that 
 while a young man in the prime of life, for the space of four years, all of which were 
 spent without a wife, and two of which were spent on pilgrimage — the plaintiff, never on 
 any one occasion, had carnal intercourse with any woman of any rank or class whatsoever. 
 The statement upon the face of it, seemed in the higliest degree improbable : here was a 
 young Hindu — a Maharaj — no ascetic — the hereditary high priest of a religion of enjoyment 
 with the amorous Krishna for its god, and an ocean of Bas Lila for its paradise — in the vigour 
 of early manhood, without a wife, on pilgriirage, never once in the space of four years 
 having sexual intercourse of any kind with a woman. A less probable story was hardly ever 
 sworn to in a Court of justice : but what shred, what rag of probability is left to cover 
 the nakedness of this transparent He, when we find this alleged purist in matured life, in 
 the city of his enemies, with a wife and family in his dwelling-place, so little capable of 
 controlling his sexual passions as to purchase pleasure at the price of disease. It has been 
 said that if the plaintiff had an unlimited command of pure women, he would not have re- 
 sorted to those who were impure : there is no force in the remark : polygamy and court- 
 ezanship are always found to flourish side by side, and it requires but a very moderate 
 knowledge of the world and of history to be aware, that the women who make plea- 
 sure a profession are not least patronized by those for whom immoderate indulgence has 
 tendered the sexual act at once a necessity and a weariness. 
 
 Tor the reasons indicated, I find it utterly impossible to treat the plaintiffs mere oath 
 
229 
 
 as of" any value at all when it stands alone in opposition to the evidence of credible 
 witnesses. 
 
 Then, are the witnesses who depose to the particular acts of immorality with which 
 the plaintiff is charged in the plea of justification credible witnesses? In my opinion, 
 they are thoroughly so. These witnesses are Lukhmidass Khimjee, and the two young 
 men Kallabhoy Lalloobhoy and Chutterbhooj Waljee. As to Lukhmidass Khimjee, his 
 credibility is beyond suspicion : a grave, respectable, intelligent man, of the highest 
 position in his caste, animated by an earnest desire to purify the practices of his sect, 
 he gave his evidence in a quiet, calm, straightforward manner, eminently calculated to 
 conciliate belief; nor was he betrayed into a single inconsistency or self-contradication in the 
 course of a very long and searching cross-examination. The young Kyast, Kallabhoy 
 Lalloobhoy — a son of the Sheristedar of the Sudder Adawlut, gave his testimony with ex- 
 treme intellgence and in a frank, artless, natural manner, which unavoidably created the 
 impression that he was honestly sj^eaking the truth. The young Bhattia, Chutterbhooj, 
 was a less intelligent person, but he too gave his evidence calmly and clearly, nor 
 was he shaken in a single paiticular. 
 
 It was said that the testimony of these two young men was open to suspicion, 
 because both were great friends of the defendant ; because one had also been his pupil for 
 some time at the Elphinstone Institution, and the other was the nephew of Dr. Dhirajram. 
 If they had told a less plain and unvarnished tale, if they had been shaken in cross-examination, 
 if they had become confused, or hesitating, if they had shown any eagerness of par- 
 tizansliip, I might have felt there was something in the suggestion ; though even then, 
 it might fairly have been said that, in a case like this, no motive but one of friendship for 
 the defendant, or earnest «eal for the reform of the sect, could induce people to brave 
 relate in open court what they knew of the mal- practises of the Maharaj. But consi- 
 odium (and, if members of the sector caste — worse than odium) by coming forward to 
 dering the mode in which these young men gave their evidence, the fact that one is a relation 
 of Dr. Dhirajram and that both are friends of the defendant, though it may have s ipplied 
 a reason for watching their testimony more closely, affords none for discrediting in any 
 way the testimony which in fact they gave. And that testimony was wholly uncontradicted 
 except by the mere denial of the plaintiff — a denial, which for the reasons already more 
 than sufficiently indicated, may be regarded for all purposes of evidence as practically 
 worthless. 
 
