IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^/ ^ kf ** .V*^ ^ 1.0 ^1^ 1^ 1.1 f.-^'^" 1^ KA Hiotographic Sdences Corporation ^^ :i>^ \ !i\^ :\ \ ^ 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WiBSTM.N.Y. 14SM (71«) •72-4503 ;\ '^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microroproductions / Institut Canadian de microroproductions historiques Technical «nd BIbllograpMc Notca/NotM techniques ct MUlographlquM The Institute has attempted to obtain the beet original copy available for filming. Feetures of this copy which may be MMIogpephlcelly unique, which mey aKer any of the Imeges In the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, ere checked below. D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur r~| Covers demaged/ Couverture endommagAe Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAs et/ou pellicula □ Cover title missing/ Le tHre de couverture menque I I Coloured mrps/ Certes gtegraphlquss en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) r~| Coloured pletes and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations sn couleur Bound with other materiel/ Reli4 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along intsrior margin/ La reliure ssrrAs peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge IntArieure Blank leaves adde> iMring restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possibis, these hsve been omitted from filming/ II ss peut que certalnes peges blenches sJoutAes loni d'une restauration apparaissent dans Is texte. mais. lorsqus cela 4tait possible, ess pages n'ont pas 4t« fiimAes. Additionel comments:/ Commentaires suppiimentaires: L'Instltut a microf llmA le mellleur exempleire qu1l lui a 4ti poeelble de so procurer. Les details de cet exempleire qui sent peut-ftre unlquee du point de vue Mbllographlque. qui peuvent modifier une image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dene la mAthode normale de filmage aont indlquAs ci-dessous. Tl to |~~1 Coloured peges/ D Pages de couleur Peges domeged/ Pagee endommegies Pages restored and/oi Pages resteurAes et/ou pelllcuMes Pages discoloured, stainsd or foxsi Pages dteotorAes, tachettos ou piquAes Peges deteched/ Pages dAtach^es Showthroughy Transparsnce Quelity of prir QualM InAgale de I'lmpression Includei: supplementary materli Comprend du matAriel supplAmenteire Only edition evallable/ Seule MKIon disponlble □ Peges domeged/ Pagee I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages discoloured, stainsd or foxsd/ Pages IT^ Pages deteched/ r^ Showthrough/ I I Quelity of print varies/ |~n Includei: supplementary materiel/ I — I Only edition evallable/ Tl p« of fill Oi bi th sl( oti fir sii or Th sh TH wl Ml dif en be rig rei Peges wholly or partially obscured by errsta slips, tissues, etc., heve been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les peges totalement ou pertieiiement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont AtA filmAes A nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meiiieure image possibis. This item iu filmed st ths reduction retio checked below/ Ce document est filmA su taux d? rAduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X m 22X 12X 16X 20X 28X 30X MX aix 32X Th« copy filmtd her* hM b««n raproduc«d thanirs to tiM o«n«ro«ity of: Library Division Provincial Archival of British Columbia L'oxomplairo fllm4 fut roproduit grico A la g4n4roait* da: Library Division Provincial Archivas of British Columbia Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality poaalbia conaMarlng tha condition and laglbility of tha original copy and In kaaping with tha filming contract apacificationa. Laa imagas auivamaa ont 4t* raproduitaa avac la plus grand coin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattatA da I'aKamplaira filmA. at an conformity avac laa conditions du contrat da filmaga. Original capiat in printad papar covara 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. Las axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura an papiar ast imprimAa sont filmAs wt commanfant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'lllustration. soit par la aacond plat, aalon la cas. Tous las autras axampiairas originaux sont filmAs un commanfant par la pramiira paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'illustration at an tarminant par la darniAra paga qui comporta una taila amprainta. Tha last racordad frama on aach microfiche shall contain tha symbol — »> (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol y (moaning "END"), whichavar applias. Un das symbolas suivants apparaltra sur la darniAra imaga da chaqua microfiche, salon la cas: la symbola -^ signifia "A SUIVRE '. la symbols ▼ signifia "FIN". IMa^si, platas. charts, ate. may ba filmad at diffarant reduction ratios. Thosa too larga to ba entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. F»euvent Atre filmAs A des taux da rAduction diffArants. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, ii est filmA A partir da I'angie supArieur gauche, do geucho A droite. et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'imagas nAcessaire. Les diagrammss suivants illustrant la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 • Nv/p h' Ml h I i STOBART. ET AL. (Defendants.) Appellants. — AND— 8H0REY, ET AL, (Plaintifl's.) Respondents. APPEAL BOOK. SMITH & WEST. Advocates for App«llanU. i LOUGHEED, MCCARTHY & BECK. J Advocates for Respondents. 199450 / IN THE SUPREMK COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, Nt)RTHERN ALBERTA JUDUUAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN 10 H. Shokky & Co., .loHN Myi.ks ()'I.oui;hmx ani» MacKoy O'Loi (JHi.iN, trading as O'LorcaiMN Bkos. \' Co., Campbkm,. Spera & Co. Lyon, Mai Kenzie & Towls, A. A. Mackenzie ANi» E. M. Mills, trading a.s MacKenzie & Mills, and the Ames Holden (!omi*any, Limiteh. I'laintift's. and Stouakt Sons & Co. Itefeudauts. 20 STATEMKNT OF CLAIM. 1. The plaintin'H, utlier than H. Shorey & (Jo., avt- merchants earrving «tn luisinens in the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, and the plaintitVs, 11. Sliorey & f defeating and defrauding the plaintiffs and defendants mu of their said claims against him the said E. H. Riley, and in order the better to carry out such fraudulent scheme the said K. H. Riley procured his soid mother, Georgina J..ne Hornsfield Riley, to commence tin action against him, h» r said son, in this honor- able wiurt in the said Judicial District, and on or alwiut the said 19th day of March, 1888, in furtherance of said fraudulent scheme, the said K. H. Riley and (feurgina .lane Hornsfield Riley cHUsed judgment to he entered in said action iu favor of tiie said (Te«»rgina Jane Hornsfield Riley for the sum of $2,541.42 debt and costs, although the said K. H. Riley was not indebted to his said mother in any sum whatever, and caused a writ oi' execution to U- issued u|Min said judgment, 10 and placed in the hands of the Sheritt" of tlk«, said Judicial District wherein the said K. H. Riley carried on business, and the said K. H. Riley and ( reorgina Jane HornsKeld Riley caused the said Sheriff to levy upon the goods and chattels of the said K. H. Riley under ,aid execution, and the Sheriff' has sold a large part (»f said gitixis and rec 'ived a large siul of mo'.icy therefor, and the said Sheriff now holds such money, ami a large quantity of such goods still remain unsold an said juiigmeiit of the said (teorgina Jane Horns- field Riley, against the said K. H. Riley, was not Imuui fide, but was obtained by fraud and col- lusion and w-ithout value, and in eoii.setiut^nee of such claims the said ~'!ieriff obtained an interpleader order from the Honorable t.'harles R. Rouleau, the jutige of this ii(u:>rableC4Mirt, which interpleader oitler directed an issue to l»e tried, when the plaiutills, other than H. Shorey & Co. 30and the Ames Holden CJompany, Limited, and defendants were to W plaintiffs, and the said (leorgina Jane Hornsfield Riley was to l»e defendant, to try the validity of siu-li judgment of the said (ieorgina Jane Hornsfield Riltty, to which interpleader onler the defendants consented. 