English Judges abroad have sometimes strange cases to decide. A
few years ago the Chief Justice of Bombay—Sir Joseph Arnould, we think—had to settle a quarrel about a large revenue, the right to which depended upon the question whether a sporting noble in the island was or was not the rightful heir of the Prince of the'Assassins who threatened Richard Ceeur-de-Lion. He decided that the descent was proved. In July last, again, a case was decided by the Supreme Court of Calcutta which depends upon ecclesiastical rights of almost immemorial antiquity. The High - priest of the Japanese Buddhists had presented an image of great antiquity to the shrine of Buddha, at Gaya, which is to all Buddhists a kind of Temple of Jerusalem. The new charm thus given to the temple, however, roused the jealousy of the Hincloos, and especially of the " Abbot " of a neighbouring Sivaite monastery, and a violent mob invaded the Buddhist sanctuary, ordered the image to be removed, and on the priests' refusal, carried it off by force. The English Gallio of course fined the rioters, and, we presume, ordered the re- storation of the image, but the Supreme Court quashed the decision. They held that the Abbot of the, Sivaite temple, under a decree some four hundred years old, had certain rights of control, and that the mob, therefore, were only tumultuously defending a legal claim. It is pOssible that the Supreme Court was right ; but the case is an unfor- tunate one, as it will create an impression in Burtnah, Ceylon, and Japan that Buddhists do not obtain justice in India. It is-probable that there was no Hindoo feeling, but that the Sivaite abbot expected, and should have received, a fee for waiving his rights.
Previous page