 Kallabhoy Lalloobhoy, who seems to have been on very intimate terms with the plaintiff, 
 speaks to two instances, one in Surat and one in Bombay, in which he witnessed facts that 
 can leave no reasonable doubt of illicit intercourse between the plaintiff and two ladles of 
 the Banyan caste. The first took place at Surat about three years ago : " I was sitting," 
 says the witness, " with the plaintiff and a male Banyan in his ' dewankhana.' A Banyan 
 girl, about 14 or 15, came in with a female servant of the Maharaj. She passed through the 
 ' dewankhana' where we were sitting and went into the side room : the Banyan man immediately 
 got up and went away ; the plaintiff left the room and went into that into which the 
 female had gone. I was a boy at that time" (he would have been about 13) " I attempted 
 after some time to go into the room which the Maharaj had entered : I expected folded pan- 
 soparee, and I went to get it. I entered the room. I saw the Maharaj sitting with the girl 
 on a couch embracing and kissing. I did Durshun (reverence) to him: he got up, took 
 
230 
 
 me by the arm, and took me out ; he then gave me some pan-soparee ; I then left and he- 
 went into the inner room again." 
 
 That is the first case ; the second took place in Bombay, where the youth had renewed 
 his intimacy with the plaintiff, and was well aware from conversation that had passed between 
 them that his friend was acting in public the part of a reformer. Kallabhoy had his suspicions 
 as to the genuineness of these professions. "In consequence," he says, " of what I heard 
 about the plaintiff, I once watched a lady to his house. I heard people say, pointing to her, 
 ' that is a lady with whom the Maharaj has fallen in love.' I followed her to the 
 plaintiff's house ; she entered a doorway inside the ' dewankhana.' I went into the 
 ' dewankhana' and sat there ; the plaintiff was there ; the plaintiff went inside into the 
 room the lady liad entered. I did not go away. I remained sitting there about half an 
 hour. The plaintiff came out ; he had only his waist-cloth on. I began to smile ; he asked 
 me ' why are you laughing' (he was laughing too) I said ' you are certainly effecting a 
 very great reform.' He laughed and said nothing. Presently, the lady came out; her 
 dress was disordered. I looked at her and laughed. She laughed and went away. 
 From her dress I can say she was a Banyan : from her dress and jewels, I concluded 
 she was a respectable woman." 
 
 That is the testimony of Kallabhoy, — testimony given with a simplicity of manner 
 and naturalness of detail ; — v.'hich it would be difficult to surpass : testimony which, 
 unshaken as it was by cross-examination and uncontradicted except by the bare denial 
 of the plaintiff, I have no difficulty in believing to be substantially the truth. 
 
 Chutterbhooj, who also appears to have been a good deal about the plain tiflTs 
 house, deposes to having seen a third young lady introduced into the plaintiffs bed-room, 
 and both he and Kallabhoy concur as to the fact of those conversations between them- 
 selves and the plaintiff in which he maintained the doctrine, and confirmed it by the 
 results of his own experience, that illicit intercourse with women is favorable to the 
 health and vigour of the human system. These conversations are of course denied by 
 the plaintiff, but it is also urged that they are intrinsically improbable. I do not think 
 so. In this country, youths of 16 or 17 are often husbands and fathers ; in no 
 country do we find that lads of that age are indisposed to enter into such discussions. 
 As to the improbability of the plaintiffs taking part in them, would there, it may be 
 asked, be any thing strange in a Mormon elder taking up such a topic in defence oi 
 polygamy, if pressed hard in argument by a couple of young unbelievers in the merits 
 of that patriarchal institution? 
 