7. Shortly after the making of .saiil interpleader order the defeudants, with the intention of aiding the said (teorgina Jane Horn.sfield Riley and K. H. Riley in their said fraudulent scheme as against the plaintiff's, and in onler to obtain the fruits of such judgnu;nt of the said Georgina Jane Hornsfield Riley entered into an agreeiuent with the said (ieorgina Jane Hornsfield Riley and K. H. Riley whereby they, the defendants, were to abandon their connection witi said interpleader proceedings and withdraw their said writ of execution against the said K. H. Riley, and the said Georgina Jane Hornsfield Hiley was t^) assign to the defendants the said judgment so recovered by 40 her, and in consequence of such agreement the defendants did withdraw the .said writ of execution / 'C) and defrauding >y, and in order I 8oid mother, in this honor- irch, 1888, in •rnsHeld Riley rnsfield Riley bted to his said aid judgment, K. H. Riley lused the naid ition, tuid the r, and the said Id and in the i88, recovered I- Kil«y and iKmunttt; and » of the 8uid i« as herein- ands uf said lid fj[oo(|.s (if resaid under ^Htie Horna- iid and col- ohtained an court, which lorey & Co. id the said luent of the ited. intention of t scheme as >rgina Jane iley and K. nterpleader id the said icovered by F execution from aaid Sheriff' and fn»m .mid iiiteri>loadtfr |>n»cpedinga, and the said Georgina Jane Hornsfield Riley by deed absohitely assigned t<» the said defendants the said judgment so recovered by her against the said K, H. Rih^y, and the defendants now hold such judgment as the beneficial |.Iait!t:ff3 therein, and the defendants also hold and cctntrol the said execution issued on said judgment so assigned to them. K. The |ilaint ill's cliarge us I lie fact is that the said judgment .so recovered by the said (ieorgina .lane HornsKeld Uih'v against the said K. H. Kiley, and assigned to the defendants, was, and is, fraudulent and v«»id and without value as against the jdaintitt's and that the same was re- covere«l ccdlusively as aforesaid, and that tin* said K. H. Hih>y was not at the time of the recovery 10 of said judgment indebted to the said (fcorgina .lane HornsKeld Uih'V, his mother, in any sum whatever. 20 The jilaintifl's ask : — 1. That the said judgment recovered by tiie said (Jeorgina .lane Kornstitdil Rilt^v against the said K. H. Uiley and assigned to the defendants, may be declared fraudulent and voitl, and may be set aside and vacated, and that the (executions i.ssued thereunder may in like manner Ite set aside, and that the ])laintift's may be paid upon their said executions the proceeds of .said goods so .sold, and of tliose remaining to be .sold. 2. That the defendants may l»e ordered to pay the plaintitt's' crosts of suit. .'i. T!ie plaintiH's further ask for such further and other relief as the circumstances of the ca.se may renuire, and as to the Court may seem meet. Delivered this 27th day of December, 1888, by Messieurs Lougliee«l & McCarthy, of the Town of Calgary, in the District of Alberta, Advucates for the |»laintin°s. tie Hornsfield by her against judgment so by the said ndants, was, mie was re- Jie recovery n any sum ryiriH ,lane ned to the nay he set der may in liaid upon nl f>f those titts' ('osta relief as 'ourt nmy the T( own $ STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. o In answer to the plaiutitta' statoinont of claim herein, the defendants aay that : — 1. K H. Riley was not indebted, nor was he financially embarrassed and unable to pay his debts in full, and in fact insolvent as alleged. 2. No fraudulent scheme was «>nceived by and between Georgina Jane Hornsfield Riley and E. H. Riley for the purpose of defrauding E. H. Riley's creditors as alleged ; nor was the action commenced and the judgment recovered against him for the purpose of carrying out such fraudu- lent scheme, as in the sec^ind paragraph of the statement uf claim set forth. 10 3. At the time of the commencement of the action by (ieorgina Jane Hornsfield Riley against E. H. Riley he was indebted to her in the amount sued for, and there was no fraud or collusion between them in the recovery of the said judgment or in any of the proceedings thereon. 4. They deny all the allegations contained in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the statement of claim, and deny that such interpleader order was matle or that they consented thereto. 5. They deny all allegations of fraud or fraudulent dealing made against them, and as to the matters more particularly alleged in the seventii paragra|)h of the statement of e^im, they absolutely deny that they entered into an agreement witli the saitl Ueorgina Jane Hornsfield Riley and E. H. Riley with any intention of aiding them iu their fraudulent scheme. 6. They tlid not agree to abandon said interpleader proceedings and to withdraw their writs of 2U execution, nor did they withdraw them as alleged. 7. They deny that the said judgment recovered by the said (Ieorgina .lane Hornsfield Riley against the said E. H. Riley was and is fraudulent and void as against the plaintift's, and that the same was recovered eollusively, and that the said E. H. Riley was not indebted to the said Georgina Jane Hornsfield Riley as alleged. 8. They accepted the assignment of the said judgment recovered by (ieorgina Jane Hornsfield Riley against E. H. Riley, and became and are assignees and purchasers thereof in good faith and gave good, valuable and adecjuate consideration therefor, and they had not at the date of the said assignment, ntu' did they ever have, nor have they since then, acquired notice or knowledge of any actual or constructive fraud, collusion or want of consideration what84)ever in connection therewith 3Qor in connection with the claim on which said judgment was founded. to pay his d Riley and the action uu'j fraudu- iley against r collusion I. statement as ti) the iini, they ttornsHeld '• writs of Id Kiley that the the said misfield ith and he said I of any 3iewith r 1 6 9. Under an agreement made between the said (leorgina Jane Homsfield Riley and the de- fendants, the said assignment of judgment was taken as collateral security for the re-payment of certain advances made by them to her, and on re-payment of said advances, the said Georgina Jane Homsfield Riley is entitled to a re-assignment of the said judgment. 10. Said assignment was taken on or about the eleventh day of May, A. 1). 1888, sub- sequently to the making of the interpleader ordor in the statement of claim mentioned. 11. The plaintiH's having then oil the knowledge relating to the matters in question which they are now possessed, were parties to an agreement entered into l)etween the creditors of E. H. Riley, other than the defendants and Georgina Jane Homsfield Riley, in September, A. 1). 1888, 10 wliereV»y they agreed to settle their alleged claims as against the judgment in question herein, and to withdraw all proceedings that had l>een taken to set aside the same on the terms set forth in said agreement, and the defendant-^ say tliat the plaintifi's are now precludeil and estopped froio ini|>eacbiiig the same upon any grounds whatsoever. 12. The plaintiffs, H. Shorey & Co., and the Ames Holden Coni|)any, Limited, were not parties Ut the interpleader proceedings mentioned in the statement of claim, and were and are not entitled to the benefit of the order made by th*! Supremo Court in banc on the 7th day of Decem- ber, A. D. 1 888, in tiie said interpleader proceedings, and the monies in the hands of the Sheriff of the said district ought to have been paid over to the defendants under the terms of the said order, but have not been so paid over, though demanded by the defendants. 20 13. The plaintiffs have by delay on their part in taking |)roceedings to im()each the said judg- ment, and more esi>-^cially by their not taking sucli proceedings until long after the saiii assignment of judgment t4> the defendants, of which they had notice, acquiesced therein, and are now debarred from attacking the same. 14. The defendants will object that on the facts of tht* pleadings the said Georgina Jane Hornsfielil Riley should have been a party to this action, and that they are not necessary or proper partiifs, and in no event ought they to tie ordered to |)ay costs. 15. The defendants further say that they are not execution creditors of E. H. Riley, whose executions rank prior in tlate and in their receipt by the Sheriff to those of lh« plaintiffs and are subsequent to th(»se of Georgina Jane HornsHeld Riley. .,Q 16. The defendants do not admit any of the allegations in the plaintiffs' statement of claim that are not herein specifically denied exf'ept that they admit the recovery of the judgment by Georgina Jane Homsfield Riley against K. H. Riley, the issuing of the execution thereon and the a.ssignment i>f the said judgment to them. 17. The defendants say that the writs of execution issued on the judgment by Georgina Jane Homsfield Riley against E. H. Riley as aforesaid, were placed in the hands of the proper Sheriff in that behalf, that the s^jd writs were th«^reupon duly executed by the said Sheriff and payment I and the de- -payment of leoTgina Jane 1888, sub- 3stion which ira of E. H. A. 1). 