IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) Y K^ ^>^' 1.0 1.1 |J0 "^^ ■■■ S Ki IS ^ tiS. 12.0 I^IN^ Hiotograpliic Sciences Corporation '^3 'A'IST MAIN STRUT Atre uniques du point do vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dana la mAthode normale de filmage aont indiqute ci-dassous. D D D B D D D D D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pagas endommagAes Pagas restored and/or laminated/ Pages reetaurAas at/ou paiiiculAea Pagas discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dAcoiories, tachatAes ou piqutes Pagas detached/ Pages d*tach4es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualit* InAgaia de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprand du material supplimantaira Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissuaa, etc., heve been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure. etc., ont itA filmAes i nouveau de fa9on A obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 1 t 1 f ( k « s f s T s T V h c! e b ri ri rr 10X 14X 18X 22X 2SX aox c V 12X ISX aOX MX 28X 32X Th« copy ffilm«d hmn has bMn r«produc«d thanks to tha ganarosity of: Library Oiviiion Provincial Archives of British Columbia Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibiiity of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacifications. Original capias in printad papar covars ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impras- sion. or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar original copias ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illustratad impras- sion. and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad imprassion. Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol -^> (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol y (moaning "END"), whichavar applias. Maps, piatas. charts, ate, may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratios. Thosa too larga to ba antiraly includad in ona axposura ara filmad baginning In tha uppar laft hand cornar. laft to right and top to bottom, as many framas as raquirad. Tha following diagrams illustrata the mathod: L'axamplaira film* f ut raproduit grica i la gAnArositA da: Library Diviiion Provincial Archives of British Columbia Las imagas suivantas ont At* raproduitas avac la plus grand soin. compta tanu da la condition ot da la nattat* da I'axamplsira film*, at mn conformit* avac las conditions du cor.^rat da filmaga. Las axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura an papiar ast imprim*a sont film*s an commandant par la pramiar plat at mn tarminant soit par la darni*ra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'illustration. soit par la sacond plat, salon la cas. Tous las autras axamplairas originaux sont film*s an commandant par la prami*ra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'illustration at an tarminant par la darni*ra paga qui comporta una tmUm amprainta. Un das symbolas suivants apparattra sur la darni*ra imaga da chaqua microficha. salon la cas: la symbols -^> signifia "A SUIVRE". la symbols V signifia "FIN". Las cartas, planchas. tableaux, ate, pauvant *tra film*s * das taux da r*duction diff*rants. Lorsqua la document ast trap grand pour *tre reproduit en un seul clich*, il est film* * partir da I'angle sup*rieur gauche, de gauche * droite. et de haut en bas. en prenant la nombre d'images n*cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m*thoda. 1 2 3 4 5 6 IS sc 4 • IN THE SUPREME OOURT OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES, Between Le Jeune, Smith & Co., (Plaintifls,) Appellants, AND T. B. Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow, Defendants, AND H. A. Sparrow, (Defendant,) Respondent. AMENDED APPEAL BOOK SMITH & WATSON, advocates for appellants. LOUGHEED, McCARTHY & McCARTER, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENTS. «89* raiHTBO ON TTIB THIBVNI rOWBB PIIBM CALGARY. ALTA. ■^I kki-->- f,-!'^ • :.ri "t „ T. B. Laficrty •» II A. C. Sparrow Evidence, Judjje's Notes of Exhibit A B C D E F Judgment of Hon. Mr. Justice Rouleau . Reply, in Action No. 1089 •I »» „ 1 1 86 . . . 3 .28 29 4 9 . 2 14 . 6 II i; 19 .22 25 .14 20 .20 20 .20 21 ,21 30 8 13 199442 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES. NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Between LeJeune, Smith & Co., PlaintiflT!), AND T. B. Lafferty, a. C. Sparrow and H. A. Sparrow, Defendants. ORDER. Upon the application of the plaintiffs, upon reading the afidavit of James Bruce Smith, filed, and proceedings herein ; 10 I do order that the time limited for the plaintiffs to file ard serve their notice of appeal herein from the judgment delivered on the 19th April, 1892 by the Honorable Mr. Justice Rouleau, and to give security for the costs of appeal be and tie same is hereby extended for a period of thirty days from the 3rd day of May next ; And I do further order that the security to be given by the; said plaintiffs shall be by bond in the sum of $200.00 for the costs of such appeal, to be executed by the plaintiffs or one of them and two sureties who shall justify in the usual way ; and that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the defendant H. A. Sparrow within three days after taxation upon an undertaking of H. A. Sparrow's Advocates to repay such costs in the event of the sane being allowed to the p'aintiffs on the hearing of such appeal, and that such appeal may be entered and heard at the Sittings aoofthe Supreme Court in Banc, on the first Monday in Deceml»er next instead of in June next. And I do order that upon such bond being given and filed with the Clerk of the Court, and such costs paid, all proceedings other than the said appeal shall be stayed until the final deter- mination of such appeal, costs of and incidental to this application to be costs to the defei^dant Harriet Ann Sparrow, in any event. Dated at Calgary, this 2nd day of May, 1892. (Signed,) CHAS. B. ROULEAU, J- s. C ith, eal ice for •nd of sts A. \ffs >g» xt. nd er- int C 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES. NORTHERN ALBERTA lUDICIAL DISTRICT. Between LeJeune, Smith & Co.. Plaintiffs, AND T. B. Lafferty, a. C. Sparrow and H. A. Sparrow, Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEAL. I \ Take Notice that the plaintiffs herein hereby appeal to the Supreme Court of the North- West Territories in banc, from the whole judgment pronounced in favor of the defendant H. A. 'O Sparrow in this action by the Honorable Mr. Justice Rouleau on the I2th day of April, A. D. 1892, upon the following, among other grounds : — 1. That the said judgment is against evidence and the. weight of evidence, the learned Judge holding that the plaintiffs knew that the defendant H. A. Sparrow was an accommoda- tion endorser. 2. That the said judgment is contrary to law in that the learned Judge should not have held that the defendant H. A. Sparrow was released by reason of the plaintiffs having renewed the notes to which the note sued on was security during its currency, so that the renewal did not mature until after the note sued upon. 3. That the said judgment is contrary to law in as much as the learned Judge should have 20 held that the defendant H. A. Sparrow waived any rights she might have had as surety by offering a renewal of said note sued upon after the maturity of the notes to which the said note sued upon was security. 4. That the said judgment is contrary to law in as much as the learned Judge should have held that A. C. Sparrow, the agent for the defendant H. A. Sparrow, had power, and exercised that power, to pledge the said note sued upon to the plaintiffs as security or otherwise, or that his power to use said note was unlimited, and bein^ deposited as security with the plaintiffs as bona fide holders for value before maturity the plaintiffs were entitled to recover and 5. That the learned Judge erred in holdinj that the said H. A. Sparrow was a surety for the other defendants. 30 And Take Notice that the plaintiffs will move the said Court at Sittings to be holden at Regina in the North-West Territories on Monday the 4th day of December, A. D. 1892 at the hour of 10 o'clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as the said Court shall sit in banc and as Counsel can be heard, to reverse the said judgment and enter judgment for the plaintiffs. Dated at Calgary this 23rd day of May, A. D. 1892. JAMES BRUCE SMITH, Advocate for Plaintiffs. To Messrs. Lougheed, McCarthy & McCauI, Advocates for the defendant H. A. Sparrow. