Mr. Spiegter, "at the resumed hearing on Oct. 28, said under cross-0x-amination regarding the comparative plant report, that, to the best of his knowledge, all materials owned by the company were included In the "new value" column of the report.
Mr. MeNelll said he wished ty bring four points of law forward for the consideration of the Court on the question of the proper interpretation of the contract. The first was thal. the burden of proof was en the person who set up another Interpretation; in the present case, na attempt had been made by the plaintiffs to prove that the instrument should be construed the way they said It should be. The second was the well-known one that the terms of g contract always would be construed against the" grantors; in the event of a doubt, the benefit should
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.