1888, herein, and aet forth in )tup|ied froiu d, were not und are not ^ of iJecein- ihe Sheriff" of V. said order, .bo saidjudg- i assignment low debarred eorgiiiH Jane »ry or proper Riley, whose itiff's and are ent of claim judgment by [•eon and the eorgina Jane >roper Sheriff" &nd payment of the moneys realized by him thereunder was demanded by the defendants and ought to have been made long prior to the commencement of this action, and the defendants say that by reason of the premises the i laintift's became and are estopped and debarred from impeaching or in any way attacking the said judgment or the writs of execution issued thereon. Delivered this 20th day of March, 1889, by Messrs. Smith & West, of the town of Calgary, in the District of Alberta, Advocates for defendants. ( 1 Ei'l' 1 ought to hare ' that by reason shiog or in any >wn of Calgary. AMENDED REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' AMENDED DEFENCE 1, As to the I7th paragraph of the statement of defence, before the said writs had been duly executed, the plaintitfs, ciaiiuing under the executions against the said E. H, Riley, by writing notified the said Sheritt" not to pay over the proceeds of the sale of the gomis seized under the (ixecutions issued in the suit of Georgiua Jane Hornsfield Riley against the said E. H. Riley, to the said Gettrgina Jane Hornsfield Riley, as they intended to contest the validity of the judgment and executions in the said suit of Georgina Jane Hornsfield Riley against the said E. H. Riley, and have not withdrawn said notice. H) 2. The plaintift's will object that the said 1 7th paragraph sets up no facts which constitute in law any defence to the plaintiffs' claim ina<^much as no priority exists in law nor is alleged to exist in fact between the Sheritt' and the plaintitl's, and there being no priority there can be no estop{ieL 3. The plaintiffs will object that the facts, in said 1 7th paragraph set forth, do not show that the money realized was at home when received by the Sheriff i>r while held by him, nor that the same was by the receipt by the said Sheriff' released from the claim or the rights of the plaintiffs, and that until the said money was at home the same was subject to the plaintiffs' claim in this action. Delivered this 17th day of August, 1889, by Messieurs Lougheed, McCarthy & Beck, of the town of Calgary, in the Northwest Territories of Canada, Advocates for the plaintiff's. ) had been duly »y. by writing ized under the 3. H. Riley, to r the judgment d E. H. Riley, I constitute in lleged to exist e no estopjtel. ot show that nor that the the plaintiffs, slaim in this Beck, of the JUDGE'S NOTES OF EVIDENCE. Caluaky, Alberta, December 20th, '89. BETWEEN SHOKEY & (/'OMPANY and Stobart & Company. Messrii. Ltiigheed & Vld'arthy for the plaintiffs. and 10 Messrs. West & Davis for the defendants. To set aside Judgment and assignment of name. Quustioiis of l^aw to \h'. argued aft.er evidence taken. T1U»M.AS RII.KY, l)eing tsu orttli say.s, I (ainie to (Jalgarv during the .summer of 1887; don't rememlK^r the month; opened up busi- ness fur E. H. Kiley & (/'o. in September or October of same year. The firm of E, H. Riley & Co. is I'nuipnsed of my son alone, E. H. Riley. 1 was hern alniut live or si.\ weelvs Itefore I opened up business for E. H. Riley & (Jo. 1 left Montreal on 4th of August 1887. I did not come direct to Ciilgary. I did uot go Itaek to Montreal since. It was arranged lH>fore 1 left Montreal that I was to visit Manitoba, the N. \V. T. and British Coluiubia, with a view to do the l)est for the in- iJOtPrest of my son; my t>bject was purely to start him in business. My son was then manager for a wholesale crockery busiuess in Moutreal, Z. (xravel & ('o. My son was 22 years old ab«jut. Had l»een engaged in wholesale business myself in my own name. Don't recollect how long before ray dej>arture from Montreal. I cannot say whether it v&a 1,2,3,4, or 5 years l)efore, but I would be safe in saying that it was more than 1 year and within 5 years. 1 was doing commission business in the intt^rval. 1 fiiiled in th>', wholei.ile busiuiiss I was engaged in at first and lost everything. I know that my son had some savings of his own but don't know the amount. I know that he put some m the business, e.xcept the money I had arranged with my wife to let him have. My wife and myself knew our son's |)osition. He lived at home. I did not do all the purchasing of the giNxls up to March r 20th, '89. i up busi- Riley & Co. opened up »n»e direct eal that I i»r the in- inager for a x^ut. Had f before ray would be >n business verything. V that he e business, knew our to March u< I ::»m 10 * 1888. My aon piirchascHi (j^Mxlii in Moiitrual heforo he loft. I did a large Amount of purohasing mynelf. I purchatied uU the go«»d« from the Winnip«ig merchanttt. 1 cannot know the liability of my son on I'.Hh of March 1888, but I can show his liability at the end of every mtmth. I think I have all the Uwka (»f K, H, Riley A (Jo. I made payments for g«M»d« purchaned. I am aware that my wife recovered judgment against my son on my suggestion. I received myself a portion of the money, and my son received the other |N»rti<»n. The books will show the different amounts received. I kept these iMtoks from the c»immen«iement of the business. Part of the money was advanced l>efore the business commenced, for instance, what I got when I left Mtm- treal to lcx»k for a pro|>er location for my son's business. I cannot say exactly the amount now. 10 I am iMisitive that I had more than $300.00 and |ierha|>s ukMit $600.00. I think it was the lirst advance* made by Mrs. Riley. The remainder was advanc»'d after I o[ieney Mrs. Uiley, was advanced in A motherly kind of a way; she was not to get any interest. It was lor the pnr|M»se of helping mv son. No arrangement was matle alsuit the re|Hiynient of that money. My wife had decided marked aft'ection for her son. Kv is the uhiest living son. My wife did not take any iicknowled- ment of that money. No proMiis.s(»ry note of any kind. The money was given at diflerent times a.s required. I rather think the amount of money given was in uoin. The amount given to me was in bills. Mrs. Kiley did not keep si iMnk account. Shi> 'Hually kept her money in the house. I don't know the amount of money Mrs. Riley had wliei. . iv Montreal. 1 don't know wliai 20 amount of money she had left. I ke|it a Ixink aecMOint during tne time I was in business. I did not kee|> a chequt; ac(^»unt since Mrs. Uiley reeuivtMi luouey from Knglund very frequently. 1 gave her myself a goml deal of money to pay for iiou.se-keeping ex|HMises. She had always the handling of all the money I had liefore I entered into business. She may have saved money from that source. 1 had et(ual contidenne in her, when I was in business to her lianassed through my hands. Mrs. Riley's legacy was | of 12,OilO |NMinds Sterling and alntut 1,000 ))ounds more in small lHM|uests. I can't tell hnw long previous to 1887 this occurred, 1 collected that money, it extended over two or three years Inifore the payments were all made, I cannot tell wIkmi testator die«l. I did go to Kng- land several times. 1 (»innot tell whethe: it was lud'ore 1880 or not. I am safe in saying it was 30 after 1870. Some of that money went into iny business. .Mrs. Uiley de|)ended on me to tran- sact all her business and 1 did it. I am familiar with all her liuincial aft'airs. This money given to me when I left Montreal was partly spent in travelling and partly put in the business. 1 don't know of my wife receiving money from Kngland after 1 left Montreal. The tirst entry in the journal is on 31st October, 1887. A staUMnent of <»ur aft'airs on the 17th October 1887, I hereby produce. That was the |Misitinly shows that it is cash received. During Dec. 1887 for goods received from K. H. Riley $162.65. Mrs. Riley's name does not appear in the books at all. No amounts received from Mrs. Riley appear in the books at all. 40 Nothing t«} show that Mrs. Riley's money was a liability to the business. These books show all other liabilities as far as I am aware. During January the firm paid out several bills to wit ; $122.30. $78.85, $182.80, $14.90, $27.00, Paid out Decem»)er $1,732.59. Sales for December are $281.89 and $448.75. Can't tell the amount on discount paper. The proceeds of any «, t i of purohaaiog f the liability of i«»nth. I think I am awaiv lived myself a tli« different **art of the • I left Mon- ft'Hoiint now. f it was the i' iMisiness hen- > advanced in •»f helping mv had decided '.V iicknowled- iOerent tinie» K'Ven Ui me y in the house. *t know whai iine,SM. I did «qiientJy, | always the I money from '»y money. Mis. Riley's •sts. I can't over two or ier 1887, I Tliose cash I account is h received, ne does not >k8 at all. Es ahow all lis to wit; i^ecember sds of any •C'- u accommodation paper don't appear in the book. I wanted to protect Mrs. Riley's interest bj taking judgment against E. H. Riley. The proceeds of 600 pounds sterling and a small amount in Canadian currency were advanced to my son by Mrs. Riley. The sum of 500 pounds was understood to be the amount she would advance. The fact that Mrs. Riley had assisted E. H. Riley by a loan was well known by every creditor of E. H. Riley. I did not interview all these creditors. I saw Shorey & Co. I arranged with them then for a credit for E. iV Riley & Vak They were aware that Mrs. Riley was assisting my son. They understood that my son was to get H loan fi'om my wife for Kve years without interest. The arrangement was that if she allowed to let him have it for five years, she would not charge him int«re.st. I was informed 10 of that by Shorey & C(t., and I told them that Mrs. Riley was to iissidt E. H. Riley. I don't remember to b.ave disciissed that subjet-t witli other creditors. Tlie b.»