The absence of a comma which resulted Shangh: E. P. Malone to be considered mis leading saved $4.50 Court costs for the defendant in the action of the SMC. against Mrs. Malone in the fi. ""M." Supreme "Court Nov. 3. Judge P. Grant Jones greed that the defendant had good ground to have the confusion clear fed up. Judgment of Ts. 74.80 was awarded the plaintiff, but without Inspector J. H. Inwood of the SM.C, Revenue Office, representing laintift, explained to the Judge that the amount claimed represented two quarters of rates due on her at 105 Boone Road—De-jer last year and Merch Jquarter this year.
Mrs. Malone hereupon submitted letter in which, she pointed out to the Judge, the amount claimed the Couneit for the 105" Boone Road property and that at Vu Vu Road was only Tls. 65, After a Perusal of the letter, the Judge agreed that there was some error on the part of the Revenue Department., "Inspr. Inwood further explained that the rates of the Vu Yuen Road property, amounting in, all to Tis, 65, were not involved in this case, and that the claim war jonly: on the dues of the Boone Road property. In the letter, the Vu
alone.
Yuen Road rates were referred to 'Upon " second examination of the letter, the Judge agreed that the)hraseology of the letter proved to easily' misleading, and pointed oat tin the phrase: Road amounting in
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.