DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1920, 20 April 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, April 20. [Before His'Honor Judge Ward.] The sittings of the Distric: Court opened at 11 a.m. FRIEDLANDER BROS. V. ROBERTS._ This'was an action brought by the plaintiffs to recover the sura of .£To 4s Id from the defendant, for that he had taken possession of the land and crop of one Quigley, over which the plaintiffs had as alleged a lien under the Agricultural Produce Lien Act. Mr Joynt appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr A. Loughrcy appeared for the defendant. The grounds of defence were that no advance had been made by the plaintiffs to the defendant, under the provision of the Agricultural Produce Lien Act, that the defendant had expended in harvesting the crops, and had dne to him as rent from Quigley a sum”exeeeding the amount realised from the sale of the grain of J-31 Is Gd. The defendant also advised that Quigley, having become bankrupt, Mr Thos Crown Craig was appointed as trustee, who not having elected to take over the agreement respecting the land within the period mentioned in the Act, the defendant had taken possession under the same. The parties now came before the Court to ascertain their position. After some evidence had been taken, and the execution of the lien having been admitted, Mr Joynt submitted that when Mr Roberts took the land he took it with the encumbrances thereupon, viz,, the lien bell by the plaintiffs. Hence ho could not taka up the position he now did of an unsecured creditor or trustee in bankruptcy. Mr Longhrey contended that the lien was not in accordance with the Statute. It was merely an agreement between the parties, therefore Priedlander bad no right cf entry. His Honor thought that the agreement was a good one as between the parties. Evidence was then called for the plaintiff. A material witness for the plaintiff not having arrived, learned counsel oa both sides argue"! a point of law, as Air Joynt put it, 1 * By way of interlude.” This being concluded, and the witness having arrived, the case for the plaintiff was proceeded with. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case, Mr Loughrcy cross-examined the plaintiff Priedlander as to his having given a cheque to Quigley for the amount of the lien with one hand and taken it back with the other. The plaintiff would not swear that this hid not taken place, and also failed to produce the Lank hooks and other hooks of account. [Left sitting.]