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTH-V^ EST TERRITORIES. NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Between LeJeune, Smith & Co., Plaintiffs, AND T. B. Lafferty, a. C. Sparrow and H. A. Sparrow. Defendants. ^i - AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM. The plaintiffs are i)rivate banker'' carrying on busine.ss at Calgarx' w ithin this Judicial Dis- trict : the defendant Lafferty is an Advocate practisin;^ at Calgary afoiosaid, and the defendants *0 H. a. Sparrow and A. C. Sparrow are ranchers residing near Calgary aforesaid. 2. The defendant T. B. Lafferty by his promissory note bearing date the lithday cf August, 1890, now over due, promised to pay to the defendant H. .A. Sparrow or order three months after date, the sum of $664.50, at the office of the plaintiffs at Calgary. 3 The defendant H. A. Sparrow indorsed the said note :o the defendant A. C. Sparrow who indorsed the same to the plaintiffs. 4. The said note was duly presented for payment at the .said office of the plaintiffs and payment thereof was refused. 5. The said note was dishonored. 6. The defendants had due notice of the said presentment and dishonor. 7. The defendants have not nor has either of them paid tl e said note or any part thereof. ao 8. By reason of the .said non-payment of the said note tlv; plaintiffs incurred expenses to the amount of $3.03 in and about the presentment and protes: of the said note and incidental to the dishonor thereof 30 particular.s. 1890. Nov. 14th. To principal $664 50 „ protest charges 3 03 —^ $667.53 The plaintiffs claim $667.53 ^"d interest thereon from the 14th day of November, 1890 until payment or judgment. 9. And the plaintiffs in the alternative say ; That prior to and on the 8th day of May, \%g^ the defe ulants T. B. Lafferty and A. C Sparrow were indebted to the plaintiffs in divers sums of money, for money lent by the plain- il Dis- idants Jay of three arrow "s and ereof. les to ental lain- "§■- u £ it 4 la c s O tiffs to t'lom at their request, amounting in all, with interest, to $664.50, secured to the plaintiffs . C.I laiir r. 'i. Laffcrty to the amount of $8000 and by notes of the defendants i .> . . ., Ill A. C Sparrow to tliL' imount of $584.50, and on the said 8th day of May the deieiul.itu T. IJ. Lafiferty, in considcnition that the plaintiffs would give further time to him and the said A. C. Sparrow for the payment of the said sum of $664.50 made his promissory note, dated 8th day of May, 1890, whereby he jiromised to pay to the order c the defendant A. C. Sparrow at the plaintiffs' office in Calgary. $364 50, three months after date, and the said A, C. Sparrow indorsed the said note to the defendant H. A, Sparrow his wife, who at their request indorsed the same to the plaintiffs. 10 The said T. B. Lafferty then delivered the said note so indorsed to the plaintiffs as security to them for the payment of the said sum of $664.50 and the several notes securing the same and any and all notes upon which the said T. B. Lafferty then was or might thereafter become liable to the plaijitiffs. 1 1. On the maturity of the said note the plaintiffs at the request of the defendants renewed the same for the term of three montns from the i ith day cf August, 1890 and received as such renewal from the defendants the note sued upon in this action upon the same terms as they received the note mentioned in the loth paragraph hereof 12. On the .said 8th day of May, 1890 the defendants T. B. Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow were indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $171.00 upon a promissory note then over due, dated the 2nd day of March, 1890 made by T. B. Lafferty and indorsed by A. C. Sparrow to the plaintiffs, payable two months after date at the office of the plaintifis at Calgary, and in the further sum of $80.00 upon a certain other promissory note, dated April 28th, 1890 made by T. B. Lafferty to the plaintiffs payable ten days after date at the office of the plaintiffs at Calgary, the consideration of which notes formed part of the $664.50 secured by the note sued upon herein, and which notes after being renewed became due and payable on the 24th day of Nov- ember, 1890, and on the 28th day of November, 1890, respectively, but the defendants T. B. Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow did not, nor did either of them pay the said notes or either of them or any part thereof and the same remain wholly unpaid. 12a. The said notes for $171.00 and $80.00 were duly presented for payment and payment 30 thereof was refused whereof the defendants ha-.i due notice. 13. The said note was duly presented for payment at the said oflfice of the plaintiffs and pa\ment thereof was refused. 14. The said note was dishonored. 15. The defendants had due notice of the said presentment and dishonor. 16. The defendants have not nor has eitlicr of them paid the said note or any part thereof. 17. By reason of the said non-payment oi the said note the plaintiffs incurred expenses to the amount of $3.03 in and about the presentment and protest of the said note and incidental to the dishonor thereof. 10 I. The plaintiffs claim the sum of $664.50 and interest thereon from the 14th day of Xovcmber, 1890, and protest charges $3.03 $66;.53 2. Or in the alternative the plaintiffs claim $17 1. 00 and interest from the 24th day of November, 1890, and the sum of $80.00 and interest thereon from the 28th day of .November, 1890, also protest charges $3.03 $254. I'art of the said sum of $664.!;o. 03 $664. 50, 3. A declaration thai the .saiil note of $664.50 is the property of the plaintiffs as security for all notes upon which the defendant T. H. Lafferty is h'able to the plaintiffs over and above the sum of $254.03 ami interest to the extent of $664.50. 4- The |3laiiitif(ii ask the tosts of this action Dated the 19th day of January, A D. 1891, and Delivered by James Bruce Smith of the tovvnofCal-ary in the \orth-Uest Territories. Advocate for the plaintiffs, whose address is Calsiary, .Alberta. IN rilK SLI'RIC.MK COL'RT OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Bktwken 20 No. 1089. I.K Ji;lm:, S.MITII & Co., Plaintiffs, (Appellants,) -WD I' B. L.Mi i;ktv .\N!) A. C. Si'akrow, Defendants, AND H. A. Si'ARKOW, Defendant, (Respondent.) STATEMENT OF DEFENCI- TO RE-AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM. The defendant H. .A. Sparrow says: 1. Ihe defendant H. A. Sparrow did not endorse the note mentioned in the second para- graph ot the statement of claiin. 2. The said note was not presented for payment. 3. The said note was satisfied and discharged hy payincnt before action by the other defendants. 30 4- The defendant H. A. Sparrow had not due notice of the dishonor of said note. 5. The Plaintiffs were not the holders of the said note at the commencement of this action. 7 li 6. The defendant H. A. Sparrow was covert at the time of cntlorsinfr the said alIc T. li. LafKKKTV ANh .V. ('. Sl'AUUow. Dctciulanls. ANI> H. A. Sl'AUkOW, DcfciKlant. f Respondent.) STATKMKNT OF CLAIM. 10 The plaintiffs arc i)rivatc bankers carrying on business at CiIt- within this Judicial District ; the defendai.t Laffert)- is an Advoc.ite practisinj^ at Cal^fai . (foresaid, and the ile- fendants H. A. Sparrow and A. C Sparrow are Ranchers residing near Cal;^far\- aforesaid 2. The defendant T. H. Laffert)- by his proini.ssory note bearing ilate the 11 th day of August, 1890, now over due, promised to pay to the defendant H A. Sparrow or order, three months after date the sum of $664.50, at the office o" the plaintiffs at Calvary. 3. The defendant H. A. Sparrow indorsed the said note to the defendant A. C. Sparrow who indorsed the same to the plaintiffs. 4. The said note was duly presented for payment at the said office of the plaintiffs and payment thereof was refused. 20 5. The said note was dishonored. 6. The defendants had due notice of the said presentment and dishonor. 7. The defendants have not nor has either of them jjaid the said note or any part thereof. .^ 8. By rea.son of the said non-payment of the said note the plaintiffs incurred expenses to the amount of $3.03 in and about the presentment and protest of the said note and incidental to the dishonor thereof. PARTICULARS. 1890. Nov. 14th. To Principal $664.50 „ Protest Charges 3.03 $667.53 The plaintiffs claim $667.53 and interest thereon from the 14th day of 30 Novtmber, 1890, until payment or judgment. - !«vMak«.