On Wednesday His Honour gave judgement as follows:—summons in this cause was. issued on June 22, and returned by the Deputy shal six days later, with aw recital of—personal service "upon W. P. Hough. local nager of the defendant Com pany by showing him the original nding to him copies of both t and the petition." defendant filed a jurisdiction, alleging, New York corporation and that it not nom nor did it have at ans time mentioned in the plaintiff's petition here' within the jurisdiction of this court. an agent or attorney authorized to avcepl service of process: wherefor the said defendant prays that the sutimons herein may be quashed and that said petition may be di nissed.""
The practice i this jurisdiction requires the service of a summons in such a ease by delivering a copy. "to the president. or other chief officer, of a corporate defendant, or to its managing agent, secretary ov cashier. or. in none of such officers are found within the jurisdiction. then to a clerk or agent of said corporation."
Tf, then, the party to whom the summons was delivered was, as recited in the Marshal's return. defendant's "local wianager,." the service was properly. effected and the Court's jurisdiction over defendant's person thereby attached. The return may be contradicted, but "it requires the clearest and most satisfactory evidence to over-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.