Page 280 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

i36
debtor should cither return to Ispahan to settle the matter with Messrs. Muir
and Co.’s Agent, or his principal Haji Muhammad Mohsin should settle it
there.
481. Further communication with Her Majesty’s Minister elicited stricter
order from His Royal Highness the Zil-es*Sultan to the Sahib Dewan to have
the claim recovered. These orders were sent to the Shiraz Agent by the Resi­
dent, 27th November 1S82, and report of result called for.
482. The Shiraz Agent reported to Her Majesty’s Minister, 19th December,
that the Sahib Dewan had decided that Muhammad Reza VVaris should return
to Bushire and there settle his claim.
He also forwarded copy of a letter from the Sahib Dewan, dated 7th Janu­
ary 1883, saying that Muhammad Reza VVaris had no property, but that if
Messrs. Muir and Co. would forego 75 per cent, of their claim, something might
possibly be obtained from his relatives. At the same time this letter acknow­
ledged that Muhammad Reza VVaris received Tomans 1,750 from Haji Muham­
mad Mohsin, a sum more than sufficient to pay Messrs. Muir and Co.’s claim in
full. The Sahib Dewan further desired the Shiraz Agent to inform the Resident
confidentially that Muhammad Reza VVaris had no property, but that out of
regard for the Resident he would endeavour to obtain 4 or 500 tomans from his
relatives, if Messrs. Muir and Co. would grant a receipt in full for the whole
claim. On a reference being made to Messrs. Muir and Co., it appears that the
debtor had himself offered Tomans 700 in return for an acquaintance in full, and
that Messrs. Muir and Co.’s Shiraz Agent was of opinion he might agree to pay
Tomans 800.
2.—Messrs. David Sassoon versus late Haji Saiyid Muhammad Jenab.
483. On 12th June 1882 Messrs. David Sassoon and Co.’s Bushire Agents
wrote to the Resident that their principals had a claim against the late Saiyid
Muhammad Baker Janab for Rs. 6,600, being an advance on eight chests of
opium which were found to be unsaleable, and requested that this amount might
be recovered from the deceased’s effects in Shiraz (among which were the silver
bars, value Rs. 6,6oo, actually sent by David Sassoon and Co.), and they would
hand over the opium to any agents appointed for the purpose.
484. The Shiraz Agent was at once instructed to represent the matter to the
Shiraz authorities with a view of having the claim settled.
The Shiraz authorities replied, on 26th of June, that Haji Mirza Kerrim, in
whose charge Saiyid Jenab’s effects were, was ill, but that when he recovered a
reply would be given.
485. On 3rd July, Haji Mirza Kerrim replied that he had no authority in the
matter, and that the effects were sealed up in a godown.
The Shiraz Agent was again instructed, 21st July, to press the Shiraz
authorities for a settlement. As no reply was sent, these instructions were again
repeated on the 7th September and an early report requested. On the 18th
September the Shiraz Agent reported that the Sahib Dewan declined to issue
orders on the matter on the ground that the proper executor of the deceased was
in Ispahan and thus out of his jurisdiction. A copy of the correspondence on
the case was then sent to the British Agent in Ispahan, with a request to afford
his good offices in having the claim settled there by the authorities.
486. The Ispahan Agent replied, 23rd October, that he had written to the
Prince Governor asking him to take the necessary steps towards settling the
claim, and that His Royal Highness had replied that he had sent telegraphic
orders to Shiraz to settle the claim as it appeared that the money belonging to
the deceased was still there. Copy of this letter was sent to the Shiraz Agent
with directions to report result of this order.
487. The Shiraz Agent forwarded copy of a letter from the Sahib Dewan,
dated 7th January 1883, in which he states that the deceased’s property was in
Haji Mirza Kerrim’s hands in sequestration, under orders from His Royal
Highness the Zil-es-Sultan, and that orders for payment of Messrs. Sassoon
and Co.’s claim must be issued by the deceased’s heirs in Ispahan before the
claim can be settled. The claim was therefore pending receipt of such orders.