(iks do not show any other items, but those mentioned, of sums advanw'd by Mrs. Kiley,. Am n Intok-keeper for uver 24 years. Have entered the money received during the time tlie hooks were kept. I do not know the money received in February, 1 have no account of it. E. H. Riley («me sometime in Feb- ruary and assumed the Huaucial arrangement of the business. Afti^r January 1888 I have no entries showing any mcmey received after that date, and don't roeallect to lijivt' leceived any. This journal closes with that dale. After the 31st of Jauuary 1888 the creditors re go tds. The 500 I ounds and other monies, from Flngland, were in iny possession, and I had the management ot iSOthem. I invested them; part I used in my own busin iss, do not recollect the amount. 1 put it in my own l)usiness. 1 can't recollect any particular investment 1 made, except short loans on oue or two investments in real estate. The larger portion I got on my own account from Mrs. Riley was put in my own business. The [tortion that was put in njy business was l(»st, except the ». It was lu 1888, after the Sherifl" took possession of the liusiness. They were creditors at that tiuii', I saw some of the creditors there. St'iliart :Mid I made a proposition to bring about the <:ontin nance of th.; business. Acting under power of attorney from .Mrs. Riley, I would purchase tbi estati; of E. H. Riley & Co. at the iJU Sherifl's sale, and that (J. .1. Riley then would d » busiiiviss instead of E. H. Hiley, asking Htobart's assistance to cirry out that proposition. After somt* dis(!Ussion we came to terms, resulting in the }»urchase of the slock by Stobart, Sous & ('o. Mrs. Riley Ixtught it from them and went on under the style of (J. ,1. Riley \' (Jo. (iave Stobart, Sons & Co. a chattel mortgage on the stock. Mrs. Rilisy assigned tln' Judgment to Stobart, Sons &, Co. as security (collateral) on the chattel mortgage. I can't renieuilier what conversaticui 1 had with Mr. Stt»bart concerning the manner Mrs. Kiley got the judgment. .VIr. Stobart must have asked me alKiut it and the facts of the judgment, unl I must have told him. The proposition was carried out. Messrs. Stobart, Sons & Co. boiiirht the stock from the Sheriff and took a chattel mortgage and the assignment of Mrs. Riley's judgment, ami 1 went on with thi- business in Mrs. Riley's name. 40 My son and I carried on the business. The business was closed up by Stobart, Sons & Co. by proceeding under their Chattel Mortgage. The last time 1 was in England was abtmt 1885 or 1886. Can't remember positively. Brought money with me on that trif». Don't rememl)er the names of the trustees under the will to Mrs. Riley. There was only an understanding among the rs. Riley's interest by iig and a small amount um of 500 pounds was ley had assisted E. H. did not interview all oredit for E. iV Riley nderstood that my son rraugenient was that if (rest, I was informed E. H. Riley. J. don't lo not show any other •ok- keeper for nver 24 kept, r do not know ime sometime in Ft'b- iiiary 1888 I have no to h^vt' leceived any. Mhton of E. H. Riley )re jro)ds. The 500 il the management of he amount. I put it except short loans on u aciMiunt from Mrs. •* WHS lost, except the I don't recollect of ud1iH distributed the 888, after the Shtirifl' «me of the creditctrs 1 ! business. Acting I. Riley & Co, at the K. H. Hiley, asking 1 we came to terms, t^y bought it from « & Co. 11 chattiU & Co. as security id with Mr. Stobart e asked me about it >H was carried (»nt. el mortgage and the Mrs. Riley's name. i»art, Sons & Co. by was about 1885 or >on't remember the standing among the family tliat the money was to be advanced to E. H. Riley, and by the aame understanding he was to repay it to his mother. APPLICATION made to put the examination of Thomas Riley, the present witness, in an interpleader suit between O'Loughlin Bros. & Co, et. al vs G. J. Riley. APPLICATION NOT ALLOWKl). When my wife gave me th" money 1 nsml it thf aame as if it were uiy own money. Am not certain 1 ever had 500 pounds in my possession at one time ; 1 may have had. (THE COURT rinds that the witness is unwilling to answer fully some questions, and very willing to answer others. If the attorney thinks it is surticient hostility on the part of tht; witness U> cross- 10 examine him, he may do so.) The statt-tment made that 1 had 500 pounds, in my previous ex- aiuiuati(m,meaiitthat at dittorent times various suujs received by meonaenountof Mrs.Riley amount- ed to ui(»re than 500 pounds. I mtiiiuedlhe money I required with my wife's consent. 1 generally handed to my wife the amount of money she reijuired, out of tlm moneys collectrd, and 1 used the rest. 1 have im special recoilectiuu of moneys given to my wife for anything else but for ciouse- keeping, exci'pt the amount given to E. H. Riley. 1 rememlwr to have handad to K. H. Riley, early in 1887, for Mrs. Riley, u sum of 123 pounds. That iiuni was part of the family under- standing that my wife was to assist my son. The money I got wlieu leaving Montreal on 4th August, 1887, was the rirst motley handed to me with respect to that business. That is the meaning of my former answer. The 123 pounds might have been part of my wife's legacy from 20 England. 1 believe it was during the time my sou was at (iravei's in Montreal. No stock had been purchased at that time. It was contempluted then to start business. Don't know what my 8(m did with the money. We are 12 of a family. Have not the invoices of the goo<*s. Dis- cussed the matter, of giving my s.mi the 500 pounds to start him in l)usinc.s.s, with my wife possibly a year previous to starting business. CROSS-EXAMINED by. MR. DAVIS. As far as 1 undei'.stoc.(i it, th.'i-.' was Uwt tilt! slightest lioulit that it was a loan that Mrs. Riley made to my son. There is no arrangement as to the time ..r terms of re| ayment. My family is comj osed of It* children. This sum of nioii'-y wa.s nearly all my wife had to spare at that time. This loan "'as given inal.oi.t .'. months from liu' 4tli of August, 1887, with a view to jj,, open tht* business. In fact it was to give my son a st^rt in life. I giive the way before how the amount was arrived at for which my wife got judgment. Have two s( employed with p)'iin- tift's and I was told by their agent that my evideMe.- may iujnie their prospect. The money got from England under the will was my wife's mom y, at the time it was got and always after. 1 had no right to it except what she allowed me to have. She never gave me the money absolutely as my own ; she allowed me to use it. I considered that money given to me for my business was a h)an to me. Any nu»ney 1 retained was with her consent, and was to be repaid to her. It was on my son's instructiims that I travelled to locate a business spot. He was to l)ear those travel- ling expenses. EXHIBITS "A" and "B" riled. Capital account is the surplus of the assets over the liabiUties. By looking over the columns of figures on one page of a journsl, would not furnish ;ive her enough to pay for our lM>ard. My father and mother used to get the money. Dnn't know what they ul was jibMised with it. Can't re- miiinU'r the exact amount now I got from my mother, did not get tliat money in one sum, can't rememlier exactly what was the first amount, I think about !i54(M).(»0, got that in cash ; 1 think it was in bills, she gave me this in the house; likely in the dining rixnu, siie took ?j»4ttU.'