1. In answer to the question referred by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, we are of opinion that a sufficient notice within the meaning of Section 433 of Act I of 1884 has been given.
2. Two objections have been taken to the notice which is said to be conveyed by two letters marked G and J, the first objection being that the cause of action was not explicitly stated and the second that the abode of the plaintiff was not sufficiently described. With regard to the first objection, we have felt no doubt that it was not maintainable for the cause of action is stated with sufficient clearness in the second of the two letters.
3. The other objection presents more difficulty, for the only address given in Mr. Eales' letter is 'Madras,' and it is only by reading his letter with the letter of his solicitors that any complete notice stating the plaintiff's abode is made out.
4. The latter letter refers to Mr. Eales' letter, and we think that they must be read together. It was argued that, inasmuch as the Act is a local one, and it is required that the abode of the intending plaintiff should be given, it must be intended that something more than 'Madras' should be mentioned, and it was urged that there was a distinction between local and general Acts in this matter. For this supposed distinction, we find no authority. The clear intention of the Legislature was to give the defendants notice of the threatened action and afford them an opportunity of making amends. If, under the circumstances, the notice sufficiently intimates to the defendants the place where the plaintiff is to be found, the intention of the Act is so far fulfilled. Adopting the language of Pollock, C.B., we must import a little common sense into notices of this kind--Jones v. Nicholls 13 M. & W. 363. We may also refer to the observations of the Judges in Osborn v. Gough 3 B. & P. 550 which is a strong case, because the defendant was a Magistrate, and no address beyond 'Birmingham' was given. Having regard to the two objections raised, we are of opinion that the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court was right in his ruling.