Bayley, J.@mdashWe are of opinion that this case is governed by the decision in Madhusudan Manji Vs. Debigobinda Newgi . We read that decision as laying down that every person not being a European subject, who has not attained the age of 18 years, is a minor. It is urged that the Full Bench Decision goes on to state that such a person is a minor "for the purposes of the Act of 1858," which means that the 18th year is the age of majority in regard to proprietors of land paying revenue to Government, who have been taken under the Court of Wards. It is further argued, that section 28, Regulation X of 1793, lays down a different period fixing the age of majority for all other persons; hut it appears that this section and the law generally were fully considered by the Judges of the Full Bench, and it was considered that 18 years was the age of majority, not only for persons paying revenue to Government and taken under the Court of Wards, but for all other persons not European subjects. We are of opinion that the opinion expressed in that judgment is the correct law; and in that view we think it right to follow it.
2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