.M) and ga' c it to nie; can't remember whether she went into another room to get it or not. I had spoken to her the day before aiiout it. 1 gave her no written acknowledgment of it. Was in ( Jravel's em- ou ploy at that time. Was giving some assistance then to (riavel at tliat time, as he had .some ac- commodation notes of mine maturing aiiout that lime. It was ipiite likely 1 helped him to take those notes up. CJan't rememlier 1 did on this occasion or not, bnl 1 am inclined to think 1 did. (Jot several other sums from my mother iietweeii that time and the time I came away, but can't remember any tif them in particular. (Jot some from my father on my mother's acctii at and some from my mother. They wen^ibout $;i()0.l(0 each, (.'an't remember 1 made any entry of these sums in any iiook. Can't renn'inber any particular time 1 got money from my father. Don't re- member anyone present when any of these sums were given to me. Can't remember how long after 1 got the first money from my imither, 1 got the setjond or thiril sums. They were all got within f' ix month.s. (iot some money about the time my father came away. 1 may have put 40 it down at the time but I don't remember now. No idea the am'/unt my father gave me on my mother's account, (iot the money from him before he left. Can't remember any particular place, where my father gave me that money. Most likely at home; 1 paid that money for the business )0. Had oth.M home. If we nother. Think get the luoiiey. I short time be- nr and mother Made ujt mv nr 1888 I cunio y situation. 1 t home. Can't y mother at the lit six mouths luiiibia, with a e to uommeno' ir my mothti irpose, and slie is I could not I WHS to yet V I mentioned lat money, liud hoard id" any lie money till id some money I. Cuii't re- le sum, ean'l It ; 1 think it 'Mi and u-a* c ad sjjoken ton't re- er how loiij; were all got nay have put me on my ■ticnlar place, the business ■"■ it 15 here; I gave my father some money to come away with. Got my brother to buy some goods at Montreal for me; I gave him the money. After 1 came to Calgary I paid out some cheques; can't remember how much I had with me. Here are some cheques I paid when I got here. Paid ex- hibit "F" after I came here. The money was in the business or in the Iwink, I did busi- ness in the Bank of Montreal about the time I got here. Won't swear exhibit "F" was paid out of the money I brought with uw. Can't swear those cheques were paid with the money I brouglit with me, can't swear it was the same money; never touched the l^toks. Signed the cheques and went to the bank after I came here. Most likely I told my father to enter the amount of money I brought with me, but don't remember it. Never asked ray father to charge the amount 10 of money I got from my mother. Can i>nly produce those chwiues that I paid out here, and theiv was no money here when I came. Did the l)ankiug business after I came here I discounti'd the 8500.00 note of Gravel's. Can't tell if I discounted any otlier notes. The Bank of Montreal got a letter from Gravel but I did not bring it witli me. When I was served with the writ by my mother I was keeping business then. The bank has got my bank-book I think. Don't think 1 took stock when I came. As soon as 1 came here I found that there was no business done. Don't know why my mother sued me, I suppose she was iifraid of losing her money. All the writs were not served on me. Know my mother got judgmiMit against ine, but don't remember the particul- ars. Cannot give any other explanation of ray mother suing me al th.it lime unless she wa.s afraid of losing her money. Almost all the stock was in the store, as there were very few aales 20 at the time I was here. My father and I were here alone. Can't reiuemlwr of any money being sent to my mother, the family did not live out of that store. 30 Cross-examined by MK. DAVIS. The Commission business in Montreal lasttid only a short time. It was ra(»st likely February 1 came up from Montreal. Shortly after 1 came up here 1 paid •nil first olieque, there was a shortage of !$100.00 in the Imperial Bank. The rest of the cheques are in the Bank, amongst which one from Gravel for SI 00,00. The business was dropping ott' nil the time, and 1 don'i think that in February there was enougii taken to pay for one's board. The entries on page 5 of the ledger do not mean sales of goods, but include also balance in bank and other things. Drafts ex. "F", paid on March 6th for silverware bought. EXHIBIT "G" was to pay Turner & Co., Winnipeg, Man. " "H" was on account of Davidson & Co., Montreal, 1'. Q. " "I" was to pay overdraft in the Imperial Bank. " "J" was for a month's rent in the store. " "K" was to pay draft of Ames Holden Co., Winnipeg, Man. " "L" was to pay a note of one Whitbeck. some goods at ne cheques; can't here. Paid ex- ik. I did busi- '"' was paid out money I brunglu he cheques and the amount of irge the amount t here, and there I discountt'd ank of Montreal the writ by my Don't think 1 less done. Don't 11 tlie writs were ler the j>articul- unless she was very few sales iy money being likely February | e, there was a Bank, amongst i, and 1 don't s on page 5 of things. Drafts m ^ 1 u EXHIBIT "M" was to pay for goods got from Reid, Birley & Co. M «jf»» ^jjg to pay a draft, not goods. M ««Q" ^ag (^ pay ftir freight on goods. M «p" ^ag to pay shorey & Co. for goods in store. " "Q" was to pay a draft of Gravel's I think, I am not sure of the last one. Came here with the intention of paying every dollar which was due. RE-EXAMINED BY MR. LOUGHEEI). Never paid Gravel's note. Was out of business long before it came due. The amount of Gravel's note might have been paid out by these cheques. I don't think the proceeds of sale were hardly 10 sufficient to pay the rent. No goods were sold under value. Don't know what the sales were in February, but they did not amount to anything. JOHN P. J. JEPHSON, Advocate, being on oath says :— Was acting for Stobart, Sons & Co. in an interpleader matter. Exhibit "R," the letter filed is in my hand writing. I accepted service of the interpleader summons. (Objection by Mr. Davis to the filing of summons.) I continued to act for Stobart, Sons & Co. in the inteipleader matter, until I took out an order to strike out their names on the 12th May. Order produced under objection. Was acting for tliem until interpleader was tiled. Issue filed under objec- tion. I took out the suiiinions on behalf of Stobart, Sons & Co. to restrain the Sheriff" from paying the money in his hands to the other creditors. AppUcation was not successful, and it was appealed 20 to the Court in banc. (Order of Court to be put in by opposite party or else a copy of it.) The above evidence is taken under objection. Recognize exhibit "C," it was sent to me by Stobart, Sons & Co's. solicitors at Winnipeg. EXHIBIT "S" interpleader summons. " "T," Order to strike Stobart, Sons & Co out of issue. " "U," Interf)leader issue. '• "V," Interpleader summons. ut seized under the Riley execution. The sali' was made under all the above lixecutions. (Interpleader order filed under objection.) 20 Put in the order of 2nd January 188V), striking out all tbe names of the plaintiffs except Shony & Co. and on 8th of March 1889 an order re-instating the same. Also an order of 17th Janu- ary 1889 for the holdinj^ money in this case till further order. Original sub poena filed under object- ion after plaintiffs had closvid their case. THIS CLOSKS Til 1. PLA I NTI FFS' CASE. Exhibits riled m th Sheriff's examination :_"00," "PP," "QQ," "P.R," "SS." FREDERICK WILLIAM STOBART, a witness on behalf (if the defence, is taken at tlib stage by consent, being sworn, states : — I am a member of Stobart, Sons & Va\, and defendants in this action. My firm sold E. H Riley <& Co. goods in the fall of '87. We have not been paid for the goods sold E. H. Riley Sc Co., 30 in any way. Our transactions with E. H. Riley & Co. ceastMl in the sj.ringof '88. Our good.^ th 1888. to. 188. , 1888. 888. 1(1 received the ieU of lue 1»} I was noticed ^as a copy of the s subsequently lie money was on. The sale i except Shon-y i»f 17th Janii- id under object- taken at tlii," rm sold E. H r. Riley k Co., '. Our goods « 19 were sold in the fall on time. Our house first learned in the spring of '88 that Mrs. Riley hadr.-- covered a judgment against E. H. Riley & Co. We learned this through the mercantile agency. This is the judgment in tiuestiou in this action. We got the assignment of Mrs. Riley's judgment in this manner : — " Mr, Thos. Riley came co me in Winnipeg, about April, '88, and requested my assistance for Mrs. Riley in buying in the stock of E. H. Riley & Co. at the Sherift"s sale, agreeing' to give me as security for such advane';,and the payment ofniy account against E. H. Riley ArCo., a chattel mortgage on the stock bought and an assigumont of Mrs. Rili^y's judgment." I consenti-d to this pro})ositioii and we carried it .>ut. QUESTIONED by MR. WEST. 10 Are you aware of the circumstances under which Mrs. Riley obtained the judgment againsi E. H. Rilev & C(.., and if so state them? Objectf»d to by Mr. Lougi-ciid. Answer by wit- ness: — I believe I was fully aware of the circutii stances, when I first sold the goods I knew «>f the advance made. When I first sold E. H. Riley & Co. goods 1 did so under the iirlHrstand- ;• thill ■.viv ing that there was a liability. 