JUDGMENT Tudball, J. - This is an application for transfer. The case is on all fours with Miscellaneous Case No. 141 of 1909 1 . The latter case, if anything, is much stronger than the present case. As in that case, so in the present, two parties have been put upon their trial for offences of rioting. The Magistrate has on the trial of one of the parties expressed a certain opinion on the evidence that was before him and has committed one member of the party to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial of the opposite party is now before him. The basis of the present application is that the Magistrate has already expressed an opinion that the present applicants were the aggressors. 2. The matter is similar to the case of Asimaddi and others Vs. Govinda Baidya . Sufficient reason, therefore, for granting this application has not been shown. The Magistrate will keep in mind the fact that he must act simply and solely on the evidence which is laid before him in the course of this trial. The application is rejected. 3. The order in this case was as follows:-- Richards, J. 4. This is an application for transfer. The ground for transfer is that the learned Magistrate has already heard a cross case against the other party to an alleged riot. It is said that the learned Magistrate has already discharged the other party holding that the present applicants or their party were the aggressors and that the other party merely acted in self-defence. If this application were granted, it would amount to a decision that in no case should any Magistrate decide a case of riot to which there are two parties. I see no sufficient reason for granting this application for transfer. At the same time the Magistrate will bear in mind when hearing the case against the applicants that the case is to be decided on evidence produced in court before him and not upon anything he may have heard outside court or on any opinion he may have formed in the course of the other case. I reject the application.