Norton of Canada on November 16, 1888 long before the respondent A mother coveyed a desire to' transfer the boy to the Catholic home. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that Harry Gossage was no.I with him since November 16, 1888 when he transferred him into the care of Mr. Norton and at the time of the service · of the summons, he was not in his custody or power. In a proceedB ing before Methew, J. after coss-e11amination of the appellant the learned Judge refused to c;irder the writ to be issued. In the meantime, the case in Reg. v. Barnardo Tye's(') case was decided by the Court of Appealin which it was laid down that it was not an excuse for non-compliance with a writ that the defendant bad , parted with the custody of the child to another person if he had done so wrong· fully, find accordingly fresh application was made for a writ of habeas corpus. After hearing the arguments, the Judges of the Queens Bench Division ma'de absolute the order for the issue of the writ. The a\Jpellant approache<\ ihe House of Lords. It is iu this ·context tha.t 'the Court held that the respondent was·entitled to a return of the writ. To .some exte'nt, the position before us is identical, D if not wholly similar. When the petition in the 'present case was inovd before this Cdurt, nl),e nisi. was. issued calling upon the respondents to submit their version about the detention of C. Daniel ··and C. Paul. The respondents I, 2 and 4 in their various affidavits adopted a positive stand that C. Daniel. and C. Paul were taken by E the army jaw ans on March I 0, 1982, though not under arrest, to the army camp for the purpose of identifying Rashing and that they spent the night at the army camp and that they left the army camp on March 11, J 982 in company of H.L. Machihan and C. Shangnam. The petitioner and those fiiing affidavits in support including , H.L. Machihan, C. Shangna'm ad Smt. Thingkliuila, wife of C. F Daniel and.Smt. Vangamla, wife of Shri C. Paul denied that C. Daniel and C. Paul left army camp on March 11, 1982 .'and returned to the village, therefore an issue squarely arose to ascertain whether the positive stand qf the respondents was borne oufby the facts alleged and proof offered. The burden obviously was on the G respondents to make good the defence. Now that the . facts ·are clearly established which led to the ·rejection oft.he contention of the respondents that C. Daniel' and C. P~~l ever left the army camp on March 11 J 982 around IO.OD A. M.; the necessary corrollary being that they' were lasf seen alive under. the surveillance, control and
