BASEL MISSION FACTORY. v. S. K. SUAPIM.

In this consolidated interpleader action it is claimed that three days before his death Tetteh Kofi, the father of the two claimants, called his four sons and divided the property known as Dedawa lands in different shares between them-Aye Kobina now deceased being given the largest portionS. K. Suapim the judgment debtor the next portion, Otutu Kwaku the next portion and Ekre Kwasi the last portion.

I am only concerned in this interpleader with the latter two portionsAll through his dealing with thejudgment creditors, Suapim, whose evidence was of the most unsatisfactory character, both in matter and manner of delivery has represented the whole of this Dedawa property as his, and it is only after the seizure that he has brought his two brothers forward to claim these two portions, the 3rd claimant Aye Kobina has died since claim made, and his claim has been adjourned for his representative to bejoined-It is not necessary for me to go into the question whether the whole of the lands belong to Suapim or not, the judgment creditors are in possession, and I have only to decide whether or not the claimants have made out a valid title as against the judgment creditors-This turns on the question whether or not according to Native law there was a valid gift of these lands by Tetteh Kofi, if there was not the claimants fail, whether the land belong to Tetteh Kofi or to Suapim, and it is unnecessary to go into this question. I have read the case of Kointuah versus Nash through carefully and although it is not on exactly the same lines as the present case-It being a gift by a man to his wife, in other words a gift outside the family, and the present case a gift in the family to his 4 sons Still it appears to me that the same broad principle is applicable to both,

namely that for a gift to be valid the donee must have a witness-In the present case there is no evidence of the gift except that of the donees, and it is quite evident, if there ever had been any such gift, that they could have been got, as they allege they were able to bring him rum for thanks, and he was sufficiently well to tell them to drink it themselves.

In my opinion where one member of a family holds himself out to the public as the owner of real property, it is essential that the family should have some independent corroboration, if they wish to set up some private arrangement between themselves for the purpose of defeating his creditors.

I consider the claimants have not proved their case and