Remfry, J - (1.) This is an application to adjudicate a debtor. It is not suggested that he has not committed an act of insolvency, as alleged, within the jurisdiction.
(2.) The point taken in his favour is that the petition alleged that this Court had jurisdiction because the debtor carried on business at an address in Calcutta, whereas it is contended that he merely works for gain at the address given, and he admits that at the material times he did so work for gain and also resided within the jurisdiction.
(3.) For the petitioning creditor it was argued that the debtor did carry on business in person and that even if he did not, under s, 11 of the Presidency Towns insolvency Act, provided that the debtor came within one or other of the grounds on which jurisdiction is based, the Court should, where the act of insolvency also took place within the jurisdiction, disregard the erroneous allegation made in the petition, and deem it sufficient that the debtor resides and worked for gain within the jurisdiction.;