132-NLR-NLR-V-23-COORAY-et-al-v.-SILVA.pdf
( 460 )
COORAY ee of. v. SELVA.
60—D. O. KaXuUwra, 8,019.
Forthwith—Consent.
Ft. W. Jayawardene, for the appellant.
Oroo8-Dabrera, for the respondent.
October 28, 1921. Bertram C. J.—,
This is another technical objection under section 756. It takes two forms:The first is that notice of tender of security was not issued “ forthwith."In this case it appears, however, that the various defendants received noticeand consented to the motion. I think by so consenting they waived anypreliminary steps. The second point is that the deposit to cover the cost ofserving notice of appeal on the respondents was not made within twentydays. There appears in the record the certificate by the Secretary to theeffect that a deposit was made; it does not appear at what date this was done.In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that itwas duly made. I think, therefore, that the application should be disallowed.Dr Sampayo J.—I agree.