JUDGMENT
1. The first point raised in this and the connected Appeal No. 707 of 1914 is that the suit was barred by limitation. It appears that the plaint was presented within time, but the Court of first instance ordered it to be returned and then it was re-presented in accordance with the decision of the Court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court. In our opinion the re-presentation of the plaint was a continuance of the suit and, therefore, no question of limitation arises. Upon the merits of the case the findings of the Court below are conclusive against the appellant. The lower Appellate Court says in its judgment that the oral evidence does not satisfactorily prove that the money borrowed was really spent on the repairs, or that the repairs were quite necessary for the preservation of the math building". This is a finding of fact which must be accepted in second appeal. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, including fees on the higher scale.