WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume III, Issue 1663, 29 April 1874, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

I 1 (ierore%.'FfiAii'ii?B l q.;tV7ardeiigi : '

i After^gonte-argument'it''was- agreed that evidence should- be taken to rebut some previously adduced." '■" j Mr. Thomas aaid he had not spoken to Smith this' :mot»irijf.' never dhowectrhim tli« book .pwxiuced. Tito Queen' ot^auTy 'bobk« br tte manager. "■"■^''^ao-won \ ( vjv ; 34,1 .^.i ,«;r^l .Smlt'Wlt adm^ timber on thl ilam / bM^her?4lff^&mipl I Mr. Hesketh fpr the defendants iub^ pitted that the' action a'cisfe )f fraud ,or mutual, niisunderstandinjzvl lot hare brought it at once. He wrinW nibmit four views" of *the ease—in the irst case was any contract made at alhr .tie t^^&Mkiiemim^mmMio court could~make .a contract for contraotQg parties, after* eas34uM been brought before it, .and,, thought that ..Smith had not used due diligence in' finding out What the contents of the documents really were-thttt'he 'signed: Hfe furthdr itenaed thWjttretff IJtiicdotiald had^a 1 l/nWleiage'^t' Sm'itu" wasi^rkme'^ No.'X he (ATa^oniMl thei!>d^thWe' knocited tiirn o^ 1 Sras notHin* whatever to show that Macdonald hW knocked Smith off because of any increased value in 7 No 2 reef; it had Jhqen limvK&bmwMAottetiiJmi the* *as !no evidence~to show^that any one of the other shareholdori'kni^.lhat Smith was working on the same reef. As to Thomas's evidOTee relative to the conj tents of the contract,it never having been readitoffiim, tfee evidence proved diijiCtly (to the contrary; and from th*jfaotiof hiaa ihkviti^^igbeditledtarthe-'artumptiohof I bis having known its tenor. > 0 1 <v I The learned counsel'continued his adi dress at peat lem^Ui, and: was-followed ; by couiisel for eomplainints. '''■ ■ -