«BBCiaMni and /c N 9. And the plaintiffs in the iilternative say : That prior to and on the 8th day of May, 1890, the defendants T. B. Lafiferty and A. C. Sparrow were indebted to the plaintiffs in divers sums of money, for money lent by the plain- tiffs to them at their re(]iiest, amounting in all, with interest, to $664.50, secured to the plaintiffs by notes of the defendant T. W. Lafferty to the amount of $80.00, and by notes of the defendants T. B. Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow to the amount of $584.50, and on the said 8th day of May the defendant T. B. Lafferl)-, in consideration that the plaintiffs would t^ive further time to him ana the said A. C. Sparrow for the pa\-ment of the said sum of $664.50, made his promissory note dated 8th May, 1 S90, whereby he promised to pay to the order of the defendant A. C. Sparrow, 10 at the plaintiffs' office in C";il'.>ar\-. $664.5c>, three montlis after date, and the .said A. C. Sparrow indorsed the said note to tlie dcfciidint H .\. .Sparrow, his wife, who at their request indorsed the same to ti-.c phn'ntiffs. 10. The sai'i T. H. 1-affcrty then delixered the said note so indorsed to the plaintiffs as security to thewi I'^r the ])a\-ment of the said sum of $664.50 and the several notes securing the same and aii\- an I all notes upon which the said T. B. Lafferty then was or might thereafter become liable to the jilaintiffs I I. On the maturity of the said note the plaintiffs at the request of the defendants renewed the same for the term ofthicc months from the 1 ith day of August, 1890 and receivetl as such renewal from the defentiants the note sued upon in this action upon the sarne terms as they 20 received the not(> mentioned in the loth paragraph hereof 1.3. On the said Sth da>- of ^Ll\•, 1890, the defendants T. B. Laffcrt)- and A. C. Sparrow were indebted to the i)!ai!itiffs in the sum of $10000 Uf-on a promissory note dated the l8th day of Miircli, 1890. made bv T. B Laffertx- ;uid indorsed b}- A. C. Sparrow to the plaintiffs pa\able three months after date at the office of the plaintiffs at Calgary, which note after being renewed by a note ma.lc by T. B. Laffcrtx- and A. (". .Sj)arro\v finally became due on the 5th d.iy of Jani;:ir\', 1S91 ; anti in tlv further sum of $^500.00 upon a certain other promissor)- note dated the 18th J''ebruar\% I S90, made b\- T. B. Laffertv and indorsed by A. C. Sparrow payable three monih^ bruaiy, 1891. The consideration of which two notes formed part of the $'164,50 secured b\- the note sued u|ion licrein and were duly presented for paxment and pa\inent thereof w.is refused whereof the defendants h.ul due notice, but the defendants T. H. Lafferty and A. C. Si)arrow did not nor did either of them pay the said notes or cither of them or any part thereof and the satne remain wholly unpaid. 13. The said note of $664.50 was duly presented for payment at the said office of the plaintiffs and pax-menl thereof was refused, 14. The saitl note was'dishonored. 15. The defendants had due notice of the said presentment and ilishonor. 16. The defendants have not nor has cither of them paid the said note or any part thereof. 4o I. The plaintiffs claim the sum of $'364.50 and interest thereon from tue 14th daj- of November, 1890. » // 2. Or in the alternative the plaintiffs claim $100.00 and interest thereon from the 1st day of November, 1890, and the sum of $300.00 and interest thereon from the 4th day of February, 1891, part of the said sum of $664.50. 3. A declaration that the said note of $664.50 is the property of the plaintiffs as se- curity for all notes upon which the defendant ^T. B. Lafferty is liable to the plaintiffs over and aboye the sum of $400.00 and interest to the extent of $664 50. 4 The plaintiffs ask for the costs of this action. Delivered this 9th day of March, A. D. 1891, by James Hruce Smith of the town of Cal- gary in the District of Alberta, Advocate for the Plaintiffs, whose adciress is Calgary, Alberta. XO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES. NORTHERN ALBERTA -JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Between No. 1 1 86. Le Jeune. Smith & Co., Plaintiffs. (Appellants,) .\Nn T. B. Laffertv and .A. C. Sparrow, Defendants, AND H. A. Sparrow, Defendant, (Respondent.) STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. The defendant H, A. Sparrow says : — 20 I. The defendant H. A. Sparrow did not endorse the note mentioned in the second para- graph of the statement of claim. om the )n from s as se- to the '664 50. of Cal- iberta. ara- J |tA 2. The said note was not presented for payment. 3. The said note was satisfied and discharged by payment before action by the other defendants. 4. The defendant H. A. Sparrow had not due notice of the dishonor of said note. 5. The plaintiffs were not the holders of the said note at the commencement of this action. 6. The defendant H. A. Sparrow was covert at the time of endorsing the said alleged note. 7. The defendant H. A. Sparrow endorsed the said note, if at all, at the request of the plaintiffs for the accommodation of the defendants T. H. I.afferty and A. C. Sparrow as collate- ral security to four certain promissory notes held by said plaintiffs against the said defendants 10 T. B. Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow for $313.50, $171.00, $100.00, and $80.00 respectively, which .said notes became due and payable respectively on the following dates : $313.50 on August 25th, $171.00 on August 15th, $100 on Au.i,aist 27th and $80 on August 22nd, all in the year 1890. 8. The said defendant H A. Sparrow in so endorsing the said notes, was tc the knowledge of the plaintiffs a surety only for the said T. B. Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow for the payment of the said notes, $313.50, $171.00. $100.00 and $80.00 to the said plaintiffs as the same became due according to the tenor thereof 9. The plaintiffs on the maturity of the four said notes respectively, in pursuance of a binding agreement between them and the defendants T. B. Lafferty and V C. Sparrow exten- *®ded the time of payment thereof bv the said defendants T. B Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow and thereby released the said defendant H. A Sparrow . 10. On the 25th day of Au:Tust last the defendants I'. B. Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow paid $ 3.50 on account of the said $313.50 note and gave their renewal for the balance of $300.00 to the said plaintiffs payable one month after the date thereof and the said $300.00 note has been renewed by the plaintiffs for the said defendants T. B. Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow from time to time since the said 25th day of August and tlie said $100.00 note after being renev/ed several times was not due until the 5th day of January. 1891. 1 1. The last renewal notes given in substitution of the four notes mentioned in the fifth paragraph hereof were before the same '-espectively became due endorsed for value by the plaintiffs 30 to the Bank of Montreal, or were befo-e the same respectively became due deposited for value by the plaintiffs with the said Bank of Montreal with the right to the said Bank of Montreal to endorse the same for and in the name of the plaintiffs, and were at the commencement of this action outstanding in the possession of the Bank of Montreal. 12. The defendant H. A. Sf ..row did not endorse the note of the 8th May, 1890 for $664.50 mentioned in the ninth paragraph of the statement of claim at the request of her co- defendants or otherwise. /3 I (.' W I ^. "... .; 13. The defendant H. A. Sparro\t was covert at the time of the endorsing the last men- tioned note. 14. The last mentioned note was not nor was the renewal thereof mentioned in the iith paragraph of the amended statement of claim, delivered to the plaintiffs by the defendant Laf- ferty as security to them for the payment of any and all notes upon which the defendant Lafferty was then or might thereafter be liable to the plaintiffs. 15. The defendant H. A. Sparrow will object that the statement of claim shows no power or authority from her to the defe'i iant T. B. LifTerty to agree v/ith the plaintiffs that the said last mentioned note should be a security to them for any and all notes upon which the defend- SOant Lafferty was then or might thereafter become liable. 