DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4646#0094
94
public in England, when the learned Judge who presided in the case
of Dr. Achilli, permitted himself to express strong Protestant feelings
from the Bench; and if that was the case where the contending parties
were Protestants and Roman Catholics, how much more necessary is it
that here among Mahomedans and Heathens the Court should be
kept clear of religious personalities.
The Judge : Sitting here as a Judge in India to administer justice
among people of so many creeds, of course I am bound to show no
religious bias.
Mr. Howard : And of course your Lordship cannot be asked to
give a religious colouring to your decision.
The Judge : In this case though I am judging between Sunis
and Shias, it is not supposed that I should favour one sect more
than the other. The only question i3, who are the innovators, the
Plaintiffs or the Defendants? Were the Khojahs until recently Shias,
or have they always been Sunis 1 These are merely questions of fact.
Mr. Howard : There is no question whatever as to the entire im-
partiality of the Court. And of course your Lordship fully undei"-
stands that my argument relates solely to the issue of fact. I do not
know what my learned friends' reply will be, it really seems to me
that the evidence even before we have called a single witness is most
conclusive, but I cannot help feeling an anxiety to ask your Lordship
to repress any attempt to raise by indirect means, a prejudice against
the chief defendant.
I can suppose that my learned friends will be instructed to urge
that a religious leader should not keep racing stables. Your Lordship
will no doubt recollect that in the examination of Kureem Khan, an
attempt was made to elicit how the Aga spent his income, aiid to throw
blame on him for abstaining as he does from preaching and religious
dogmatising like an English missionary—for that was what was really
meant. I say all these things were attempts to raise a prejudice against
the Aga. On the other hand, I say that Aga Khan is, or was the son-
in-law of a king ; he is a soldier, and the honoured ally of the British
Government from whom he still receives a pension for services rendered
in the saddle on the battle-field. He is a Prince, come of the family of
Hashem and the tribe of the Koreish, a lineage compared with which
Bourbon and Brunswick are recent, and to suggest that this Chief,
beeatise he is the hereditary possessor of a religious dignity must not
public in England, when the learned Judge who presided in the case
of Dr. Achilli, permitted himself to express strong Protestant feelings
from the Bench; and if that was the case where the contending parties
were Protestants and Roman Catholics, how much more necessary is it
that here among Mahomedans and Heathens the Court should be
kept clear of religious personalities.
The Judge : Sitting here as a Judge in India to administer justice
among people of so many creeds, of course I am bound to show no
religious bias.
Mr. Howard : And of course your Lordship cannot be asked to
give a religious colouring to your decision.
The Judge : In this case though I am judging between Sunis
and Shias, it is not supposed that I should favour one sect more
than the other. The only question i3, who are the innovators, the
Plaintiffs or the Defendants? Were the Khojahs until recently Shias,
or have they always been Sunis 1 These are merely questions of fact.
Mr. Howard : There is no question whatever as to the entire im-
partiality of the Court. And of course your Lordship fully undei"-
stands that my argument relates solely to the issue of fact. I do not
know what my learned friends' reply will be, it really seems to me
that the evidence even before we have called a single witness is most
conclusive, but I cannot help feeling an anxiety to ask your Lordship
to repress any attempt to raise by indirect means, a prejudice against
the chief defendant.
I can suppose that my learned friends will be instructed to urge
that a religious leader should not keep racing stables. Your Lordship
will no doubt recollect that in the examination of Kureem Khan, an
attempt was made to elicit how the Aga spent his income, aiid to throw
blame on him for abstaining as he does from preaching and religious
dogmatising like an English missionary—for that was what was really
meant. I say all these things were attempts to raise a prejudice against
the Aga. On the other hand, I say that Aga Khan is, or was the son-
in-law of a king ; he is a soldier, and the honoured ally of the British
Government from whom he still receives a pension for services rendered
in the saddle on the battle-field. He is a Prince, come of the family of
Hashem and the tribe of the Koreish, a lineage compared with which
Bourbon and Brunswick are recent, and to suggest that this Chief,
beeatise he is the hereditary possessor of a religious dignity must not