40 



THE PREDECESSORS OF THE 



111 the suit against Mr. Yale, Judge Dolben decided that 

 the Company's claims were barred by the Statute of Limit- 

 ations, and he was moreover, it is said, found guilty of receiv- 

 ing bribes for favouring causes. Accordingly on the 14th 

 September 1694 it was resolved " that he be dismissed from 

 the Eight Honorable Company's service till their Honors' 

 pleasure be further known ; and that in the meantime due 

 respect be given to a person of his quality and abilities, in 

 consideration of which it is a trouble for us to part with 

 him." 23 



The President and Council appear to have reversed Judge 

 Dolben's decree, and ordered Mr. Yale to pay the amount 

 claimed, for in February 1696 we find him complaining to 

 the Court of Directors that the Commissary, new President, 

 and their accomplices had seized and sold his ships, goods and 

 estate to the value of thirty thousand pounds or thereabouts, 

 being almost five times as much as they had given Judg- 

 ment for against him in their own arbitrary court and illegal 

 way of proceeding. 24 



Ten years afterwards the necessity for a law of limitations 

 was recognized as appears from the following order made by 

 the President and Council on the 7th May 1706 : — 



" There often arising in this place great disputes and demands 

 upon accounts and bonds of ten, twenty and thirty years stand- 

 ing, so that it is next to impossible to decide the same ; and it 

 being generally amongst the natives, most of which stick at no 

 manner of villainy, for swearing, lying, forging or any other vile 

 action to gain their end ; to prevent which it is ordered that from 

 the first of January next ensuing no bond, bill, or account shall 

 be sueable for in any of the Courts of Justice, or the Choultry of 

 this city, that are of a longer standing than seven years ; pro- 

 vided that it can be proved that within the space of the aforesaid 



23 Wheeler's Madras, vol, i, p. 288, 



24 Ibid, 