16. The defendant H. A. Sparrow will further oSject that in t'le ih-;ence of any allegation that the defendant Lafferty was authorized by the defendant H A. Sparrow as aforesaid the I2th paragraph of the amended statement of claim shows that t'le plaintiffs by a binding agree- ment without the consent of the defendant H. A. Sparrow extended the time for payment of the several notes to which the note $664.50 was collateral .security and on which the detnclant H. A. Sparrow was only an accommodation endorser and a surety and thereby discharged the defendant H. A. Sparrow. Dated at Calgary this 2Sth day of April, 1891 and Delivered by Messrs. Lougheed, McCarthy & Beck of the town of Calgary in the District of Alberta, Advocates for the defen 1- 2<>ant H. A. Sparrow. REPLY The plaintiffs in answer to thedefence of H. A. Sparrow sa/ : — I. That they join issue on the ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, loth, i ith, 12th, 14th paragraphs thereof. * .0 in answer to the 6th and 13th paragraphs thereof say : J. i hat the defendant H. A. Sparrow at time of the endorsement and delivery of the promissory note sued upon in this action was and ever since las been possessed of .separate estate. Delivered this 28th day of April, A. D. 1891 by James Bruce Smith of the town of Cilgary 30 in the District of All?erta, Advocate for the Plaintiffs. last men- n the I ith jdant Laf- defendant no power it the said le defend - allegation rcsaid the ing agrec- lyrnent of de'endant larged the Lougheed, »e defenl- 2th, 14th ry of the separate >f C ilgary /V IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Between No. 1089. . No. 1186. ZO Le Jeune, Smith & Co., Plaintiffs. AND T. B. Lai FERTV, H. A. Sparrow and A. C Sparrow, Defendants. AND Lk Jfune, Smith & Co., Plaintiffs, AND T. B. Laffertv, H. a. Sparrow and A. C. Sparrow, Defendants. Upon the application of the plaintiffs, and upon reading the consent of the defendants, by their Advocates, I do Onler that the above two actions do stand consolidated and be treated hereafter and be carried on as one action under the second mentioned style of cause, and that the order setting down notice of trial, and setting down already made number 1089, do stand for the action as now consolidated. Dated at Chambers this 4th day of May, A. D. 1891. (Signed) Chas. B. Rouleau, J. S. C. ^ i JUDGES' NOTES OF EVIDENCE. 20 The evidence taken on discovery of T. N. Christie and H. A. Sparrow to be put in by plaintiffs by consent, with the right of either party to re-examine and cross-examine Mr. Christie. That the evidence of A. C. Sparrow and T. B. Lafferty are to be put in by defendant with same right. The defendant undertakes to produce A. C Sparrow. The endorsements of H. A. Sparrow on both notes are admitted. Regularity of protests admitted. If /^' evidb:n(:e on behalf of plaintiffs. r. N. Chkistie on oath says :— Am a member of plaintitYs' firm. Plaintiffs were holders of exhibit A. That note has not been paid. Exhibit H was taken as renewal of exhibit A. Exhibit F referring to the $350.CX) note was the only one produced at the examination. The others I identify and I produce as exhibit F" 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Took the $364.50 note in consideration that 1 would not sue the other notes that became due but renew them. I mean that 1 was not to sue defendants Lafferty and A. C. Sparrow for any notes becoming or past due with their names on, and amongst those papers there were note.>> of $80.00, $100.00, $171.00 and $313.50. .As those notes matured I repeatedly 10 asked Lafferty and Sparrow to pay them, and they promised to do so. Told them that if they woi Id not give me further security that I woul J sue them. Lafferty then told me, I have no further security to give you. But Mrs. Sparrow owes me between $600.00 and $700.00 and if I would take her endorsement upon a note , I answered, if you cannot do better, I will. And he came in a da>' or two after with the note endorsed by Mrs. Sparrow. The note was in its complete form when brought to me. Had no reason to suppo.se at that time that Mrs. Sparrow endorsed the note for Lafferty's accommodation, nor had I ever since, except when the note was sued upon. None of my firm was ever notified that Mrs. Sparrow was an endorser for accommodation. Whatever was done with this note, was done here at the Calgary branch, by either myself or Clerk. When exhi- bit B became due on i ith of August, 1890. took renewal, exhibits A and B had gone to protest 20itul Laffert)- brought me exhibit A, after the protest of exhibit B Lafferty told me, when asked to take it up. all he could do was to renew it, and brought me exhibit A. I think he came al(jne. Tiic note was filled up and a complete note when handed to me. Took the notes exhibits B and A as security for paper then held by me for monies advanced. The .security was for the purpose of getting my money back, in the ordinary course of banking busine.ss. It was an ordinary transaction of banking business. I considered that Mrs. Sparrow was worth the money ; that is the leason I accepted her, if Laffert\' could not do any better. Would not have extended the time of those notes if I had not known she was the owner of property. A. C. Sparrow said to me: "I don't know why you sue or press those claims, you have Mrs. Sparrow as security, .surely that is good enough, and as soon as Mrs. Sparrow would get a loan through on 30hjr land, this note would be taken up." This conversation took place before the suit, and after exhibit A became due. After that a third renewal was brought to me and I refused it, Mrs. Sparrow's name was on that, because I had been humbugged long enough, and I wanted to get paid. As far as I know Mr. Sparrow managed the affairs of Mrs. Sparrow. Exhibits B and A were never demanded by the defendants and they are still in our hands and produced in this case. The note B and renewal A were given to me to cover any paper held with Lafferty's name on it. I took the security for the money owed to our bank, and to secure a debt. Cross-Examined. — The plaintiffs are private bankers. Am a member of that firm. Have been in bankin,.j business for fifteen or sixteen years. Exhibit A was given to me as extra security for our own debt. Was given to understand the note was endorsed for T. B. Lafferty by 4o Mrs. Sparrow because she owed him $6 ")O.OD or $700 for lumber. Was satisfied with her name on note. The note was brought in answer to my request for security. When first handed to me, the memorandum in pencil was not on it, it was not three minutes before it was put on it. Before t'.ie note B was given, Lafferty may have got a memo, of the four notes owed me. In my own mind now I think note B was made to represent the amount of the four notes, but did 1^ ^ not make up the amount then, and I did not know it was. It was handed to me as extra security. Re-Examined. — Note B was amount of security brou<.jht into me and I did accept of it. Nothiii.? tf) shiw m? thit Mrs Sparrow had not got the value for the note, simply by the fact that her name was on the back of it. RE-Cross-ExamINKI). — The note sued on was as security for the four notes. « This closes the plaintiffs case. EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS. Examination of T. B. Lafferty put in, with exception of what he states, concerning his lOcounter-claim. Examination of A. C. Sparrow put in by consent on behalf of defendants : — A. C. Sp.\RRO\V on oath is called for the purpose of cross-examination on his evidence just put in. Know the note of $664 in question and the note given as a renewal. On the 8th May» 1890 my wife's farm was rented at the time to a man named Botternhamere ; he had it on shares, had nothing to do with the management of it. The property is owned by my wife and I act as her agent — generally receive the notice of protest for Mrs. Si)arrow. Whenever I require a note I ask her to sign it. Never applied to J. B Smith for a loan of money on my wife's property to take up that note ; but applied to hinj for a loan sometime last winter, I think. I cannot swear. It was before or after the writ was issued in this case. I think the 20 amount I wanted to loan was $1000.00 through J. B. Smith. Don't remember to have said to him not to do anything with the note, till I would see if the lo; n got through or not. I may have done so. Don't remember to have said that if the loan g )t through the note would be paid out of the proceeds of the loan. Don't think I ever did sf.y so. Mr. Christie wanted my wife's name because he considered her good being the owner o' the property. My wifes prop- erty is the one on which she lives ; she still owns it. This clo^es the defendants case. lit EXAMINATION OK THOMAS N. C HRISTIE. The cxainiiiati(»ii of Tluimas Nichol Christie tai- of Ma\-, A. D. 1891, under an aj)pointincnt daled the 18th da>' of May 1S91, this the 20th day of May. A D 1891. Thomas Nichol Chtistie, being sworn was examined b> Mr. MeCart4>\- : — I am a member of