1. I am of opinion that this document is not admissible in evidence. It is tendered as being admissible under Section 32, Clause 6 of the Evidence Act. That sub-section makes a statement admissible when it 'relates to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption between persons deceased, and is made in any will or deed relating to the affairs of the family to which any such deceased person belonged, or in any family pedigree, or upon any tombstone, family portrait, or other thing on which such statements are usually made, and when such statement was made before the question in dispute was raised.' The document tendered is not a statement relating 'to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, between persons deceased.' It only purports on the face of it to be a statement of relationship between a deceased person and a living person. I do not think that Section 32 embraces such a case. It is not suggested that the document is a will or deed relating to the affairs of the family. It is tendered as a statement relating to the parentage of a person who is alive. Then it is said it is a statement in the nature of a family pedigree. But I am of opinion that it does not come within those words in the sub-section. But there is another objection to the admissibility of the document which is fatal. Section 32 says that 'statements written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense, which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable,' may be admitted in certain cases. On the plaintiff's evidence it appears that he does not know who wrote the horoscope, or the endorsement on it, and therefore cannot say whether the writer is dead, or cannot be found, or became incapable of giving evidence.' I am therefore of opinion that the document is inadmissible.'