 And now as to the evidence of Lukhmidas Khimjee. I shall consider first that 
 part of his testimony which relates to the plaintiffs conduct in Bombay, reserving to the 
 last, the consideration of that which relates to his earlier immoralities at Beyt. Lukh- 
 midass Khimjee, like many others, believed in the professions of reform with which the 
 plaintiff introduced himself to the Vallabhacharyan public of Bombay. He was come to 
 promote female education ; he was open to argument on the question of widows' remar- 
 riages. It was known — and this is a fact which should be borne in mind to the plain- 
 tiffs credit — that he had opened, and that he contributed to support, a flourishing 
 boys' school at Surat, where instruction was given, amongst other things, in Sanscrit. 
 These things more than countervailed with Lukhmidass Khimjee the scandals of the 
 
231 
 
 plaintlfTs youth ; and ho appears, from the moment of his arrival in Bombay, to 
 have entered into warm and friendly relations with the new Maharaj. " I called on the 
 plaintiff," he says " the second or third day after his arrival. I was on friendly terms 
 with him, saw him twice or thrice a day, invited him to my house, asked friends to 
 meet him. I did this because he was making promises of effecting reform, abolishing 
 these bad practices, and getting girls to be permitted to learn. I formed an opinion 
 subsequently that plaintiff continued his former bad practices, and for three or four 
 months I had been misled. One day I went to his house and was sitting conversing, 
 when two females arrived : one of them had a silver goblet in her hand : she was 
 about 20 ; the other was a widow about 40 ; the young woman was a Cutchee Bhat- 
 tian, a married woman." 
 
 The witness then goes on to state that the young lady having been conducted by 
 a female servant into the bed room, the plaintiff sent him off to the printer's to make 
 immediate arrangements for the publication of some article. " I went downstairs," says 
 the witness, " but some suspicion crossed my mind, and after a short time I went up- 
 stairs again into the same room : no one was there except the widow who was standing 
 beside the door ; I continued sitting there till they came out. First the Maharaj came 
 out : on observing me, he grew pale. Then the young lady came out : she was smiling 
 and laughing ; her rose-coloured sarree was in a confused, rumpled state ; it had been all 
 right when she went in. She had not the silver goblet. I presume she had given it to 
 the Maharaj. Both the ladies shortly left, I remained. ' Nothing was said on the subject 
 at that time, but " in the evening,'" " says the witness, " I went again : the Maharaj 
 took me into an inner room to have some private conversation with me. He began : 
 he said ' what have you done with regard to the opening of female and other schools ; 
 speak to Munguldass, and others ; request their aid ; get up a subscription list.' I 
 said * Maharaj, this is all sham ; you profess to be a reformer and to wish to open 
 female schools ; and in private, you commit such bad acts, such adulteries.' His 
 answer was ' yes, you might have suspected me, but I have not committed any bad 
 acts ; I only went in to accept food from the female.' To this I replied ' you told me 
 that when females came for that purpose you did not take them inside; if you went in 
 to accept food, why did you leave the widow outside.' He did not answer that and 
 changed the conversation." 
 
 Such is the evidence of the defendants witnesses as to the immoralities of the 
 plaintiff during his recent residence in Bombay. I have reserved for the last the con- 
 sideration of the scene which Lukmidass Khimjee deposes to having witnessed fifteen 
 years ago at Beyt. Here again, I shall let the witness speak for himself: — 
 
 " There is a temple at Beyt dedicated to Luxmee : the plaintiff threw goolal there. 
 There were females present : he threw the goolal on the females, then on a number 
 of persons near the gate. When the goolal was thrown in two or three handfuls, 
 persons outside the inclosure could not see what was going inside. Immediately after 
 throwing the goolal, he squeezed the breasts of a young girl, a Bhattian, who was 
 near the gate. She smiled. A few days after this, I and my uncle (Damodur 
 Dewjee) went to the plaintiff^s house at Beyt : it was about one or half-past one o 'clock 
 in the day ; he was lying in his bed. I and my uncle went up and began shampooing 
 
