Mr. Wright, for the defence, contended that the contract was Voldable because there had been misrepresentation by plaintiff. He deliberately withald the inthrman that he had been employed by Dr, Lord when particulars of his experience were asked for.
Mr. E, H. MeMichael gave evidcence as to his interviews with pi tiff, who told him he was out of a fob in consequence of Messrs, Zylstra having closed down their piece goods department, He said nothing whatever about his employ ment by Mr, Lord. Later, witness heard some nasty rumours about plaintiff and, desiring further information as to his past, sent for vim again and again he said nothing. about Me. Lord. Following this, witness saw Mr, Lord, whose report on plaintiff "was unfavourable, to such an extent that. witness felt he could not give Honour, in giving judgment, said it wax clear that there had been the offer and acceptance of a contract, and equally clear that plaintiff' had been employed by' Mr. Lord. This concealment, or omission, was material,—because Mr. MeMichacl had said that] had he known he would applied to Mr. Lord for character, and Mr. Lord had ould' not have given plain Uff a good recommendation. There having been this misrepresentation, the contract was voidable and therefore there could be no breach of Judgment must be for defend-fants, with costs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.