the firm of Le Jenne, Smith 6t Co., the plaintiffs. I produce the first note sued on dated l Ith Aui^just, 1800. The eonsiderati(.M fm this nuie 'was not for mone>' advanced on this note) it was a renewal for another note of similar air'oniu. I'he consiilcration for exhibit H (T. li. L.) was for paper ilue in the r^ffice of Le Jenne, Smith ^S: Co, a number of lo notes with his name on. Wlien exhibit H was L^ivcn there was no sjjecial note to cover. I did not know how it happened that the amount $'')'54 50 was pat in at that time. The plaintiffs held four notes with Lafferty's name on, $10000, $8o.oo, $171.00, $^^13.50. When I i,n)t exhibit H I did not make any further advance on it. I did not make an\- further advance on it at all. I did not ask Mr. Laffert\- \v>\v that amount w.is made up. I car,.iot tell you what notes were overdue ul.cn I i^ct exhibit 1^ from Laffcrt)-. I think the four notes were current when this note was given I don't think on the day that note was given I toik any new notes ov renewals from him. Mr. Scott was present when the note was given me. I did not have an}- conversation in ])articnlar with Mr. Lafferty in reference to the four notes. If he asked for a statement he may have got one. The note was filled up when 20 handed to me. When first handed to me it had not the jjencil memoranda thcie. I asked Lafferty if this note was to cover an\-thing in particula'- and he said " No, Ch.ristie ; this is to cover any paper with my name on, and I will keep reducing t!ic air.ount and you can hold this as collateral until my paper is jjaid." I do not know why he came in on that particular day. There was no paper past due, and 1 was not in a po.'-ition to sue iiim at th.at time. I could tell by my books when I got the note. I receiveil it on the 9th of ?Jay, 1890, as aj^pears by collec- tion register. Entry in book in red ink is made by Mr. Scott at the time the note was entered. The $313.50 note first matured after the 8th Ma)- on Ma\- 31st, 1890 ; it -.vas (or $300.00 and $13.50 interest. I renewed this note on Mav 21st, 1890, for three moiu'is, and when due on the 25th August, 1 renewed it for one month and on September 29th 1 renewed it for one month ; 30 on November 1st, 1890, I renewed it for three months. This was the last lenew-al. The $171.00 note was not current when I got the $6('>..^.50. It was past ilue and not i-cnewed till May lOth and ante dated as appears b\' collection register; when this came due it was renewed for one month five times. October 21st is the last renewal 1 ha\e. 1 had a note for $100.00 when I got tiie $664.50 note. $100.00 dated "8th March three months, 21st June renewed one month, 24th July renewed one month, 27th .August renewed one month, 29th September renewed one irionth, 1st November renewed two months due Januar\- 5th, 1890 is the last renewal I have. I had a not'.: lor $80.00 when I got the $664.50 on .Ma_\- 12th; it was renewed for one month; on June 16th renewed for one month ; on Jul\- 19th renewetl for one month ; on August 22nd renewed for one month ; on September 25th renewed for one month ; on Octf)ber 25th renewed 40for one month. This is the last lu.iewal I have. On the 8th Ma)- I had other notes with Laf- ferty's name on, outside of Sparrows'. .At the time I received this note ($664.50) I held a note of T. B. Lafferty for $180.00 ; it was (.latcd .April 14th, payable in 3odays. I gave the money to him, I think ; this note was paid. I also had with Laffert>-'s name on one for $324.00 dated March 21st, made b>- one J. T. Johnson, payable to T. H. Lafferty, four months after date ; this a\ . A. D. a\', A D the first ii" inone\' itlcratioii umber of r. I did tiffs held hibit B I cc on it car.iiot rty. I hat note tlie note reiice to up when I asked u"s is to lold this lar day. )uld tell ' coUec- en tared, oo and : on the month ; $171.00 ay loth for one kvhen I month, 'ed one ave. I nonth ; it 22nd :ne\ved h Laf- a note money dated ; this 1 ; /S note was paid before this acticjti was commenced. I also held on May 8th, 1890,000 of $212.00 dated April 22ntl for three months, made by one Miles. This was paid before this action com- menced. I also held one for $3976.70 ; this was the note given in connection with the purchase of the ho:sc.s. I held a mortj^agc for $3,800.00 and intc-est. The $3976.70 was a renewal note; the note las not been paid. I tlo not know how much s due on the note or mortgage now owing to expenses in connection with the hordes which '. have not got in. There may have been other notes held on the 9th May, but I cainiot recollect just now, I am not aware of any other notes that the firm was interested in that thej' held on the 9th May, 1890, that were not paid at the commencement of this action other than those 1 have mentioned. \^ hen I asked 10 him to get .security I did not ask him to get Mrs. Sparrows name. I told him I must have fur- ther security and as a result of thai he brought me tliC note. When the note ($664.50) matured I got exhibit :\ 1 received it on .August 27th; as exhibit H h.ul gone to protest it was dated August I ith as the fornu r one was due on the i ith August Lafferty brought Vh;s to me, as a renewal of exhibit Hand I accepted it as security renewing the other. Another note was offered me as a renewal of exhibit A when it matured, but I did not take it. As 1 was not going to wait any longer, f was going to sue as the paper matured. This closed the examination b)- Mr. McCarthy, no questions by Mr. Davis. (Signed) TllO.S. N. CHRISTIE. Taken before me ihis 20th day of Ma>', A. I). [891. (Signed) EDWIN R. ROGERS, Clerk of the Court. I JI2.00 com- chase note; now have f any : not isked ; fur- :ured lated as a was oing >urt. /^ EXAMINATION OF H. A. SPARROW. The examination of the above named defendant H. A. Sparrow, taken by consent before me this 231XI day of November, A. O. 1891. Mr Smith for Plaintiffs. Mr. McCarthy for defendants. Harriet .Ann Sparrow being sworn deposeth as follows : To Mr. Smith. I am one of the above named licfendants. The endorsements by H. A. Sparrow on exhibit :\ and B arc admitted to be in the handwritini^ of H. A. Sparrow. When I signed exhibit B 10 on the 8th of May, 1890, nothing took place c.vccpt the signing of the name. I did not know what I was signing. I don't know yet. Didn't know what it was. Don't remember of any one being present except m\' h-isband and myself Have nu recollection whatever about it Don't know yet what they, the exhibits, are. Have no better recollection regarding exhibit A than cxliibit B. Have no recollection of signing exhibits. Am in the habit of signing notes for m\- husband without enquiring for particulars but supposed generally that they were for retiring other note-;. Supposed at the time that he would not use them for any improper ])ur- pi)se. Wlen I endorsed exhibits A and B I gave my husband no instructions whatever what to do with them. My husband was at that time acting as manager of the farm and business for me and has continued to do so since On 8th of May, 1S90, I was the owner of the property 20 the .S(Uith-\Vest Quarter of Sec. 3, Tp. 24 and Range i West of the 5lh Principal Meridian, and am still the owner and am the part}' wlv^ agreed u ith the C. P. R. to pin-chase the North-Kast On liter of said section. At that time I owned some chattel |)ropert\' and the buildings on the aboxe described land. I was not indebted to T. B. Laffcrty at that time for anything that I am aware of I did not see Mr. Laffcrty about any note. Do not remember of having any business at all with Mr. Laff^-rty. Mr. SparrQw had a right to use exhibits A and B as he wished as far as 1 was concerned. Never had any conversation with any member of the firm of Lejeune, Smith & Co., Plaintiffs, in connection with these notes. 1 am still the owner of the land above described. (Signed) H. A. Sl'AHROW. 30(Signetl) J. A. Bangs, Examiner. T^O EXHIBIT A. $664.50. Cali^ary, Aug. nth, 1890. Three months after date 1 promi.sc to pay to the order of H. A. Sparrow, Six Hundred and Sixty-four 50/100 Dollars, at the office of Le Jcune, Smith & Co., here. Value received. T. R. Laffkrty. Notarial Memorandum. — Presented for payment and protesteil for non-payment by me this 14th day of November, 1890. (Si^nicd) J. H. Smith, Notary Public. Endorsed as follows : — H. A. Sparrow. A. C Sparrow. EXHIBIT B. 10 $664.50. Cal<,'ary, May 8th, 1890. Three months after date I promise to pa\' to the order of A. C. Sparrow Six Hundred and Sixty-four 50'I00 Dollars, at the office of Le Jeune, Smith & Co. here Value received. T. B. Lafferty. Notarial Memorandum. — Presented for payment and protested for non-payment by me this nth day of Auy;ust, A. D. 1890. (Si^ijned) J. B. Smith, Notary Public Endorsed as follows : — A. C. Sparrow. H. A. Sparrow. Pencil Memo Endorsed. — This note is collateral to any paper held by Le Jeune, Smith & Co. with my name on. (Signed) T. B. Lafferty. 