23

H.—l3

is simply a matter of pleading, to put the other side on the proof ?—Yes, that is so. Of course we could not plead the general denial; we had to deny specifically. All statements not denied are taken to be admitted.

Friday, 26th May, 1893. James Crosby Martin further examined. 109. Mr. Besivich.] Previous to order being made ("Exhibit 8"), do you recollect whether Mr. Ell wanted to go into the accounts from the beginning ?—My recollection of the matter is that Mr. Ell complained that he could get no accounts from the Harpers ; that he had never been able to get a statement of accounts at all. That was, I think, one of his causes of complaint. Then the defendants said that at a certain date they had agreed to take a certain sum—l think about £170— from Ell in satisfaction of what was then owing them. Ell denied this, and subsequently the Harpers found some missing document or books, and were prepared to go right back and open up all their transactions with Ell. Then Ell, or Mr. Austin for Mr. Ell, changed front, as it were, and wished to say that there had been a settlement of accounts between the parties, and that this particular sum of about £170 was the balance found then to be owing. Then Mr. Austin applied for this order, apparently on a summons, dated 17th October ("Exhibit 7"). The summons is to show cause why in the taking of the accounts he should not be bound by a statement of accounts made in June, 1873, whereby it was agreed that £150 should be paid by the plaintiff in settlement of all stock accounts to that date. The order, on the other hand, is that if the Eegistrar and Accountant are satisfied that there was a separate account, or what was so intended, between the plaintiff on the one part, and the defendant, Leonard Harper, and the late Philip Hanmer, deceased, or either of them, on the other part, concerning all transactions between 1870 and 1873, such settled accounts are not to be disturbed. That is the gist of it. 110. Do you recollect admitting a copy of an exhibit, said to be in the Court of Appeal?— The original exhibit was missing, and Mr. Ell (it may have been his solicitor) had a copy of this missing document, which had been in evidence before, and I admitted that as evidence without the original. That was to facilitate the proceedings. There was no doubt this was a true copy, and it was no use delaying the proceedings, as this was a true copy. 111. Mr. Lush.] You spoke of an offer said to have been made for settlement in the early stage of these cases ? —No such offer was actually made. Mr. Leonard Harper refused to allow me to make any such settlement. 112. I believe Mr. Holmes told you, if the offer were made he would see his client, and see if he would agree to accept it ?—I know the offer was not made to Mr. Ell. 113. It is quite possible Mr. Ell never heard anything about this offer of £100 ?—Yes, it is quite possible. 114. There is nothing to show Mr. Ell valued his claims against Mr. Harper for £100?— No. 115. You were speaking of accounts put in at the conclusion of taking of accounts on the Ist December: who was present at the taking of accounts on your behalf? Were you present yourself ?—I would not be certain whether I was present at every meeting. If I was not present, Mr. Dinwiddie, my common-law clerk at that time, would probably be present. 116. Was Mr. Parkerson at the taking of the accounts? —He was constantly present, for he was the person from whom I took my original instructions. 117. On the Ist of December, when the evidence was concluded, did you have a copy of the Eegistrar's notes ?—I got a copy of the Eegistrar's notes, but I cannot be sure as to the date ; I may have used my own notes that I made at the time. Mr. Dinwiddie may have prepared the accounts from my notes. 118. Do you consider that the accounts were made out in accordance with the evidence ?—Yes. 119. The accounts you put in on sth December, were they very much the same as the accounts put in prior to the taking of the accounts ?—I suppose they would be. 120. Can you tell me whether, on the Ist December, 1884, you considered that the question of there being a settled account in 1873 was decided ?—I really could not tell you. 121. Do you remember whether the Eegistrar and Accountant said that there was a settlement of accounts between plaintiff and defendant in June, 1873, but that such account was an incorrect one ? Do you consider that there was a settled account ?—My recollection of the matter was that the Eegistrar and Accountant considered that there was a settlement of account, but it was not a settlement of account within the terms of the order ("Exhibit 8"). It did not cover all transactions between certain dates, and I think there was some other ground, but I do not remember what it was. 122. Do you remember asking for the ruling in the certificate as to whether or not the defendant was induced in that settlement to accept as a balance 'due to him a less sum than was really due ?—I remember making that application perfectly well, because the Harpers had maintained that this settlement in June, 1873, was not a settlement at all, but that they believed that Mr. Ell was in a position to pay no more than the sum arrived at then, and they were willing to take that sum because they thought they could not get any more. That was Harper's version. That was why I made that application that Mr. Lusk read from the Eegistrar's notes. 123. By that application of yours you considered there was a settled account ? —There was the Eegistrar's ruling, so I had to do the best I could. 124. In your account furnished on the sth December, 1884, you take no notice of that settlement ? —I do not think I should have done so ; I have no recollection of the matter. 125. Can you remember whether the Eegistrar or Accountant took any notice of settled account with regard to stock transactions or any other ? —No, I do not think they did. 126. Do you remember this account being reopened again in February, 1885 ? —I have no recollection at the present time.