Evidence in-Debt Claim Important in Another Action In HM, Supreme Court, on Thurs. day, L. E, Haynes was sued by Messrs, M. J, Master & Ca, on dim for coal supplied. Defendant asked for an adjournment, stating that it would be necessary for him to inter-togate the plaintiff, who would be a witness for the defence and against him (Haynes) in an action which would come up for hearing next month, Interrogation at present would be prejudicial to the second action.
The Judge:—I do not see why it should be, Perhaps you would cross. examine him so severely to-day that he would be of no use in the other case, Defendant:—I don't know. The other defendants might make capital out of it. They will-have a very able shorthand writer present and I think a verbatim report will be take Plaintiff said that he did not Know anything about the other case. He had not been served with a summons and he did not know to what defendant referred." Payment of the account had been deferred for a long time, in spite of repeated promises to pay.
Defendgnt said that he did not deny he owed some of the money claimed but he did not admit the whole of it.
The Judye:—Your best applica tion would be that the result of th other ease might put you in a better position to pay. It seems to me rather a foolish suggestion thi because the plaintiffs are witnesses in the other ease it will prejudice you to go on now, Defendunt:—Rather than examine hin to-day, I will accept liability' for the whole debt.
The Judge to embark as your are appearing in person, but I don't know that C should adjourn it in the case of an application by Counsel. T will adjourn it until June 10.
Plaintif? protested that he thought the case should go on. It was a claim for coal supplied and he had defendant's chits to prove it, He did not know anything about the other ease.
Defendant:—Because I was said to owe him $40 odd, he refused to pay the "Shanghai Mercury" $109.
The heaving was adjourned,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.