30 f:xhibit c. $80.00 D No. 2625. Due Nov. 28th. Calgary, Oct. 25th, 1890. One month after date I promise to pay to the order of Lejeunc, Smith & Co. Eighty Dollars, at the office of Lejeunc, Smith & Co. here. T. B. Lafferty. ' t EXHIBIT D. $17100. D No. 2601. Due Nov. 24th. Calgary, Oct. 21st, 1 890. One month after date I promise to pay to the order of Lejeune, Smith & Co. One Hundred and Seventy-one Dollars, at the office of Lejeune, Smith & Co., here. Value received. f g Lafferty. ^ * % .'** > if ! ill i 'If tf EXHIBIT E, .$100.00. D No. 2648 Due Jany. 5th, '91. Calgary, ist November, 1890. 1 wo months after date I promise to pay to the order of Lejeune, Smith & Co., One Hundred Dollars, at the office of Le Jeune, Smith & Co., here. Value received. tot T. B. Lafferty. A. C. Sparrow. 20 $300.00. EXHIBIT F. D No. 2649. Due Feby. 4th, 1891 T,. , , Calgary, i Nov., 1890. Three months after date I promise to pay to the order of Lejeune, Smith & Co., rhree Hundred Dollars, at the office of Le Jeune. Smith & Co. here. Value received. T. B. Lafferty. A. C. Sparrow. 7.2. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES. NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Between LeJeune, Smith & Co., et al, Plaintiffs, No. 1089 10 AND T. B. Lakfekty, EI AL, Defendants. AM) LeJeune. Smith & Co.. et al. Plaintiffs, AM) 1. B. Lakkektv, et al. Defendants. No. 1186 J. B. Smith, Q.C.. for Plaintiffs N. D. Beck for Defendants The examination of Thos. B. Lafferty taken before me, Edwin R. Rogers, under an appointment dated the 23rd day of April, A. D. 1891, this 27th day of April, A. D. 1 89 1. Tho.s. B. Lafferty being sworn wa'- examined by J. B. Smith. I am one of the defend- ants in this action. In the first count this is the note sued on. I know the other signatures, they are of the other lefendants. Exhibit A. The signature T. B. Lafferty is mine. Exhibit B. That is my signature on exhibit B and the signature of my co-defendants. Exhibit A was given as a renewal of exhibit B. The plea No. i in my Statement of Defence paragraph i is 20 not correct. The second plea I have not any knowledge of In paragraph 3 I have no know- ledge whether or not the contents of said paragraph are true. The 4th plea in 4th paragraph is not true so far as I know. I have not paid the note and I don't know whether A. C. Sparrow has or not. The 5th paragraph of the Defence I do not know if it is true or not. I have not an\- knowledge as to the truth of paragraph 7 in suit 1 186 and paragraph 9 in suit 1089. Referring to paragraph 9 in 1 186 and paragraph 1 1 in suit 1089 the note of $664.50 dated 8th May, 1890 was given to secure four notes of $313.50, $10000, $171.00 and $80.00. The renewal exliibit .A ,vas a renewal of exhibit B and given for the same purpose, that is of securing the same four notes or their then current renewals. Exhibit B was given as collateral security for the four notes alreadv mentioned. 30 Q. Did you intend to give LeJeune, Smith & Co. additional security for the payment of the $664.50 represented by the four notes above-mentioned, when you gave exhibit B. Was that the purpose for which it was given ? A. I don't see that I can alter my last answer. I gave it for thost; four notes above men- tioned. Pencil writing on exhibit B is in my handwriting and signed by me. If LeJeune, Smith & Co. held more notes against mt at that time than the four notes mentioned, the mem- orandum is broader than I intended it or was even understood by Lejcne, Smith & Co. My explanation is as foliows : The day I went into LeJeune. Smith & Co.'s office about exhibit B z3 I' I was in a hurry as I was " pulliii}; out " startiiij,' to drive to Coi hrani;. I saiil to Christie " I had better note on the back of exhibit B to show what this was j^iven as collateral for. and asked him to look up the dates of the four notes. He said to me " Never mind just now. put it down in a {general way as I think those are all the notes you have here and it will take me some time to look up the dates," A. C. Sparrow and myself filled up exhibit H to-jether in my office from a mcinorandimi made by Christie showing' the amount of the four notes. This was after Mrs. Sparrow had si<,meii it. She endorsed it in blank for Sparrow. I tlid not see her endorse it. I never spoke to Mjs. Sparrow that I am aware of .tbout exhibit H or exhibit A. When exhibit A came due Sparrow and I brought a renewal to Christie that was endorsed by 10 H. A. Sparrow and it was not put throujjh. There was one or n, ic of the other four notes due. I think, and I to.d Christie that I would j^ive him the $354.50 n-newal provided he would renew the others of the four notes that were then due. He refused to do this and I refused to give him the renewal of the $664.50. This was under instructions from Sparrow. I had not seen Mrs. Sparrow about any of the notes. Sparrow brought all of these $664.50 notes to me. I gave the last renewal back to Sparrow and he tore it up. It ^vas for three months I think. When the first note was given I c^uld hardly say if Mrs. Sparmw was the owner of or held real or personal estate (^r both in her own name. (Mr. Beck objects to evidence of this character of Mrs. Sparrow's ownership.) I think from Mrs. .Sparrow's statements in Court in one or more lawsuits that she claimed to be the owr.er of the property the>' v\'ere then living on and are still 20 living on. This was prior to the time the notes v/ere given. .Vt that time, May, 1890, I could not say if Angus Sparrow was indebted to me. as our dealings were mixed up. t never had any dealings with Mrs. Sparrow ; I could not say at the time the first renewal was given and the second renewal was made out if A. C. Sparrow was indebted to me. At the present time he claims an amount from myself and Christie. The six notes marked exhibits C i. 2. 3,4. 5,6, for $80.00 each are signed by me and represent the $8000 spoken of as one of the four notes. Examination of T. B. Lafiferty continued this 28th day of April, A. D. 1891. Exhibit F is the last renewal of lien note for $313.50 when the first note for $664 50 was given to Lejeune, Smith & Co. ; there were present Christie and myself; I don't think Spar- row was present ; I think S{)arrow was present when exhibit A was given to Christie for 30 Lejeune, Smith & Co. When I went with the second renewal Christie and I were jjresent this was the note which was not put through I handed Christie exhibit B and went with the second renewal note to Christie, but am not sure whether Sparrow or I handed him exhibit A as I think we were both present. Q. Did you tell Christie that Mrs. Sparrow was an accommodation endorser on exhibit A or exhibit B or both of them ? A. Christie requested me to get her endorse exhibit B as collateral to these four notes and it was at his request that I got it. He had frequently requested me to do this. When exhibit B came due Christie asked me to get a renewal of it or get another of the same amount and for the same purpose which I did. 4o Q- Did you not tell Christie that Sparrow owed you a debt in connection with the home- stead (the buildings) and that if you could get her endorsement you would get so much of your claim in this way if the\' had to pay the note ? ^ s A. I .ay have told Christie about my a..,,e.cnts about t^ ^-^^;tt\r:^2 did not tell him that 1 could .^et part of my cla.m .n th.s way^ As ^ '"^"^ ° ^^.