In January' Mr, Livin notified witness that the car had been Seized. Thereupon, after a. search, witness notified the' police, andy open information received from them, communicated with the China Finance Corporation. Their representative, talking on the telephone, took the' attitude that the car was fsken because some payment was Sub-Inspector Leonard Eaton, int charge at the Central Police Station on June 2, stated that about 8.40 that day, he received a {elephone call from the Ching Finance Corporation that car Nos 6101 had been seized. for none payment. Five minutes after this Me. Carroll telephoned and reports the car stolen and witness told Pisinti" what had been told him by, the China Finance Corporation.
Mr. Carroll further brought out that he sent a cheque on May 12y 1927, to the company, representing the inst payment due and he cone cluded at the time this was the only outstanding: payment.
Counsel for the plainti®' presents an exhibit. comprising an insure tance policy and dupliente receipt, Showing payment' of Tls. 60. premium from the Excess Insurance 0." This was dated February 1927, and Mr. Moss contended that his client had taken out the insure tance believing that the first inturtance on the ear included in' the original agreement expired at. the fame time as the promissory notes, whereas it was held by counsel fox the defence that the frst policy extended over a period of 12 months only and that. during the three months before final payment on the ent, as was customary in their frm the' China Finance Corporation had renewed the insurance on the ear, The sum of Te. 62 constituted th renewal and falivre by the I to'pay this had possession of the car under th Herms of the contract, it was alleged.
A Point of Insurance Asked whether he know anything about this Mr. Carroll said he had of known of oth Insurance being taken out for car and, further, that no claim been made on him. before Jura regarding additional payment. After his cheque had been Garage a until June, when it was repossessed by the defendants, During the time following this repossession, the car had been stored by the China Finance Corporation, Mr. F. W. Sutterle, Jr. vice-bree sident of the China Finance Corpora tion, asked how much money Mey Carroll owed his firm, stated the Jamount to be Tls. 62, and that upon [payment of this the car would be returned. The man who owned fear paid for the additional insure ance, although the premium was taken' out by the China Financ Corporation, who sent the receipt fo the owner and asked for" col lection, 'A. shroff attached to the China ance Corporation testified having taken the receipt to the offices of the plaintiff.
Mr. Grant Mark, formerly de-{fendants' manager, stated thi car in question had been on the lists for repossession from February 1 until June 2.
Mr. Wilfred F, Hamlin, formerly, fin the collection department of the Jdefendant firm, testified to con versations which he said he had with the plaintiff about keeping payments, these allegations being denied later in testimony by: the plaintiff.
'Mr. Schuhl said he was prepared to prove that the policy issued by the Excess Insurance Cow and alleged to have been made out on February 5, 1927, was not issued until July' 14, '1927, the policy, having been dated back. This oper fed up the question of whether th payment had been made in February and not turned in to the insurance office bya salesman until the later date, Mr. Francis Milner stated that he thought he could trace the cheque given in. payment, and the case was then adjourned until this morning, The court requested that any. records, application, cles focamected with the policy should be jirought forward at the adjourned rearing, to be. held yesterday (Frie
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.