In the second cause of action, counsel submitted that loans had been made by the Murray Packing Ca, to Mr, Himrod, amounting to Tis, 2875 and interest, though defence contended that this was to be set off against the monthly guar-ante of Fla, 1,200 per month, 'The third cause involved allega: tions of misrepresentations of a sum of Tls, 600, which defendant proposed to settle with the Iand-Tord—rent—erediting the company with four months' vent and assuming the liability himself.
His Honour was not clear as to details and requested Mr. Fleming introduce his theory of the law covering the action and counsel replied that his contention amounted to un auditing, because he could not admit the monthly guarantee.
Mr, Schuhl. for defendant, stated Mr, Himrod had been engaged sales manager with the monthly guarantee and the privilege of the 424 per cent, Mr. Murray knew, ace cording to counsel, the details of all transactions und requested him to handle the funds as he did, With reference to the Th 600, Mr. Murray accompanied defendant to. the office of the landlord and sunctioned the transaction ax mentioned.
Ar, William Martin stated, in pivinge evidence, that he had handled small consignment with Mr. Him Fod as joint agent, paying Ts. 2,600 to Mr, Himrod, there being ho profit to either himself or Mr.
Mr. George Brush, manager of Messrs, Fearon, Daniel & Con gave evidence of handling 46.000 Ib. of cee products and, though he made fut the first cheque to the company nan order cheque, altered it. to bearer" on Mr. Himrod's request—for only a part of the whole. He had gent some orders to plaintiff und others to defendant, consid ing that they enjoyed each other" confidence.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.