1. The first point raised in this revision is that the acknowledgment of the liability, which is based on a statement in a criminal Court made on 6th April, was a valid acknowledgment in law. Section 19, Lim. Act, makes it perfectly clear that an acknowledgment must be signed by a person making it. The original record of the criminal case is not before me. The finding of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes is that this acknowledgment does not bear the signature of the defendant. My attention has been drawn to the case reported in (1891) P.R. 16. That case is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the deposition bore a mark of a clerk of the Court as the mark of the defendant, who was an illiterate man. The Court held that the clerk was a duly authorized agent, and such an acknowledgment was considered a good acknowledgment. I am, therefore, of opinion that there is no force in the contention of the learned vakil for the petitioner.
2. With regard to the third ground taken in the memorandum of appeal, the defendant has denied that he bought any bricks from the plaintiff. No doubt further or in the written statement he has said that at some time or other he bought some bricks, but had bought none after 14th June 1923. Having gone into the evidence called by the parties the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the allegation made by the plaintiff that the defendant had purchased the bricks had not been proved at all. I am of opinion that what the learned Judge meant by his finding was that the allegation of the plaintiff of the purchase of bricks on particular dates had not been proved. The result, therefore, is that this application is dismissed with costs.