[ 100 ]
lasted for seven days, was admired as a masterpiece of forensic eloquence, erudition and ability; indeed, on no other occasion could he find such an opportunity of displaying so much knowledge of law, history and political economy. He won the case, and from that time his fame reached its zenith.
Two years later, viz. in 1867, he was raised to the Bench at the very early age of 34. He was much respected by the Chief Justice, Sir Barnes Peacock and the other judges, and even by their Lordships of the Privy Council. He was especially learned in Hindu and Mahomedan law, and his judgments are remarkable for their lucid exposition of the law, good sense and cogency of reasoning. In one important case (Girdhari Lai Ray vs. the Government of Bengal) he anticipated the decision of the Privy Council on many intricate points of law and actually wrote a judgment to that effect. His able exposition of the principle of religious benefit which governs the law of intestate succession among the Hindus according to the Dayabhaga, still carries the weight of an Act of the Legislature. The High Court and the Privy Council have on a few occasions refused, though reluctantly, to follow his decisions on Hindu Law; yet they are still supposed by the majority of his countrymen to contain the true view of the law.
In religion, Dwarkanath was a Comtist and in later life he attempted a union between Comtism and Hinduism. He was however claimed, after his death, as a Positivist by the followers of that system in England.
In common with most of his countrymen he had strong family affections. He always left the whole of his large income to be spent by his mother in any way she liked.
The High Court and the Government of India deeply mourned his death, which melancholy event took place in his forty-first year, on the 25th January, 1874.