1 was informed by Tho.s. Rilev when he cturie to Mrs. Riley's judgment was a valid one and for go(»d consideration. I paid for the stock at the Sheritt's sale $lfJ50.()U, wiiicli was the draft made (in us. The advance made was to G. J. Riley. 1 took the assignment of judgment. 1 would not have made the advance if I had not g(»t tin' judgment. I never entered into any agieiment with E. H. Riley and (i. .J. Riley to defiaud th creditors of E. H. Riley & Co. 20 CROS9-EXAMINE1) by Mr. L-mglued. Previous to Thos. Rili-y waiting on me in Winiupeg we had obtained a judgment against K H. Hiley & Co. Mr. Jephson was acting as our Solicitor in getting that judgment. I am imi aware that about that time the jilaintiH's obtained judgment. 1 was not aware at that time thai they had taken legal procjeeiiings. Betw.'en one and two wt eks after I ha & (Jo. to compromise my claim, by forcing!; her t ,/Ut up the money to buy in E. H. Riley A Co.'s stock. 1 liad no idea we had a legal ri^'lii in the matter. If we had gone on with the interpleader and we had sn(!(,'eedtHl, the result woiilil havd been to set aside the judgment of Mrs. Riley ; tlie object was to force Mrs. Rih'y to buy I In stock. 1 shor)d never have come to (Jourt with the case. 1 started this suit (the interpleadii against Mrs. Riley, without considering I had any right to do so. 1 mean a right uiider la.\. think I had in equity ; 1 ccmsidered 1 had a gooil mora' right. The intt^rpleader was agairi i I' J. Riley. 1 Had no conversation with the other creditor^ about the time of taking the interplea.!'-: proceedings, or about the time of the conversation with Mr. Riley. 1 ha(i a knowledge (»f tlit actions of the other creditors, that they were taking interjdeader proceeding's to attack the judj; ment. Allen & Cameron wore acting as our solicitors when the letter was sent, June, 18H8 ra. Riley hadn-- | ii'cautile agency. Kiley's judgment id requested my f's sale, agi'eeirig H, Riley (V Co., a t." I consented idgment against Answer by wit- | !? goods I knew the iir't^rstand- 'B Witv ,..,., V that e ot'jok at the to (i. J. Riley, iid not got till' rto defiaiid tli' fluent against K. lent. I am nui It that time lliui n proc edings, I I'.untinued to ad ron were act'ii i first jndgmc : avis objected to it aside.) laini, by forcing liad a legal riglit lie result would iiley to buy tlii he interpleacli'i ;ht under la. ! was agaii; I t>' the interpleui'' !U)W ledge of iLi ttaci< the jiiiij; It, June, 18HS 20 m Marked exhibit "C". (Mr. Davis objects to the letter beiug put in as evidence.) We handed to AU'jn & Cameron the general conduct of the case against Riloy, no other Solicitor acted. I am not aware we joined in with the other creditors in the interpleader. After obtaining the assign- ment we dropped out of the interpleader. According to the letter the assignment wns sometime in May. I did not conceal the assignment fronj any one of the creditors, and it might have been some months before they ascertained it. I do not rH(!ollect how it tiame to be known that 1 liad this assignment. 1 was not aware in Sept. 1888 that the creditors were fighting in this matt( r, I was away in England. I never had any conversation previous to the date of getting the assign- ment, with Thos. Riley. This was the occasion when he said the judgment was for good 10 consideration. Previous to the time of selling K. H. Riley & Co. any goods 1 had a knowledge of the assistance his mother had given E. H. Riley, I did not have it from the Riley's, I had il through the mercantile agency, only that I had any information from. 1 have the report (»f the mercantile agency. (Show f- \fv. Lougheed and filed exhibit "1).") 1 received this before I sold liim any goods; it wa^ ered to me about Nov. 1st. I had made t'n(iuiries from Tho.s. Riley as to the judgment jirior >,) taking tht' assignment. Thos. Riley coiilirined the loan but stated the amount largei' than is shown tliere. Tliere was part of the report i did nut question him about. His statement harmonized with the rej (trt eontained in exhibit " I) " except as to the amount. 1 asked him no questions as to the terms of the loan. I made no enquiries as to where Mrs. Riley got this money. I made tio enquiries as to seciiriiii s given by her son, or 2otts tf whether it showed on their books, of on any statement as a liability of the business. 1 never saw any statement as to tiie assets and liabilities of the business. I have no recoUectifUi ot asking for such. I had no object in doing so, the btisiness was in the Sheriffs liands. I attached value to the assignment, viz : 1 would not have advanced tlie money viz: l$l,6()((.0(i, without tlu' security of Mrs. Riley's judgment. Previous to carrying nut this traiisatition I made no enquiries whatever beyond Thos. Riley. He did not state the particulars nf liow the money was advanceil, or in what sums, beyond as to its being a loan. It is imj essible tor me In say if I placed cuii- tideiice in the report being correct when 1 took the assigimieiit. It was solely on Thos. Riley's report and upon what is contained in exhibit " D" that I (-iirried out the anaiigement. 1 don't know whether Thos Riley had a meetiiig willi any otiier ereditors. Tliere was no discussion with 30 me that our house was to }iay oft' the other creditors, or tiiat Thos. Riley was to effect a com- promise. I know that I was h)oking after my own interests, and I was not coneerneiJ in tindiiii; out whether the lialiilities exceeded the assets. I nuide no entjuirii s. I had a judgment at this time for about $400.00 and I was satished that I could not have iimdc my claim out of the estate, in full. I knew it was an insolvent estate and treated it as sucii. (Letter from Stobart, Sons \ Co. shown to witness, and tiled as exhibit " E.") The letter was in eoiinection with a dittereiit suit, and was without prejudice. (Mr. Davis objected to the letter as evidencie.) There was an agreement, without prejudice, witli the jilaintiffs in the O'Longhlin it Riley matter, that the pre- ceeds now in Court were to be distributed among Stobart, Sons & Co. and the plaintiHs in tlie interpleader suit of O'Longhlin it Riley. The arrangement fell through. P^xhibit " 1) " states 40 the reason. We restored the other parties to their original ])osition, the rights were not impairid in consequence of any negotiations between tiiem and ourselves. It might be possible thai Jephson was acting as our Solicitor up to the 20tli of Sept. 1888. 1 never saw G. J. Riley nei had 1 any correspondence with her. 1 never ascertain* d what au'hority Iik.s. Riley had to U'l HifiTf,: Wu handed r acted, I am ing the assign - wns sometime ght have been wn that I had : this matt( r, I ng the u.s.sigu- was for good I knowledge of ley's, I had il ^ report of the .ed this before ies from Tlio>. I the loan but [.ort I did not t " I) " excel I lo enquiries as )y her son, or e business. I recollection ot Is. 1 attuchcd l», without the e no ciuiuirics «as ad\iin('i'd, I jdaced t'liii- Th(»s. Kilev's inent. I don't iscussion witli effect a cons- ne(J in finding Igment at this of the estate, obart, Sons \ itii a dittereiii There was an that the pre- lintiHs in tlic t " I) " states not impaired possible thai J. Riley nm ley had to uit for her, otherwise thau what he tt)ld lou. I never saw any authority, it might have been showi to my Solicitors in Winnipeg. RE-EXAMINED by MR. DAVIS. The true consideration mentioned in the assignment of judgment which was collatotal security to the chattel mortgage was $2,550.00 or thereabouts, of this l|l,650.0(» was a casli advance, the balance was made ii]* by the amount of our original claim against E. H. Riley & Co. and a claim of C. H, Mahon which was assigned to us and certain costs. S}>eaking roughh the assignment stands as security for alK)ut $950.00 and costs. At the time I took the assignment (if judgment, I was aware of Dun, Wiman & Co's report, exhibit "D", and the information given 10 me by Thos. Riley and no other information. There was no further information given me by Thos. Riley than the assertion that the judgment was good and what I have stated alwve. My object in taking the assignment was hs security for money advanced and goods sold. I had no other nli- ject whatever. The transaction was entirely Uma fide on my part. I had no other object in en- tering into the interpleader suit, than that what I have stated, to force the compromise. I thought it would force G. J. Riley to put up the money to buy in the st«»ck, or the stock would be sacri- ficed, and I thought that as she had loaned the .scm some money she might have more. RE-EXAMINED by Mr. Lougheed. It is my opinion that the stock would \m m«»re valuable to her than any one else. I don't say that it was a family transaction. R1':-EXAMINEI) by Mr. Davis. Groods are generally sacrificed at h forced sale. Assignment and papers in connection with it put in on behalf of the defence. THIS CLOSES THE CASE FOR THE DKFENC^K. .Arguments fixed for 9th January 1890. Calgary, Alba. 23rd Dec. 1889. CHAS. B. ROULEAU, J. S. C. m have been ah. «wt h was collatoral 0.00 was a cash '8t E. H. Rilev il)eaking roughly he assignment of formation given iven me by Thos. 5ve. My object ad nf> other o^ er object in en- use. I thought 'Oil Id be sacri- )re. a^se. I don't EAU, J. S. C. 22 EXHIBIT "A II A '» 13. 