The first occasion on which he hed gone to Mr. Ladow's home was the day there was a fire there, Hi and Mr, Barry and Mr. Peppercorn hal gone there together and Mr. Teppercorn also recognized the art ides.
Cross-examined by Mr. Schuhl, witness said that he did not know that Mr. Ladow had made a trade with the Carlton for the table, giving two large pictures in return. Most of the other articles he recognized because they were on the list of things which were missing in the Carlton. A stairway carpet he recognized as having seen at the Carlton.. Asked by Mr. Schuhl whether he did not bring the suit after the Carlton bad handed over cheque to Mr. Ladow for 25,000 for the latter's interest. the Carlton, witness said that the portage was not known until afterward, Mr. Schubl—Didn't you bring this suit because you and your brother had heard that Mr. Ladow was going to open another cafe?—No.
Mr. Schuhl—Didn't you hear that that he was to open © cafe in the Olympic amd Victoria Theatres?—Yes.
Mr. Schuhl—Can you yourself identity all of this furniture you ave told about?—No.
The Obliging Defendant Miss Leitao wag then called for the defence and said that she had. been to Mr. Ladow's house several times and could identify most of the furniture as being that which the defendant had in his. apartment when he was managing the old Canton. Defendant had many times allowed both the old and new Carlton to use his private Tinens g, and dishes at special dinners.
After this evidence Mr. C. A. Pereira was called to give evidence of having checked the articles at the new. Carlton' after the new management had taken possession the plaintiff then rested his case, with' the exception of the evidence of Mr. Peppercorn.
Mr. Ladow was the next witness called and asked by his counsel to Jexplain every article, which he was ble, that the plaintiff? alleged he had taken. He said that his apartment in the old Carlton was furnished by himself. Further, he had been aid a cheque on April 27, 1925 for Tis, 24,500 by the Carlton and that at that ime no mention had been made of any of the property being missed whereas the plaintiff alleged that it had been missing since April 17, 1925. When he handed over charge of the Carlton he had. told them that he would spend four or five days checking over the furnishings but this they had rejected.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.