FRIDAY, 18TH FEB., 10 A.M. TO 1 P.M.

GENERAL JURISPRUDENCE.

T. MUTTUSAMI AIYAR, B.L.

I. Distinguish between private and public law, moral and statute law, substantive and processual law. State the rules of jurisprudence if any based on the distinction.

II. Explain the positive and negative requisites of a valid customary law.

III. In what circumstances and to what extent may an earlier statute be considered to have been virtually repealed by a later statute ? Cite cases.

IV. To what extent are the following maxims applicable under the English Law as rules of interpretation ?

(a.) Like reason maketh like law.

(b.) Reason is the soul of the law and when the reason of any particular law ceases so does the law itself.

V. What are the rules to be observed when there is a conflict of laws of equal authority? Give an illustration for each rule.

VI. Mention the several ingredients of a right and comment on each. State also the difference if any between the Roman and English conception of a right.

VII. Define a juristic person. In what cases and for what purposes was this fiction employed under the Roman Law? Compare the English Law?

VIII. Define a real right, an obligation right, a potentiality, an action, an interdict and an exception.

IX. Compare the Roman with the English theory of real, personal, and mixed actions.

X. Distinguish between renunciation and alienation? What rights are inalienable or incapable of being renounced under the English Law.

XI. Point out the difference between collision and confusion of rights? What are the principles applicable to a case of collision of rights under the English and the Roman Law?

XII. Explain how affirmative and negative conditions affect a right (a) when they are physically or morally impossible at the date of contract, and (b) when they become impossible between the date of Contract and that of fulfilment.

XIII. Write short notes on

(a.) Lis pendens.

(b.) The distinction between void and voidable transactions. (c.) Curing the consequences of delay.

M. L. DEGREE EXAMINATION.

MONDAY, 14TH FEB., 10 A.M. TO 1 P.M.

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

H. H. SHEPHARD, M.A.

I. What place do rules of evidence occupy, and what function do they perform in a scheme of law?

II. “Affirmanti non neganti incumbit onus probandi.” Upon him that affirms, and not upon him that denies, lies the burden of proof. How far is the proposition true ?

III. With regard to what facts is circumstantial evidence the only possible evidence ?

IV. State the presumptions of law as to a lost and an interlined will.

V. In what respect do rules of construction differ from presumptions?

VI. Under what circumstances is evidence of a testator's intention admissible to explain a will?

VII. Notes of a conversation alleged to have resulted in a contract are tendered on behalf of a party to a suit on the contract.

For what purposes and under what circumstances are they admissible?

VIII. In the recent English case of Regina v. Wainwright evidence of a conversation between the deceased whom the prisoner was charged with having murdered and the person in whose house the deceased had lodged was excluded, although the conversation was important to show to what place the deceased was about to go at the time when the conversation happened, which was the last occasion on which she was seen alive. On what ground is the exclusion justifiable, and would the evidence have been excluded under the Act?

IX. In an action on a bill of exchange oral evidence is tendered to the effect that

(a.) A subsequent agreement suspending the liability of the bill had been made, or that

(b) higher interest than that mentioned was agreed to be paid.

(c.) or to prove that the bill has been paid, although a written receipt has been given for the payment.

(d.) or that one only of the two joint makers was intended to be bound.

X. Under what circumstances or for what purposes can a letter addressed by one party to a suit to the other he admissible in evidence when tendered on behalf of the former?

XI. Presumptions are generally designed to facilitate proof-what other effect do they under certain circumstances have?

XII. State the rules laid down in the two leading cases of Slatterie v. Pooley and Pickard v. Sears, and the corresponding rules in the Evidence Act.

MONDAY, 14TH FEB., 2 TO 5 P.M.
CONTRACTS.

T. MUTTUSAMI AIYAR, B.L.

I. Distinguish between error as to what is and what is not of the essence of a contract. Give illustrations.

II. Explain the nature and peculiar properties of conditional, alternative, and accessorial obligations.

III. A debtor is appointed executor by his creditor. What is the effect of such appointment upon the debt? Would it make any difference if the creditor were appointed executor by the debtor ? Cite cases.

IV. What were the questions decided in Marriot v. Hampton and Atkinson v. Denby? Distinguish them from the Duke de Cadavel v. Collins and Kelly v. Solari.

V. Give a summary of the doctrine of remoteness of damages with reference to actions for breaches of Contract and of tort. Cite cases.

VI. Compare the Contract Act with the English Law (a) as to the circumstances in which an apparent owner of goods confers a valid title on the purchaser as against the real owner and (b) as to the duress sufficient to invalidate a Contract. State the English Cases intended to be over-ruled by the Contract Act.

VII. A agrees to sell B one of his five horses in C's possession for a price to be named by D. What is the effect of each of the following contingencies?

(i) D declines to fix a price.

(ii) D fixes the price at 500 or 1,000 Rupees.

(iii) All or two only out of the five horses die-(a) from accident, (b) from A's or B's or C's negligence before or after D fixes a definite price.

Give reasons.

VIII. How is the maxim that the form of agreement and the convention of parties over-rule the law limited in its operation? Cite leading cases.

IX. Write short notes on (i) estoppel by judgment: (ii) the constructive delivery of goods sufficient to defeat the vendor's lien for unpaid price: and (iii) the law of culpa as applied to bailees.

X. A, B, and C are a firm of bankers whose business it is to sell stock and recover the sale proceeds for their customers. B forges powers of attorney for the sale of stock belonging to several customers, remits a moiety of the sale proceeds to his wife, and the other moiety to D with whom the firm have an account to be placed to the firm's credit. Afterwards B draws this moiety by cheques signed in the name of the firm and applies it to the payment of his private debts. To what extent if any are A, C, and D responsible for the acts of B? Give reasons.

XI. In what circumstances may a promise which is an ordinary ingredient in a simple contract be implied?