20 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. STATKMENT OF AFFAIRS, E. H. RILEY & CO., 17th OCT. 1887 Opening day; 268, Stejthen Ave., Calgary, N. W. T SUNDRIES. DR. to Balance Account. (assets) 1. Mdse in stock. 3,180.84 4. (Furniture and fixtures (Counters, store &c., as per inventory 228.00 5. CASH E. H. R. 3011. 25. 100. 425.00 lull. Imperial Bank 212.00 10. F. G. F. Lajjenotiere (hotel) ACCOUNTS REC'BLE 10.00 10. F G. F. Lapenotiere 28.25 12. M. Harris 13.00 12. J. D. Geddes 15.00 BALANCE ACCOUNT Dr. to Sundries (Liabilities) H Shorey & Co., Sep. 3. 303.78 271.88 Z. Gravel, Sep. 3 71.18 7 249.53 19 54.20 21 18.55 C. H. Mahou & Co., Oct 16 Turner McKtuind & Co., 12th Oct. Ames, Holden Co. Ld lltli " Pauhn & Co., 12th " T. Davidson & Co., Sep. 29 575.06 393.46 630.00 272.93 250.10 33.83 229.65 4112.09 1 7th OCT. 1887, I. W. T jfit i: m t-'' 28 20, E. H. Kiley & Co., capittil acct. 172H.4H Note ; Cash in hand of E, H. R. in Montreal ) T. K. not included ; statement not received Man'r. 4112.09 EXHIBIT "13" NUT PRINTED. Orij^inal transmitted to I{ej,'i»trHi' Court in hauc, juirsuant to order of Mr. .Tiistioc Rouleiin dated Aj.ril 22nd, 1890. KAHIHIT "C" R. Rilev Winnii-eg 11th June 1888. Dear Sir; Messrs. Stobart, Sons & ("o. have hiiiidid ns your letters tn tlieni of the 26th & odt: ]()Muv. We have heen gettinu seouritv for the Viirioiis iidvanres made liy Stohart, Sons & Co, i; this matter hut there has heeii sonie deliiv unfortunately. As s(ioii as this is comjileted ym; C(jsts will he paid. There was no jiartieular (ihje<'t in striking out Stoliart, Sons, iV Co's name from the iutu jtleader proceedings. They are the heneticial holders of the judgment, having an assignment t them of the same, and it might have easily hajijiened that they could put to advantage th fact of their heing on hoth sides of the record. We couM imt liavt- ('X]ilained this as clearly as v intendt'd. In the meantime as Mr. StoKart is alisent, we wisli you to wait until the security is cdii pleted. When this is d(me we wouhl advi,se S. S. & Co. to settle with you. 20 Yours truly, ALLEN & CAMERON, ""m. iiaticc Rouli-i 'Ull ^1 Time 1888. • 26tli & 3(1ti Sons & (Jo. ir :oin])l('t('d vdii iciu the iiitii assignment i advantagt' tli »s elearlv as v :iiiritv is vm- ERON. J. p. J. Jephson Esq., Advocate, Calgary, N. W. T. mk (TELEGRAM) Sep. 26. 1888. From Winnipeg To J. P. J. Jpphsoii. Notify Clerk of Court, Sherifl", Lougheed & McCarthy that Mrs. Riley's judgment absohiM assigned to u» May last. Take necessary proceedings to protect our interests. Stobart, Sous ^ Co, 14» EXHIBIT "D" 1 Riley E. H. & ( lo. G. 8. Calgary N. W. T. Oct. 21 '87. Reporting from Montreal. E. H. Riley is the sole member oi li tirm. Is at present and has Ixien for the past 2 years in nnploy of Z. Gravel, wholfda crockery, Montreal. Started the aUtvo business al[K>iit a niuntli or so ago. His father Thos. Kil> having charge of it in the meantime, bill the young man is going to leave (jravHl's aUtut the l> ginning of February and will then go to Calgary and l«»<»k after the busines.>4 hiutself. He is s'm^. well spoken of by his pmseut employ»ir as Iwing sober, activn and hard working, and he is sorrv 20 lose his services. We understand that he is t-omuHtucing with a capital of some 11700 of his l» lelf. He is si lip ind he is sorrv 1700 of his m: terest or seciiirii Jan not withdrai : a few Montm ia deemed v\t 25 EXHIBIT "E" n. Winnipeg ' Manitoba 6th Februarv 1889. Messrs. O'Lcughlin Bros. & Co., Winnipej;. Dear Sirs; O'Loughlin vs Riley jy We beg U.> adviso yon that in view of an order in (Jonrtat Calgary having issued 8to|i[ ing the payment out «»f Court of monies pntposed to l)e distributed under an agreement betww. yourselves and otlsers and us, dated 18th December last, we are unable t<» carry out the terms said agreement and will, should you so desire, restore you as agreed to your original position i' this matter. Yours faithfully, Stobart Sons & Co. KXHIBIT "F" »1 37.95. Mtmtreal, November 1st 18^ Four mouthn after date I'uy to the order iiK)nt.a'i(( Hank one hundred and thirty seu '.>5-lOO Dollars. 20 Value received and charge to uccoiint of To Messrs. E. H. Kilev & Co. Calgary, N. W. T Simpson Hell Miller &. Co. per prr; J-'.^./ard Bulmey. X)ba 1889. ing issued »Ui\i\ eement b«twef. ut the terms ' iual position k IS & Co. •V ember Ist Ui md thirty sevf ill ' ■•(• 26 Marked as follows: "Accepted payable at Imperial Bank, Calgary, Br H. R llwy ^ Ovtr" and "Paid" EXHIBIT "G" No 2. Calgary Alberta Feb. 14th 1888. To the BANK OF MONTREAL, CALliARY, Pay to draft Turner McKean & Co. or bearer sixty three 27-100 dollars. S63.27. EXHIBIT "H" 10 No. 1. (;algary, Alberta, I4th Feby. 1888. To the BANK OF MONTREAL, CALUARV, Pay to Baiik Montreal or bearer seventy six 55-100 dollars. $76.55. ^rttHiitey-^UIa I i! No. 3. 27 EXHIBIT "I" Calgary. Alberta, 14th Feby. 1888. To the BANK OF MONTREAL CALGARY, Pay to Cash or bearer one hundred dollars $100.00 No. 4. 10 To The EXHIBIT "J" Calgary, Alberta, Feb. 15th 1888. BANK OF MONTRKAU CALGARY. Pay to D. W. Marsh or order forty five dollars. $45.00 R. H. Ril e y A C «. 'eby. 1888. EXHIBIT "K" No. 5. Calgary, Alberta, 15 Feby. 1888. To The BANK OF MONTREAL, CALGARY, Pay to the Ames Holden Co. Ld. or order one hundred and sixty one 96-100 dollars. $161. 96 B f - II. Rile) & Cu . EXHIBIT "L" No. 14. Calgary, Alberta, 29th Feby. 1888. 10 To the BANK OF MONTREAL, CALGARY, Pay to note Whitbeck or bearer forty-five dollars. $45.00. BrH . Uilvy A < » >. Feby. 1888. 100 dollars. bv. 1888. 11 No EXHIBIT "M" Calgary Alberta Feb. 23, 1888. To the BANK OF MONTREAL, CALGARY, Pay to B. P. Reid Birey A Co. or btsarer two hundred and sixty-seven 05-luO dollars. •267.06 ^K. H. Riley & Co. No. 12. EXHIBIT "N" Calgary. Alberta, Feb. 22, 1888. To the KJ BANK OF MONTREAL, CALGARY, Pay to draft Robinson & Keys or bearer thirty six 76-100 dollars •36.76 ii. H. Uiley A Go. • 1888. ■luO dollars. eb. 22. 1888. EXHIBIT "O" No. 11. Calgary. Alberta, Feb. 20, 1888. To the BANK OF MONTREAL, CALGARY. Pay to caah (C. P. R. Freight) or bearer thirty dollars. tso.oo iUIL-Biter*-eor EXHIBIT ' P" No. 6. t(^ Calgary, Alberta, 15th Feby., 1888. To The BANK OF MONTREAL, CALGARY, Pay to H. Shorey & Co. or order one hundred and fifty dollars. $150.00 E. ir. Rill y r^' On, ;; «t 9, 1888. by., 1888. I 31 EXHIBIT -Q" No. 8. Calgary, Alberta, Feb. 16, 1888. To the BANK OF MONTREAL, CALGARY, Pay to Cash «)r bearer sixty-three dollars. $63.00. S,-ii.Jtaer*-€or' P. W. King, Esq., u SberiH, Calgary. Dear Sir ; EXHIBIT " R ". Calgary, 6 April, 1888. re Stobart, Sons & Co. vs E. H. Riley & t 1 notify yon that yon are not to pay over the proceeds of the sale of the goods seized und fi fa issued in the suit of Riley vs Riley to the plaintiff Riley, as I intend, on behalf of a clients, to contest the validity of the judgment and executiftn in the siiit of Riley vs Riley. I also desire you to have the store closed and your own bailifl' placed in possession. Yours truly, J, P. J. Jephsou, Advocate for Stobart, Sons &r 16, 1888. 1888. E. H. Riley & i foods seized und d, on behalf of E f vn Riley, ssession. tohart, Sons & ( 32 il^-' II ,t,„:„ INDORSED S. C. N. W. T. N. A.J, |>. No. 328, Georgina .lane Riley vs Riley No, 333. O'Loughlin Bros.' & Co. vs Riley No. 335. Stobart, Sons & Co. vs Riley No. 339. Campltell, Spent & Co vs Riley No. 340. Lyon, MacKenzie & Powis vs Riley No. 341. MacKenzie & Mills vs Riley and 0'T,oughlin Bro.s.' & Co., Stobart, Sons & Co., Campbell, Spera & C(.„ 10 Lyon, MacKenzie & PowLs and MacKt-nzie & Mills ; Claimants This is exhibit " B" u;^err d to in the affidavit of Peter Willmigliln King, sworn before nie t'uis 9th day of April A, D. 1888. H. S, Cayley, Notary Public. Calgary, Alln'rta, N. W. T. A] ril 6th 1888. P. W. King, Esq., Sherift; Calgary. 