^^ ^„, notes $80.00 and $i7..oo were my own. As between ^^y^^^' ^^^^^^ %XoT\L\6 Je liable for these two and possibly a small part of the $300.00 and .AC bparrou . ^^ paid the balance. As for the $.00.00 I cannot recollect what was done with P between A. C. Sparrow and myself The verbal agreement referred to in the first paragraph of the <^ ^^^^:^;;: ;;;: ^l^. follows : The horses were bought in the first place c,r ^'-^, P^^-- " -^^ ^^^^^^^^ Co' Cop n. (Ltd.) and when we failed to make a sale ,0 t- ^^ h ba ^_^^^_^^_^ 10 It was made .frr the mort^.m^e was made. 1 was not to .uuuantcc ^^^^ l"^" ^^ was consultec, think, about nearl>- every sale that was made but 1 don . hml t u a a p the agreement that he si.ould be. The agreement was that hparrow and I we.c to sales or either of us. This was the agreement with ( h-stie. O. In making the verbal agreement was it made betw-een you and Christie individually. („• b..rween n'OU and Christie representing the bank ' . interested with ntc u, the horses in addition to his interest as mortgagee being a member of the fir.n of Lejeune. bm.th i. Co. O How much had vou paid in cash and lien notes, the proceeds of the sale of the horses mortgaged, to the plaintiffs prior to the 30th December. .890 ? A. 1 could not tell you the amount exactly but I figured it up to show a balance of the mortgage due less $1 100. O Had you paid to Ce plaintiffs all the ca.h and handed over all the lien notes received for horses tn tlte mortga-e sold by you up to the 30th l.eeember, ,890, on the jc.h December, 301890? A. I cannot answer this now ; I would have to refer to m>- book ; I think I had or the greater part of it. g. At what rate of interest did you figure up in your statement to the ^nh December ? A. I computed interest at six per cent, after the maturit> of the mortgage. 7^^ Q. Had you the cash with you ($i lOO) at the plaintiffs bank on the 30th December. 1S90 when you allege to have offered the plaintiffs $1 100.00? A. I had not the cash with me but I had it arranged for. Q. What did you require the plaintiffs to release and give up to \ou in consideration of the $1 100.00 ? A. The offer ($1 100) was made for all horses in the morti.;agc that had not been accounted for, that is, in respect of which cash or notes had not been delivered to the plaintiffs. I did not make the offer. I took a party to the bank who was prepared to carry out the arrangement and give the $1 100 for all the horses in the mortgage not accounted for as above and for whom 10 I had arranged to get the money. The party was A. C. Sparrow. He was prepared to carry out the offer. The offer was simply an offer for the purchase of the balance of the horses and I did not then ask for a discharge of the mortgage and the delivery up of any notes they held as collateral to the mortgage. Christie said "he would be damned if he would take it, that he would lose the whole amount sooner than accept the offer" I mean by the third paragraph of the Connter Claim that the j)laintiffs had taken posses- sion of all the horses they could get. that is that they had been able to get up to that time. O. Were any of your notes collateral to the mortgage above referred to, made by you in favor of the plaintiffs, in their possession on the 8th May, 1890? A They had been given by me to them before that and w^re not paiJ in full at thi.i time. 20 Signed this 28th day of April, A D. 1891 before me (Signed) Edwin R. Rogers, Signed) T. B. Lafferty. Clerk of the Court, EXAMINATION OF A. C. SPARROW. The examination of A. C. Sparrow taken before me this 4th day of May, A.D. 1891 under appointment dated the 23rd day of April, A. D. 1891. Mr E. P. Davis for Plaintiffs. ■Mr. N. D. Beck for defendants. >< Mr. A. C. Sl'AKKuW bciii^f sworn said to Mr. Davis : 1 am one of the defendants in the above actions. I am the liusband of the defendant H. A. Sparrow. The first paragraph of the Statement of Defence to reamended Statement of Claim of myself and T B. Lafferty is not true in fact. The said two $664.50 notes were cndorscfl by me and are notes filed as exhibits A and B in evidence of T. B. Lafferty. fflon't know whether the second paragraph of the said defence ii- t-riie or not. The third paragraph is doubtful, but I guess I had notice all right. The fourth paragraph I would sa\-. as far as I know mvsclf. I did not pay the note, and I don't think the defendant I.affcrt\' did. Exhibit B in T. B. Lafferty 's examination was given under the following circumstances, that is, T. B. Lafferty asked me to get m)' wife to endorse the 10 notes as collateral security to several notes he and I had in Lejcune, Smith & Co.'s bank. One note for $313.50, one for $171.00, one for $80.00 and one for $100.00. Lafferty told me that Christie had asked him to get this done as the Bank of Montreal had been bothering him (Christie) and Christie afterwards told me the .same thing himself. I then got the note endorsed. I got the endorsation in blank and filled in the note. The bod)- of the note was filled in by Lafferty. There was no conversation took place between Mrs. .Sparrow and myself when she endorsed the note. I asked her to endorse it and she did it. She did not know for what pur- pose the endorsement was to be used. .She did not know before the suit was begun, what the note had been used for. She did not get any consideration for endorsing the note. It was merely an accommodation on her part. She did not know Lafferty was connected with the note 20 when she endorsed it. It was endorsed for me and was used for the accommodation of myself and T. B. Laffert\- who gave the f rst note to Lejeune. .Smith & Co. I do not remember if I wa-J present when it was given. I do not remember receiving the notice of protest for Mrs. Sparrow. The second 411^64.50 (exhibit A referred to in examination of T. B. L.) was given as a renewal of he first". When the first note was given it was given on the understanding that it should be carried on until the r.otes for which it was given as collateral should be paid off This understanding was between Chrstic, myself and Laffert)-. (Objected to by Mr Rerk -^^ ':zV..xii of Mrs. Sparrow.) I do not think the notice of protest of the first note ever reached Mrs. Sparrow. The second $664.50 was given as a renewal of the other. Christie said that the first mte was past due and he could not use it in the bank. He told this to Lafferty and myself. 30 I do not remember from whom the proposition of a renewal came. I got the endorsement from Mrs. Sparrow for the second note before it was filled in. I don't think she knew for what that note was used so far as I know. I don't think she knew up to the time of issuing the writ in this action what the note was u.sed for. It was an accommodation endorsenirnt on her part. .She did not receive anything from me for endorsing it. It was for the same accommodation as the first one. She endorsed it for me, she did not know anything about Lafferty at the time. There was nothing said as to any limit on my use of that endorsement. I just put a blank note in front of her and asked her to endorse it, in both cases. We both gave the second $664.50 note to Lejeune, Smith & Co. I think Laffert) and 1 were together. I won't swear to it. I think he gave it to .Scott the clerk in plaintiffs' offi n. | 4o don't remember what was said at the time. We told him it was a renewal of the $664.50 note and paid the interest on it. Q. Were the plaintiffs notified that H A. Sparrow was an accommodation endorser on the second note ? 7 !^ \ fhey knew that. They knew it when Christie asked in the rirst place for the note that it was an accommodation. I inferred he knew it as far as I know from knowing what .t wa. given as collateral to. I do not remember of any other reason I do not remember ever hav- ing told him directly. I '> do. 7th American Ed. (Side paging) notes on 248 and 249. 4. A-' to Wile's Liability on Separate Estate. Kerr v Strip 40 U. C. O. B.. 125. Lawsjn v. Laidlaw, 3 Ont. Appeal R 77 j Field V. .McArthur. 27 C. P. 15 (pages. Leake v. Duffield. I25 L. J. Ont. N. S.. 61 v 20 \26 l'^- Sweetland v. Neville, Ont. Repts., Vol. 21, pt. 3, page 412, 189 1. Stogdcn V. Lee, 1 Q. B. 1).. 1891,661. ,• Griffin v. Patterson. Only holds wife's propertj' not of nature or cuality I 4; U, C O. B., 536. i Moore V. Jackson, 16 Ont. Appeal Repts. «a.ne holding as in Griffim v. Patterson. ' These two cases not applicable. 5. As to Suretyship. Propositions. 1. If bank > plaintiffs) knew H. A. S. was accommodation mdorser. then she would be a surety, otherwise not. Daniels Negotiable Instruments, Vol. 12, 30 ^41 to 347 particularh" 345 and notes. 2. If bank did not know this, and took note for value in usual course ot business, before maturity, then H. A. S. was principal, not surety. Otherwise, if they took it out of usual course of business, without value, etc. Daniel's Negotiable Instruments. 771, 774. -T-, 777 '^'K-I n(.tcs Healy v, Do'lson. 8 Ont. Repts. 6^1, see pi 4-0 (ry); wA an authority for defendants in this case, as there, plaintiff knew defendant was a surety only. ilitv to be liable, >9 10 Devaney v. Brownlee, 8 Ont. App. Reports. 355 ; not an authority for defendant, as it differs from Lejeune v. Sparrow in (l) plaintiff knew defendant was an accom- modation indorser. (2) Plaintiff gave time to principal after security sued on was due. ('3.) No consideration. (4.) No debt owing plaintiffs except the one sued on. Can. Bank of Commerce v. Woodward, 8 Ont Appl. Repts. 