AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We are of opinion that the decree of the acting District Judge is right.
The plaintiff by his conduct led the Committee to infer that he had misappropriated the temple jewels. The question is not whether or not he did,
in fact, misappropriate the jewels, but whether the Committee were justified in dismissing him. He has no one to blame but himself. If he had acted,
as he at first promised, and shown the jewels, the matter would have gone no further, but, instead of doing so, he first treats the Committee with
contempt by not appearing in accordance with his promise. He next attempts to escape from his undertaking by pretending he it too ill to come and
half an hour afterwards comes and then, instead of producing the jewels or pointing out where they are, declines to do so for reasons which are at
the best childish. This amply justified the course taken by the Committee in dismissing him.
The fact that the Committee believed other charges to be well-founded though the acting District Judge was of a different opinion, does not
affect the question.
We must, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.