According to the plaintiff, in 1979 ho executed n settlement of sume Ts, 12,000 in favour of his children, appointing certain trustees, In the year 1890, when Mr, J. Blias was the trustee, the plaintiff required the use of acme money, and he arranged to borrow out of the trust funds Tls, 4,300, giving a promissory note to Me. J. Kling. He paid off the loan and received buck from Mr. J. R. Elias the promissory note, which, instead of destroying or cancelling, he put in his safe. In this safe the aocunients relating to the trust were kept, and Mr. J, R. Cline had access to it, The plaintiff alleged that Mr. J. R. Elms took advantage of this to abstract the promissory note. Subsequently he passed it un to his brother (Mr. It. H. Elias) who sent it for collection to a bank here. Since then injunction had been obtained from the British Court restraining the bank from parting with the document.
The defendants in reply strongly denied the accusations made by the plaintiff, Mr.
R. Elias contended that the loan of 4,300 had never been repaid by the plaintiff, and he passed the note to his brother as security for a loan, The defendants also asserted that for suine time there had been many financial transactions between them and the plaintiff, and that the payments which plaintiff stated he had made had nothing to the trust. funds. They asked that iff should be ordered to- give security for the is, 4,300 and Tle. 5,000, damages claimed.
The Court eventually decided that as the defendants carried on business here on their own behalf, under the law they were not required to give security, but as to the plaintiff they would take time to consider, and adjourn the case till Saturday, when a number of other documents in the hands of the defendants' lawyer would have to be produced,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.