347. Strong authority for plaintiffs inasmuch as H. A. S. indorsed the note sued on as security for the debt owing by Lafferty & Sparrow, not for the particular pieces of paper rep- resenting that amount. See also Quebec Bank v. Bryant. Powis, et al. 17 Que. L. Repts. 98. " Abuses of power or betrayal of trust by an a^ M (T. B. L. & A. C. S.) who indorses a bill for his principal does not affect the recourse against the principal by a holder bona fide for value without knowledge of such abuse or betrayal. AUTHORITIES OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT. N. W. T. Act. Sec. 40. Married Women's Property Act. Cap. 125. R. S. Ontario. Sec. 20. T. R. P. Act (N. W. T.) Chitty's Statutes, Supplement, page 730. Darling and Rice, i Ont. App. Reports, 43. 20 Freeze v. McFarlane, 43 Ont. Repts. Q. B. 281. Kerr v. Spritt. 40 U. C. Q. B. 125. Lawson v. Laidlaw. 3 Ont. App. Reports. Imperial Statutes of 1882. Cap. 75- sub-sec. 3 of Sec. i. Ontario Married Women's Act of 1884. Byles on Bills. '91 edition, pages 318 and 324. Gould vs. Robson. 8 East 576. English vs. Darley. 2 Bousanquet against Poulirt, 62. Same case in 3 P'sp. 49. Kavanagh on money securities, pages 158 and 159. 30 Chambers on Bills of Exchange. 3rd ed. pp. 205 and 206 \ ith the authorities cited thereon Oriental Corporation against Overend. Law Reports, 7 Chan. Appeals, 142. Same case. 7 House of Lords Reports. Eng. and Irish Appeals. 348 Owen vs. Holmes, 4 Hou'-e of Lords cases. 997. Moore vs. Crawford. Law Reports 2 House of Lords casos. Colyar on Guarantees. 369 and 372. Blakley agst. Kenny. 17 Ont. Reports, 169. Corydon agst. Dickinson, 2 Com. Pleas Div. 46. Pollock agst. Everet. i Q. B. D. 669. Holmes agst. Broomskill, 3 Q. B. D. 495. 40 Boulton agst. Buchnnan, Law Reports, i O. B., 1891. 3a JUUGMKNT OF MR. JL'STICH KOULEAU. This is an action on a promissory note made by T. B. Lafferty payable three months after date to H. A. Sparrow and endorsed by her and A. C. Sparrow to the plaintiffs for the sum of $664.50. That note was the renewal of another note maiic payable, three months after date by T. B. Lafferty to A. C. Sparrow, antated that he took the $664.50 note in consideration that he woukl not sue the othci notes tha; became due, but renew them, and further on he adds : " I took the notes exhibits B and A a; -ecurit)- for paper then held by me for monies advanced and also that the note --■>pf' upon was ^iven as security U>\- tl e four notes." The first tiuestion raised bv the pleadings is this : iJoes ■! c inking of a new note from the acceptor ;who stands in the position of maker of promissory note) pa\-able at a future date, dis- charge endorsers. B>-lcs on Bills of Exchange, page 324 says : " The t king of a new bill from the acceptor, payable at a future day. discharges the endorsers. " Cavr.nagh on Money Securi- 30 ties lays down the following rule : " If the debt be modifie-J between the creditor rnd the prin- cipal debtor without the consent of the surct)'. the latter v.-ill m general be discharged from all liabilit)' on the contract." In Polak \. Everett, i O. B. IJ.. page 66y. Blackburn, J., sa"s at page 673, " It has been established for a ver>' long time beginning with Rees vs. Berrington, 2 Pes. 540 to the pre'i<;nt day, without a single case going to the contrary,, that on the principal of equity i. suret>- is dis- ' charged when the creditor, without his assent, gives time to the p. ncipal tiebtor, because by so doing he deprives the surety of part of the right he would have had from the mere fact of enter- ing into the suret\sh'p, namely, to use the nan-.e of the creditor to sue the principal debtor, and if this right be suspended for a day or an hour, not injuring the surety to the value of a farthing, 4oand even positivclj- benefiting him, nevertheless by the principal of equity, it is established that 3> this discharges tb? surety although, 19 Ont. Kep. page iby, Hlacklcy vs. Kenney, in that case the same rule as above is followed and Robertson. J., in his Judgment, refers to the case of Davies vs. Stainbank, 6 D. M. and G. (De Gex. MacNaghten and Gordon) page 679, which I think is ver\ much ad rem with this case. There it was held that a creditor who holds a floating guarantee from a surety cannot, without the surety's consent, give time to the principal debtor as to any portion of the debt, without reserving the creditor's right against the surety liable for that portion. The same principle was upheld in the following cases ; Croydon Commercial Gas Co. vs. Dickinson and others. 2 Comm. Pleas Div. page 46. Holme vs. Burnskill, 3 Q. B. D. page 495 and ZO several other cases cited. On the other hand all the authorities cited by the plaintiffs to wit : as to first liability of endorser to innocent holder for value, second accommodation endorser and third as to surety- ship are good law as far as they apply ; but the propositions laid down by Daniels on Nego- tiable Instruments. Vol. 2. pages 341 to 347, particularly 345 and notes, also Vol. i, pages 771, 774, 775. m ii""^^ "otes cannot be applied to this case, for the reason that Daniel speaks always of the principal debtor the maker of the note or the acceptor of the bill of exchange. But here the defendant is merely an endorser on a note given as collateral security, and as proven by one of the plaintiffs, H A. Sparrow was merely an accommodation endorser. Mr. Christie, one of the plaintiffs says in his evidence "when I asked him fT. B. Lafferty) to get security, I did 20not ask him to get Mrs. Sparrow's name (defendant H. A. Sparrow) : I told him I must have further security and as a result of that he brought me the note." I do not know by what fiction of law the plaintiffs can make the defendant H. A. Sparrcnv principal debtor in this case. The plaintiff knew she was onl\- a surety, and therefore could not be treated otherwise, and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of a surety. Tl e case of the Can. Fank of Commerce vs. Woodward and others. S Ont. App. Rej). 347 is clearly distinguishable from this case for the reasons alrcad\- alluded to. The defendant m the case referred to were makers of the note and not endorsers and therefore were principal debtors and interested in retiring Mcl.agan's paper. In the present case H. A. Sparrow as I stated before endorsed the note sued on on behalf of the maker. T. B. Lafferty. who used it as 30 security only for the notes actually held by the plaintiffs. I think also that the case of Devaney vs. Brownlee and others. S Ont. App. Rep. page 355 is a case ver\- much the same as the one under consideration. There is no dcnibt in my mind that the plaintiffs knew that H. A. Sparrow endorsed the note merel\- as a surety without consideration and according to the authorities V discharged by the creditors giving an extension of time to the principal debtor. When tlie note of $664.50 exhibit A became due. were the plaintiffs in a position to obtain ludgment against the maker or principal debtor of said in'te ?' There is no doubt they could not ; the four notes for which exhibit A was given as surety were not due then, because the i)laintiffs had renewed them and would have become due long after exhibit A became due. 4o Can the endorser of a note be placed in a more unfavorable position than the maker ; if 3d the plaintiffs could not sue the maker, how could the endorser H, A. Sparrow enforce her remedy against the maker ; the law as cited above is very explicit on this point, Blackburn, J., as I have already mentioned says : " If this right be suspended for a day or an hour the surety is discharged altogether," I need not enter into the consideration of the second branc h of the defence, to wit : The defendant being a feme covert is not liable. I am not just now favorably impressed with the soundness in law of that part of the defence in this case. The general rule is that a married woman with a separate estate can validlj' indorse a note for another. Xo doubt it is contended in this case that the def(;ndant H. A. Sparrow endorsed 10 the note as security for her husband, and therefore was not liable. This is a very delicate question in this case, and I am not prepared to give an opinion. At all events, whether I would decide in favor of the defendant or in favor of the plaintiffs on that contention, it would not help the plaintiffs and alter my conclusion on the first branch of the defence. Judgment is therefore in favor of the defendant, H. A. Sparrow with costs. Counsel fee, $75.00. Calgary, 12th April, 1892. ' (Signed) Chas. B. Rouleau, J. S. C.