JUDGMENT 1. It is quite clear in this case that the agent was tired of waiting for his principal to send a successor, and that he eventually threw up the agency at Rangoon and came back to Madras in March 1909. This was a termination of this Agency and was a starting point for limitation. The fact that he went back to give evidence and again acted for a time until the principal sent a successor can not prevent the running as regards the first agency. It is not pleaded that there was any acknowledgment of liability to account after the termination of the first agency, and it is not shown that any of the documents exhibited amounts to such an acknowledgment of liability to account for the first agency. 2. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs.