( 281 )
CONJEE v. BAWA.
206—D. C. Colombo, 48,632.
Tisseveresinghe, for the appellant.
Balasingham, for the respondent.
July 31, 1918. Bebtbam C.J.—
Mr. Tisseyerasinghe has attempted to draw a distinction between this caseand the other cases in which we have held that an appeal must fail becausesecurity has not been perfected, but his attempt has been unsuccessful. Thereis nothing in section 3 of Ordinance No. 8 of 1871 which he cited to showthat hypothecation of money does not take effect unless it is registered, if, infact, the money in question is deposited. Even if there were anything in theargument, I do not see how it can assist him in this case.
With regard to the request to proceed in revision, there is obviously con-siderable matter for argument. I think the proper course would be to dismissthe appeal, and to leave the appellant to pursue any other alternative cause ofaction, as he may be advised, that he possesses. The dismissal of this appeal'is without prejudice to any such right that he may have.
The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Ennis J.—I agme.
CONJEE v. BAWA