An action was commenced in HM, Supreme Court on July 20 for halt the cost of the flotation of a new amusement contre in Rue Ratard, Mr, JO. Thompson appearing as plaintiff in the action and Mr, A, Davis appearing a the defendant. The action was fled by permission as counterclaim to a previous case in Which Mr, Davis secured judgment against Mr. Thompson on a promissory note for money lent, 'The amount claimed was. $1,035.16, but permission was later given to amend the claim, a further sum of $4,200 being added, representing half a year's rent on land leased in Rue Ratard, preparatory to the flotation of the' company. Mr, John MeNelll appeared for the defendant, and plaintiff conducted his own case, In evidence, Mr, Thompson stated that the International Stadium, Ltd., was Incorporated on February 23, 1935, Mr. Davis, Mr. H, H. Koo and himself were promoters, and were to receive promotion fees of $15,000, half in cash and half in shares. Mr. Koo was to receive $3,000 in, shares, while he and Mr, Davis were to share the balance and meet, between them, the expenses of the flotation. Owing to the depression, the flotation was unsuccessful, public subscriptions being insufficient to permit them to proceed to allotment, 'Witness then drew up a statement of the expenses incurred, legal, advertising and printing, ind. sent a copy to Mr, Davis showing that the amount due' from him was' $1,095.1 No reply was forthcoming, but. wit ness was. served with a writ in January of this year claiming for money tent to him by Mr, Davis on promissory note, Judge Mossop gave plaintitt judgment, but permitted dofendant io file a counter-claim, "Madison Square Garden"
The further amount of $4,200 refer= red to a payment of $8,400 made on the transfer of the lease of certain Jand in Rue Ratard from an Amerl~ can, Mr, J, H, Scott, who had planned to open the "Madison Square Garden of the Far East" on the site, but who Mr. Newman applied for judgment on the writ on the ground that defendant had failed to Mle a defence within sufficient time. In a letter received from defending counsel, Mr, Newman slated he had been informed that a defence could not bbe provided as the defendant was in hospital. At home, continued Mr. Newman, he would be entitled to interlocutory judgment, as defendant's action amounted to a form of contempt. Defending counsel did not go to the hospital to sce his client until some after the writ had been filed. There was no" reason why counsel for. the defence should not take his instructions from the hospital.
After Mr. Newman had quoted the Jaw on the point, the Judge said that what plaintiff's present claim amounted to was that he was entitled to final judgment subject to the assessment of damages. On the facts, however, it was a bad case. Mr. Newman stated that he. was not asking for judgment. He could not obtain it before October, and then the whole object of the action would be stultified, He asked fora defence to be made out within seven days. Counsel for the defence, he said, should have taken out a consent summons, Mr, Recks said that counsel for the plaintiffs had agreed that he would not press this action at all. He had, however, asked for judgment in_spite of this agreement, The Judge: That is not so.
Defendant, continued Mr. Reeks, had the normal time in which to fle a defence, but there was no default until the expiration of that time. There was an agreement between counse} as to the extension of the time in which the defence was to be filed. He had himself been very busy, and then his client went into hospital. He claimed that Mr, Newman, by means of a letter, conveyed the fact that an extension of time was to be allowed, of which a few days were still left, The Judge said that it was coun-duty to go to the hospital and his client rather than that the rules of the court should be broken. Mr. Reeks submitted that it was a Gistinct hardship for the defendant to have to give instructions while still in-hospital,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.