The defendant is free to go.

Tom is the defendant.

Can you stand a surety for him?

So will you accept the responsibility of guarding him?

Wilt thou be a guardian over them?

Would you then be a Wakil (a disposer of his affairs or a watcher) over him?

Would you be an agent for him?

Can you take the responsibility of guiding such a one aright?

Wouldst thou then be guardian over him?

The defendant supplied three medical reports.

There was not any supporting documentary evidence from the defendant.

...Eva Hermann, Defendant, Emil Hermann.

You are not their overseer.

You are not accountable on their behalf.

And thou art not a warder over them.

The respondent, Satnam Vaid, was the driver of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Donald Inc. (the respondent) in order to obtain reimbursement of part of the ticket price.

The claimant and the respondent were parties to a joint venture agreement.

The defendant bought a commercial building which was under lease to an association.

The defendant commenced proceedings against the parent company of the first plaintiff under the guarantee.

The defendant had added the first plaintiff in the action under the guarantee.

The respondent was scheduled to appear in court on 28 February 1991.

II can't remember who's plaintiff or who's defendant.

In civil matters both the plaintiff and the defendant are at liberty to call witnesses.

The first defendant raised various procedural submissions as to why the leave granted should be set aside.

The defendant argued that, for procedural reasons, the award should not be enforced.

The third defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 20 years in jail.

Plaintiff and defendant then have the liberty to make other marriages, if they so desire.

Thus, the defendant ended up receiving more than it was entitled to.

The defendant applied to the court to have the award set aside.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings based on article 8(1) of the Model Law.

The respondent (hereinafter the appellant ) appealed against an order of the Trial Division declaring a foreign arbitral award enforceable.

However, it appears that an indigent defendant cannot choose his own counsel at public expense.

The defendant submitted that the court must hear oral evidence in order to determine the existence of the oral agreement.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration in accordance with article 8(1) of the Model Law.

So, he who comes to guidance does so for himself, and he who goes astray does so for his own loss on you does not lie their guardianship.

Whosoever is guided, is only guided to his own gain, and whosoever goes astray, it is only to his own loss thou art not a guardian over them.

Then whosoever receiveth guidance, it is for his soul and whosoever strayeth, strayeth only to its hurt and thou art not over them a trustee.

And you (O Muhammad SAW) are not a Wakil (trustee or disposer of affairs, or keeper) over them.

Such an order was granted but subsequently, following a motion of the respondent, set aside.

Claimants for criminal indemnification, persons civilly liable and their representatives have the right to appeal against a judgement in proceedings relating to an action for criminal indemnity.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration, based on article 8(1) of the Model Law.

In the present case the defendant State, Canada, has done its level best to respect its obligations under the Covenant

2.3 The author and his co defendant were arrested in connection with other offences.

Hast thou observed him who hath taken as his god his own desire! wilt thou be over him a trustee?