complainant by the previous Manager Mr. Perraz. In this letter Perraz no doubt asks the complainant to accept the management of the school, but the evidence of M. Subba Rao (19th Def. Witness) and the subsequent correspondence between him and the complainant show clearly that the complainant never assumed management of the school and that Perraz subsequently changed his mind and transferred the management to a committee (Vide Ex. XXXVIII, Ex. J, Ex. XLVIII, Ex. XLIX, Ex. Z, Ex. XILI).
The letter Ex. H asking complainant to become manager is dated 25–5–85. Immediately on receipt of this we find that the complainant wrote Ex. XXVIII dated 28—5—85 to the Secretary of the school asking him what funds he had got. On the 18th June 1885 he went down to Peddapur and although he did not assume management he took Rs. 8o from the Secretary under the pretence of getting furniture for the school. For a space of three whole years after this the complainant would neither refund the Rs. 80 nor supply any furniture. This is clearly proved by the documentary evidence: At last after a suit was filed against him on the 18th June n888 (vide Ex. XLV.) he paid up, His only explanation is that he took the money as manager, that Perraz had no business to subsequently transfer the management without his consent after putting him to the expense of going to Peddapur and that on this account he refused to recognize the School Committee and repay them the Rs. 80. Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than this explanation. Complainant's quarrel admittedly was with Perraz. If Perraz caused him any loss it was he whom he should have sued, There was not a shadow of justification for his refusing to part with the school money after he knew that the proposal made by Perraz to make him Manager was withdrawn and a committee was actually working the school. His retention of the Rs. 80 for these three years if not a misappropriation of