232 
 
 his legs. It is usual to do so when the Maharaj is lying down : regarding him as 
 a God, shampooing his legs is considered a pious act. While so employed, the girl, 
 whose breasts the Maharaj had squeezed, came accompanied by a widow. The widow 
 come up and whispered to the Maharaj. He said to us 'go out' I and my uncle then 
 left the bedroom and went outside. The girl was left there; afterwards the widow 
 came out and shut the door, and held the chain. The widow smiled and asked my 
 uncle if I would like to see Ras-Lila. We went in. The plaintiff was in the act 
 of having carnal intercourse with the girl inside. The plaintiff said to my uncle, 
 ' What will he (meaning me) give for seeing this.' My uncle said, ' He will do you 
 service.' Before I went in I had agreed to give 100 Cutch cowries (about 30 rupees) 
 for seeing the sight. I made my respects (durshun) and came out. I was then about 
 18 or 19 year of age.'' " It is considered," continues the witness, " a pious act by 
 Vaishnovs to witness the Ras-Lila of the Maharaj ; it is a custom in the sect to pay 
 for witnessing this act ; both the sectary who sees, and the woman who is enjoyed, 
 pay ; to have connection with the Maharaj is considered to lead to ' Gowloke' (the 
 paradise of the 16,000 gopees.") 
 
 Such is the sworn testimony of this very respectable witness, given with the most 
 perfect simplicity and candour, given as though he was relating nothing extraordinary 
 — absolutely unshaken in cross-examination. The plaintiff, in answer to questions put 
 by his counsel, contradicts absolutely and categorically the whole story. As to the value 
 of that contradiction standing alone, nothing further need be said ; but on this part of 
 the case, the plaintiff attempted to go beyond mere contradiction and called three 
 witnesses to throw doubt on the statement of Lukhmidas Khimjee.by showing that in 
 the temple he specifies at Beyt, the temple of Luxmee, goolal is never thrown on the 
 worshippers, but only on the image, it being the temple of a female divinity The first 
 of these witnesses Davidas Hunsraj, formerly superintendent, for the Guicowar, of the 
 temples at Beyt, proves very little as to the point for which he is principally called, 
 " Goolal," he says, " is thrown on the images in all the temples : but not on the 
 worshippers when the image is female." But having thus laid down the rule, he 
 admits there may be exceptions, for he adds " a witness may have seen it thrown on 
 the worshippers at Luxmee temple ; I have not, that is all I mean." 
 
 INIitharam Purshotum, a Bhattia from Kajkote, whose duty it was nine or ten years 
 ago to follow the Maharajs round the temples of Beyt and collect the tax due to the 
 Guicowar from the devotees, gives the following evidence : — " Goolal was only thrown 
 on the worshippers in the temple of Dwarkanathjee at Beyt : it is thrown by the 
 JUaharajs and the Brahmacharias. 
 
 Premjee Pooja, the third witness, a Pokarna Brahman, who has come down to 
 Bombay to act as cook, but who previously for twenty years had been a servant in 
 the temple of Radajee, another female divinity at Beyt, contradicts witness No. 2 in 
 two important particulars. Agreeing with him that Goo'al in Luxmee temple is only 
 sprinkled on the image, he swears that even in the temple of Dwarkanathjee, it is only 
 thrown on the musicians, not on the worshippers, thrown not by the Maharajs at all, 
 only by the Brahmacharias. 
 
 Even if the point were a material one, it is clear that this evidence of contradiction 
 
233 
 
 wholly fails : but the point is not a material one ; the evidence of these yery three 
 witnesses shows this temple of Luxmee at Beyt to be one of five small shrines 
 dedicated to different gods and goddesses, all of which are in close proximity. 
 Lukhmidass Khimjee, without any serious impeachment of his accuracy, may easily 
 have mistaken one of these small shrines for another ; or the plaintiff to serve a particular 
 object, may have done an act which was not strictly regular. 
 
