Monday before his Honour Judge Lobingier, the case of Rodger Haskell v. A. T. Steele came up once more on the application of the Clerk of the Court for instructions. The history of the case as given by Mr. C. S, Franklin was that judgment in this case was given for plaintiff for G. $1,300 and costs and the Clerk was directed to pay that amount from the deposit of G.$1,750 in the hands of the Court and to pay the balance to defendant. On this Mr. Steele filed notice of appeal, which, however, was never perfected. the firm of Williams, Franklin &. Faison meanwhile brought suit against) A, T. Steele and attached thd balance in the hands of the Court. Judgment was given for plaintiff! in this case for Lis. 250 and costs, against which decision the defendant attempted unsuccessfully ta appeal. The point at issue was thd division of the amount in the hands of the Court between the two law firms, the sum being insutlicient to settle both claims with interest. Mr. Franklin maintained that his claim should be met from the balance in the hands of the Clerk after the first decision of G.$1,500 and costs had been met. Mr, H.
Rodger held that his firm should be granted interest on the amount of the decision to date. The case was adjourned.
In_the case of Harold Russell v. the L. C. Publishing Ca., a suit brought by Mr. Russell, former Vice-President and General Manager of the Ladies' Companion Publishing Ca., against that firm, alleging arrears of salary amounting to Tls. 3,962. Mr. J. 'W. Shoenfeld asked, on behalf of defendant, that the case be set for an early date and stated that the bill of particulars of the counterclainy plaintiff, had been prepared and filed by defendants, asked for by the
could be given at once. Mr. Sidney: Moss, appearing for the plaintiff, asked for sufficient time to file a yeply to the counterclaim. The case was set for June 8, at 9.30 a.m.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.