JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. and Stevens, J. - This case has occupied sometime, but I do not think there is much in it. The first question is whether the bond referred to, which purports to be a mortgage-bond, was duly attested under the provisions of sec. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires that it should be attested by two witnesses. The Munsif on this point says: "I think the requirement of sec. 59 has been fulfilled" which means, if it means anything, that the bond had been duly attested. On the face of the deed, it purports to have been attested by two witnesses. 2. Then we Home to the lower Appellate Court. That Court says: "I do not think the bond can be interpreted otherwise than as a mortgage-bond" which means, as attention of the Court was called to sec. 59, that the bond was attested by two witnesses. Both Courts then have found that there was a mortgage-bond within the meaning of sec. 59, that is to say, that the document was attested by two witnesses, and it was clearly proved under sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. 3. As to the second point, viz., that the interest ought to have ceased from the date of the tender, the statements of both Courts are rather fragmentary upon the point. Both Courts found that a tender had been made, but they do not say whether it was a proper tender or whether it had been made to the proper person or whether after the tender was made the mortgagor kept the mortgage-money unemployed. 4. Under the English law, if it be shown that after the tender, the mortgagor has been making a profit out of the mortgage-money, interest does not cease to run. The mortgagor should have paid the money into Court under sec. 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, and then he would have got the benefit of sec. 84. 5. Under these circumstances the mortgagor has not made out a case which entitled him to be relieved from the payment of interest after the so-called tender of the mortgage-money. The appeal is dismissed with costs.