Page:The Life of Lokamanya Tilak.djvu/146

 went on, should have really confined himself to the question viz. whether the grant of Probate to Mr. Tilak and others had become inoperative owing to the birth (and death) of a son to Tai Maharaj. He had no business to decide the question of the Aurangabad adoption. But in spite of Mr. Tilak 's protests, Mr. Aston allowed the Plaintiff to put in evidence regarding the adoption. Mr. Tilak was cross-examined for full 14 days. The Judge's opinion of Mr. Tilak as a witness is worth recording "Fencing, prevaricating, quibbling witness; demeanour distinctly untruthful. A great deal of time was wasted by ambiguous replies to plain questions, which were repeated over and over again. Witness was repeatedly cautioned about fencing." Mr. Aston revoked the Probate, held the Aurangabad adoption disproved and committed Mr. Tilak under Sec. 476 (C. P. Code) to the City Magistrate " to be dealt with according to law." Seven charges were formulated against him. They were:—

(1) Mr. Tilak had made false complaint for breach of trust against Mr. Nagpurkar, one of the trustees.

(2) Mr. Tilak had fabricated false evidence for use by making alterations and interpolations in the accounts of the Aurangabad trip.

(3) Forgery in connection with (2). .

(4) Mr. Tilak had corruptly used or attempted to use as genuine evidence known to be false.

(5) Mr. Tilak had corruptly used as genuine the adoption deed.