The following ruling was given: Savary, J.
On the 18th February, 1937, Doorly, J., made an Order in this matter appointing Mr. Tachie-Menson, Registrar of this Court, "Referee" in connection with the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the purpose of going thoroughly into the accounts of the whole transaction between the said plaintiffs and the said defendant.
When the Referee's Report came before the Court on the 9th July last, Mr. Williams, Counsel for the defendant, asked that he should be allowed to call additional evidence in order to attempt, in reality, to reverse the findings of fact of the Referee on certain points.
After some argument, Counsel agreed that it was only in respect of Item 8, £60, at page 9 of the Referee's Report, that the additional evidence would be called to prove that the £60 was borrowed from someone by the defendant, £40 being principal sum and £20 the charge for interest.
Counsel for defendant referred me to the case of Agbettor v. Mensah; F. C. (1926-29), page 119, in support of the proposition that (1) additional evidence can be called by the Court on the consideration of the Referee's Report, or (2) the Referee can be directed to hear additional evidence. I do not think that the Full Court intended to lay down a broad rule without any limitation that in all cases where a Referee's findings of fact are being considered additional evidence can be called. And it is noticeable that Hall, J., states that no objection to the procedure was taken in the Court below. Their decision must be read with reference to the facts before them. The nature of the additional evidence before the Judge is not stated, but the decision can be justified on the ground that certain entries in books before the Referee were misunderstood or not taken into consideration by him, and it was necessary to get the assistance of a chartered accountant.
On the other hand, Mr. Benjamin, for plaintiffs, referred me to Ackah v. Clinton & Co., 1 Renner's Reports, page 111, decided in 1874, where the Full Court refused to remit a case back to the Referee on the grounds that he had not refused to admit any evidence tendered, and that the plaintiff had not called upon the defendant to produce the books and documents which the Appellant asked should now be tendered in evidence before the Referee.
In the matter before me the Defendant stated on oath before the Referee that he did not propose to make any statement in support of his case, and he did not cal
