Counsel added that defendant had repudiated the contract within two. days and suid that defendant asserted that a loss of Tls. 600 only was! due, if any. He then quoted other authorities to prove that plainti could accept a repudiation if he wished—he was not bound to do so.
Plaintit, replying to Mr, Wing's suggestion that he was a financial Journalist (editor of "Capital and Trade"), agreed that he might be called this. He denied that he was 'a member of the stock associations, and that he ever bad told defendant that he was, Witness then introduced a stock book to show that names of the associations are printed on contract forms, and deposed that} there was nothing on his forms to show that he posed as a member. defendant briefly addressed the Court, after which his Lordship vemarked that he could not believe the chauffeur when he said thut he was only travelling at per hour. He thought, however, that there was contributory negligence—both sides were to blame.
The plaintiff company: had failed to Prove it's case and there must be judgment for the defendant, Mr, MeDonald:—With costs, my Lord?
His Lordship:—No. 1 shall make no order as to costs. I have already said that I think both wore to blame,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.