1. The defendant says that he did not authorize or instruct plaintiff to enter iota any contracts on his behalf for the purchase or cole, of shares oth than upon an agreement between plaigvit and defendant, contemplating and intending " transaction or rettlemrnt on differencer and that avy contract which plaintiff bad authority to make on defeodant's behalf 's a ccntiact or agree ment rendered noll and void by the Act of the eighth and ninth Victoria, Chapter one handred and nine.
2. And defendant says that plaiatift has not psid the som claimed by him as indemnity nor has plaintiff sustained any Joes or incurred any liability or performed at ice for defendant for mich be led to be indemnified by defendant.
3. And defendant farther says that if plaintiff has sustained any loss incurred apy liability for which he claims to be indemnified said kes or liability was incurred in respect of gaming or wagering contracts or agreoments rendered null and void by the Victoria, Chapter one hundred and nine.
Mr. Loftus Jones appeared for the plaintiff; defendant was represented by Mess and Fessenden, tone which was endorsed upon the wr It wi broker for in-in respect of certsio share transactions mentioned la the particulars. The case for the plaintiff was that be was actiog on befell of aod onder instractions of the defendant in connexion with the transactions mentioned and that be had cuffered the los claimed for. He now ed to be reimbursed by fondant, The defence was one which was almost
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.