His Lorpsurp observed that he did not understand paragraph 4 of the answer very clearly.
Mr. Waisewricut—We say that the present state of the dock is not the result of want of ordinary repairs, We afitm that it is in ordinary gonad repair and if it ie not Lsay itis caused by something not under our control and not b any neglect or act of my client's. I ly wot press for a rectification of the deed.
Mr. Wiuxssox applied that paragraph 4 be struck out if it was not to form part of his friend's east Mr. Warsewntexr said what he had intimated was that he would not press his claim for a rectification of the deed. It was well understood between himself and Mr. Dowdall.
In reply to his Lorpsurr, Mr, WarxewxiGHr intimated that he was willing to abandon the port of his claim under discussion.
Mr. Winxtxsox—Of course Mr. Warntwricut aban ions the claim not through any friendliness to us, but because he cannot sustain it.
Mr. Warxewnicur—That is an ex parte statement which I am not prepared to admit.
Mr. Watkrssox—This is a claim in which the burden of proof rests with my learned friend. It is for him to bring evidence to sustain it and for us to rebut it.
His Lorpsiir—Is that with reference to the whole case or to the 4th paragraph 3 Mr. Witxixsoy—With reference to the 4th paragraph. Your Lordship will observe that. there is also a claim for remission of rently the defendant. I will take the opportunity now to say that in this petition there no claim for rent, and that therefore this is no answer to the petition, and as my friend has not, filed a cross petition I submit that claim for rent does not arise in this petition at all, and ought not to be youe His Lorpsiir—Your contention is that T cannot make any order in that matter?
Mr. Waxewnicnt—We do not ask for any order.
Mr. Wrixrssor—My learned friend has put in an alternative that if the dock is not in ordinary good repair it is from some cause over which they had no control. It could not be in ordinary good repair to require all the repairs that have been, and that are being done to it. Now the real point to yo to the Court is whether the dock at the time this suit was instituted, or ata Inter date, to which I will refer, was in ordinary good repair The defendant cuvenanted to keep the dock ordinary yood repair, the bursting of the dock from any unforeseen cause or natural convulsion alone excepted.
His Loxpsiar said it would be as well to read the lease.
Mr. Waukixsox having read the lease said his contention was that Messrs. Farnham Cv. had not spent the sum of taels 20,000 on repairs tu the duck, within the time specified in the lease, This however was uvt the most important part of the claim, though it was a considerable portion, A certain account had been rendered to his clients by Messrs. Farnhara & Ca. to show that the sum of taels 20,111 had been spent on the dock.
Mr. WarxericuT—No such account hag been rendered by us.
ST
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.