Fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; unsupported allegations of collusion failed against the claimant's damages decree.

Fraud and collusion pleaded by the defendant were not established, because the evidence on the tobacco consignment, the movement of goods, and the relationship between the claimant and his father did not show any prior meeting of minds, deliberate alteration of marks, or other concerted fraud. The governing principle applied was that fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rest on suspicion, however strong. The plea therefore failed, and the decree in favour of the claimant was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plea of fraud and collusion set up by the defendant was established so as to defeat the plaintiff's claim for damages.

Analysis: The alleged manipulation of the tobacco consignment, the circumstances surrounding the movement of the goods, and the relationship between the plaintiff and his father were examined. The evidence relied upon was found insufficient to establish any prior meeting of minds, deliberate alteration of marks, or other concerted fraud. The governing rule applied was that fraud, like a criminal charge, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rest merely on suspicion, however strong the suspicion may appear.

Conclusion: The plea of fraud and collusion failed and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was upheld.

---