 There is another objection to this whole story founded on the proposition that it 
 is incredible in itself, as involving a violation not only of the most universally observed 
 laws of decency, but of the very principles on which our common human nature is 
 built up. This is a very inconclusive objection : it is not an objection likely to have 
 any weight with those whom reading and experience have carried beyond the circle 
 of home manners and home opinions. It is difficult for an Englishman of the 19th 
 century to believe in the existence of such a state of manners as is depicted by Petronius 
 or Martial, and yet we know that these two writers were the most fashionable and 
 favorite authors among their Eoman contemporaries ; the very essence of their popularity 
 consisting in the general truthfulness of their social portraitures. So in order to put 
 ourselves in a position for judging adequately of the probable truth of such a story as 
 this, we must endeavour to realise as best we can the state of feeling habitual among those 
 whose corruptions it exposes. We must suppose the case of a weak and blinded people ; a 
 rapacious and libidinous priesthood : a god whose most popular attributes are his feats of 
 sexual prowess ; a paradise whose most attractive title is that of " a boundless ocean 
 of amorous enjoyment." But there is one plain fact which on this matter is worth a 
 world of speculation. So little did Lukmidass Khimjee suppose that there was any 
 thing incredible in the story, that at a large party at Goculdass Tezpall's, he made it 
 the subject of an attack half-jocose, half-earnest against his uncle, who has now for 
 some years been absent in Zanzibar. He mentioned the names of several highly respect 
 able members of his caste and sect in whose presence the alleged attack was 
 made ; those witnesses were put into the box and tendered for cross-examination, but 
 no question was put to them tending in any way to impugn the statement of Lukmi- 
 dass Khimjee. 
 
 Such is the evidence in support of the charges made against the moral character of 
 the plaintiff in the plea of justification ; on my mind that evidence leaves not a 
 shadow of doubt ; the charges made are, in my opinion, fully substantiated. Jaddunathjee 
 Maharaj is conclusively shown to have been in no degree superior in morality to the 
 average of his brethren, and principally to have differed from them in the tact and 
 cunning with which he employed public professions of zeal for reform as a convenient 
 cloak for uncleanliness. 
 
 Having thus gone through all the observations I proposed to make on the evidence, 
 there is only one other point on which I wish to say a few words. 
 
 This trial has been spoken of as having involved a great waste of the public time 
 
 [ cannot quite agree with that opinion. No doubt much time hae been spent in 
 
 hearing this cause, but I would fain hope it has not been all time wasted. It seems 
 
 impossible that this matter should have been discussed thus openly before a population 
 
 30 
 
234 
 
 BO intelligent as that of the natives of Western India, without producing its resuith. 
 ]t has probably taught some to think ; it must have led many to enquire. 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 which sap the very foundations of morality, which involve 
 a violation of the eternal and immutable laws of Eight, — are established in the name 
 and imder 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 
 denounced — they have exposed them. At a risk and to a cost which we cannot adequate- 
 ly measure, these men have done determined battle against a foul and powerful delu- 
 sion. 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 the Truth. In 
 thus doing they have done bravely and well. It may be allowable to express a hope thai 
 what they have done will not have been in vain — that the seed they have sown will bear 
 its fruit — that their courage and consistency will be rewarded ^y a steady increase in 
 the number of those, whom their words and their examples have quickened into thought 
 and animated to resistance, whose homes they have helped to cleanse fiom loathsome 
 lewdness, and whose souls they have set free from a debasing bondage. 
 
 OL 
 
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 
 or to the 
 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 • 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 (510)642-6753 
 
 • 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
 books to NRLF 
 
 • Renewals and recharges may be made 
 4 days prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 SEMT ON ILL 
 
 MAR 1 2004 
 
 U. C. BERKELEY 
 
 SEhTTONrLL 
 
 L^ C. BgrRKELEY 
 
 DD20 15M 4-02 
 
r 
 
 L