1. We are not prepared to hold that the Subordinate Judge was not aware of the law as to burden of proof or of the legal presumptions, enacted in Section 118, clauses (a) and (g), of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when he came to his conclusions, on the evidence let in on both sides, that Exhibit A was not supported by consideration and that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course.
2. It is usually almost impossible to prove by direct evidence that a holder is not a holder in due course, and it is Only by the probabilities and the circumstances, the mutual positions of the plaintiff and the defendant and by the demeanour, of the witnesses who speak to the consideration for the endorsement to the holder, that a Court could arrive at a conclusion on that question of fact after, of course, giving due weight to the legal presumptions arising in the case.
3. We think that this Court cannot interfere on a finding of fact simply because that finding rests on no positive evidence in the case but on probabilities and circumstances as disclosed by the evidence, and we, therefore, dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal with costs.