When shown one letter, Mr. Cooke raised an objection, saying that he considered it. privileged, as it was fa letter between an agent and his Mfr. Harris replied that letter and others jeame from Messrs. Loxley in Lon= don, who had secured them from their friends" to be used in connexion with these proceedings Mr. Cooke said that in the letter Ihe asked his principals to treat the matter with the utmost confidence, but it was not because the defendant at that time still was in Messrs, Loxley's employ. That was not in hig mind at all. He stated in the letter that apparently there had been friction between Messrs. Loxley and and their buyers: defendant told him that. Witness then was explain ing why he could not get the whole of the 600-bale order confirmed.
Defendant's cross-examination of the witness practically was confined with him fitty-fifty,"
Cooke denied with such heat that the Consul had to caution him to be more moderate. When the an tioning continued on the same witness replied that it was "a tale—or worse, it was all lies'
Eventually Mr. Hans interposed. He said that he had not an intimate knowledge of the procedure in Norwegian courts, but if he had heard such questions in a British Court he should have protested fenvlier and he would have been up-libeld. Tt was nothing but a vexatious examination.. The witness was perfectly neutral. He merely had given facts and he was submitted to a string of desperate questions Hegations which counsel did ye could he proved. They disgraceful questions and purely vexation The Consul said defendant's questions might have some bearing on the ease, but he suggested defendant. should be more moderate in his Defendant said that his questions were based on what he heard in London.
The case was adjourned in order to allow the defendant to secure the servites of counsel.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.