Conve v. G. Roagens. was an adjourned case, in which the if sued to recover $18, or the return of ture, a pair of blankets, a round tal anil two flower stands, These articles with a number of others, were ast been taken to defendant's hot and. it was anid that he had failed to produce them when required, The defence was that the blankets had been liven back to the plaintiff, that the table had id by Mrs. Currie to Mrs, Roggers for $4 ture and flower were and depaaed—My husband had a large picture of 4 gran of dogs. to Mrs. Rogers myself. She took it in the would take care of it for me, I the first day of last May rs knew tithing of it, Th chaps get wet if they remai lore wore two other pictures, in Ningpo frames, also taken His Hoxour said he could only the pictivve included in the article in the summons. What did the witness value that picture valued it at $5. it had been i-mow, who bought. a' lot of Core furniture, for $3, but lie did 'Witness repented that it was handed over to Mra, Roggers' keeping. As to the flower-stands, there were three of them, and. she had got back one, but' the other two Were not lant emphatically denied that either the picture or flower-stands were taken into his house-she never had, but the boy 8 to take the picture and other things, and give the into Mra Roger care. She (witness) believed the picture had been seen there, His Hoxour—I suppose the picture is not there now.
Defendant—No, nor never was. Ak-mow told me ho had purchased it for, $2, but never
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.