20 Dear Sir : 0'L(>ii)4h!in et al vs Rilty MacKenzif et al vs Hi Icy Lyon I't al . , Riley Campbell et al vs Riley In these actions we notify you ti.at we claim the proci-eils <4' the iialcs of the goods 8«'ixi'rt I under the executions herein, as ve will, on uehalf r,f our eli-nts, contest the validity and bona fides of the jiidgment and execution in the snit of Riley vs Riley, Ufing the first exenition pla(^d in your hands. We, therefore, desire you to ha\ • an inti'rj.leader smnmons taken oiit between (.ur clients and the first execution ceditor, so that we may have a cout'.jt over the oroceeds of the 30 sale. We also desire you to have the -t',re closed up and your own bailiff placed in possei Yours truly, Uugheed f' McCarthy. ssion. J, l>. , Spera & C(i„ Claimants. • WillftiigLln 8. •lie. 88. y and bdtia ntion placffd )«t betWHin ictieds of tlif R(^88IOII. ■%- •hi- 33 'II h >'.h, l! ; Indorsed as follows : S. C. N. W. T. lU No. 328. Georgina Jane Riley vs Riley. No. 333. O'Loughlin Bros. & Co. vs Riley. No. 335. Stobart, Sons & Co. vs Riley. No. 339. Campbell, Spera & Co. vs Riley. No. 340. Lyon, MacKenzie & Powis vs Riley. No. 341. MacKenzie & Mills vs Riley. and O'Loughlin Bros. & Co., Stobart, Sons & Co., Campbell, Spera <. hefemiunt. Jolin Myles O'Loughlin and MacRoy O'Ljugh- lin, trading as O'Loughlin Bros. & Co. Plaintitfs. and E. H. Riley, trading as E. H. Riley A Co. Defendant. Stobart, Sons & Co. E. H. Riley & Co. and Plaintitls. Defendants. I ill. Co., nt8. Hough by J8. )lic. itifl, luiit. bill's. latit. litis. itits. ;! No. 339 No. 34U 34 Campbell, Spera & Co. R H. RUey & Co. Lyon McKenzie & Powis, E. H. Riley & Co. and and PlaintiiTs Defendants. Plaintifl's, Defendants. to A. A. McKenzJd and E. M. Mills trading as MacKenzie & Mills, Plaintifls. No. 341 and E. H. Riley & Co. Defendants. and John Myles O'Loughlin and MacRoy O'Loughlin trad- ing as O'Loughlin Bros' & Co., Stobarl Sons & Co., Campbell Spera &Co., Lyon, MacKenzie & Powis, A. A, MacKenzitr and E. M. Mills trading as MauKenzie & Mills. Claimants. " 1, Peter Willonghby King, of the town ol Calgary in the North-West Territories Sherift' of the Northern Alberta Judicial District, make oath and say: — X, Under and by virtue of writs of fi fa, whicii appear to mv to have been regularly issiii 20 out of this honorable Court in tliese actions, directed t(t the SheriH of theNortnern Alberta Judicii District, commanding him that he should cause ti» l)e levied of the goods and chattels of the aUiv named defendants !ilS&|541.ai in suit No. 328, $116.42 in suit No. 333, lj$389.44 in suit No. :{:! $105.41 in suit No. 339, «127.7() in suit No. 340, and $260.20 in suit No. 341, which the alniv named Plaintifls havt* recovered in this Honorable Court against the said defendants, and endnrsi to levy the whole of these suras, respi ctively, besides Sheritt's p)uudage, olHcer's fees and nth' incidental expenses as endorsed on said writs, I did on the thirty Hrst day of March instant tak possession of all the stock in the store occupied by the defendants on Stephen Avenue in tlu' tm' of Calgary in the said Territori(!s, consisting in I art of boots and shoes, rubbers and moccaKii' ready-made clothing, hats, mens underware, cniekijry, glassware, tin and plated wan-, pipes, ci>:earand state the nature and particulars of their respective claims to the gocxls and chattels seizeil by the Sheritt of the said Northern Alberta Jndicial District under the several writs ol fieri facias issued in these causes, and maintain or relinquish the same and abide by such utC ^T as may Imj made therein, and why in the meantime all further proceedings should not be stayed. Dated at (yhamlters this 9th day of April 1888. 20 Chaa. B. Rouleau, J. S. C. EXHIBIT "T" IN THE SUPREME COURT OK THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NOTRHERN ALBERTA .lUDIClAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN: John Myles O'Loughhn and MacRoy O'Loughlin, trading as O'Loughlin Bros. & Co., Stobart, Sous & Co., Campbell, Spera 37 |> &Co., Lyon, MacKenzie & Towis, A. A. \facKenzie and H Mills, trading as Mackenzie & Mills, Plaintifts. and (ieorgina Jane Riley, Defendant; Upon the applieation ..f tlie Plaintiffs, Stobart Sens & (;-., up..ii veadtnjj the «.nsenf endorsed hereon of the Advocates for thi- Plaintiffs other than the said Stohart S(.ns & Company, and the Advocate for the defendant ; It is ordered that the Plaiiitill's, Stohart .Sens & Company, he sMiK^k out of this interpleader issue, and that the said Stobart Sons & Oo. dn withdraw from this iuterplea> t i > hu t i I Suiiu A Co. , (Jainfibell Spiia & Co., Lynn Mac- Kenzie & Powis, and A .A. MacKeiizie and E. M. Mills irailiiig as MacKeiizie & Mills, Plaintifl's, and Oeorgina Jane Riley, Defendant I'. •I. i ; ; 1 H. A. L. D. 10 Whereas John Myl«!> O'Lougliliii and MacRoy 0'l/»iighlin trading a8 O'LoHghlin Bros' * Co., Cttrapb«ll Spera & Co., and A. A. MacK.-nzie and K. M. Mills trading as MacKenzie & Mills attirni, and Gporgina Jane Riley denies that the judgment recovered hy the said Georgina Jane Riley against E. H. Riley doing business as E. H. Riley & Co., ..n ..r alx.ut the 1 9th day of March 1888 for the sum of »2541.31, inciuding costs, is friiiuliilent and void as against the said John Myles crLoughlin and MacRoy O'Loughlin trading as O'Uughlin Bros' &Co., tj tohu rt 8 o»a A Cn. . Campbell Spera & Co., Lyon MacKenzie & Fowis, and A. A. MacKenzie and K. M. Mills trading as MacKenzie & Mills ; ani. NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. betwe*:n : U.i John Myles O'Luughhn Hud MacRoy O'ljoughlin trading as 20 O'Loughlin Bnw. & Co., Cam|tlM»ll, Spera & Co., Lyon, Mai'- Kenzie & I'owis, \. \. MacKenzie and E. M. Mills, trading as MacKfiizif & Mills, IMaintitts, ♦ and Georgina Jane Riley. Defendant. Up'-n the application of Stobart, Sotis t Company, upon reading the affidavit of John P. J. Jephson, tiled this day, and the athdavit of James A. Lougheed sworn on the I7th inst. and filed; Let all parties concerned attend the .Judge in Chambers in Calgary on Saturday the 29th day m h: i m o9 of Spptembcr, 1888, at I'lfvcn oV.lock in tht- fori'iKior nn the h»'iiiiii<; of mi iipi>li(iitioii on tlie pan of Stobart, Sons & ( ■omimny rtbovo nanipd, to restrain the SheritV of this Distriot from ]>aying over the proceeds of any portion of the {j;i;'>ds, the snbjeet ol this interjileader issne, pnrsnant to the order made herein on the 25th inst., and to direct an issue to be tried l»et\veen the above named plaintiH's as ]ilaintit1s and tlie said IStoliart, !Sons ii;:^ Conijiany as defendants, to try the right to said goods and tlie proceeds thereof, or tliat the style of cinise in this interpleader issue be amended by substituting the name of Stobart, ISon.-> & Com|)any as defendiinls in lieu of the above tiamed defendant M«'orgina .Jane Kiley ; and that this interjileader issue stainl for trial as pre- viously dirtMted. I* '- l^j And in the meantime let the moneys iilicady in the hanils of the siiid Sheritf, and the nmneys whiiih may hereafter come into his liaiids us sech Sherifl', to the credit of this cause, lie retained by him until further order; or in the event of any of the said moneys having been jiaid over by the said Slu ritV, why the said moneys should not be returned to th.' said Sbeiitfor security given therefor pending the trial of tiiis interpleader issue ; and also lei all other and tiiithtM- |ir be stayed until the httaring of this apjdicMitiori. l)ated at chambers this 26tli day of September, 1888. (!has. l\. Itouhuiu, •J. S. 0. This snnumtns was taken out by John I'asooe J ■mix .lephson, of the Town of Calgary, N. 20 W. T., Advocate for the alnive named ytobart. Sons & (Jouipany. To Messrs. Loiigheed & McCarthy, Advoeaies for the al><»ve named plaintiffs; and to K. W Davis, K.s(p, Adv(»cate for deft. i; KXHIHIT " VV " IN THK SUl^RKMK tUUTIIT OK THK NoKTH WKST TKUKlTOlilF^i nKTWKEN .John Myles O'Lot.ghhn and MacKoy O'Loughlin, trading m O'Lougldin liros. & Co., Campbell, Speia & ('..., Lvon, Mac .J } I' 40 Kenzie & I'owis and A. A. MacrKenziti and E. M. Mills tradinfij as MacKcnzip and Mills. and Plaintifts. Defendant. Georgina Jane Kiley. and In the nuiUer nf tlie appeal l)y Stobart, Sons & (Jn. from the order of Mr, Justiee Kouleau, dated 29tli Sei)tenil»er, 1888. .\ppellants. 10 December 7th. 1888. This cause c(.ming on tor arj/umeni in presence o( Counsel for all parties; and judgment being rest : ved ; It is now ordered that the apj)eal be allowed and tliat the order for the inleri.leader issue in tbis matter, in the Northern Alberta J udieial District, the interpleader issue, tlie order of Mr. jMstic Rouleau of the 25tli 8ept.^mber. 1888, and his order of the 29th SeptemlM-r, 1888, being til,' order appealed against, and all other proceedings in the intt^pleatler matter be set asidt^ and that the execution in the suit of Georgina -lane Kiley against K. H. Riley, doing business as K, H. Riley & Co., be forthwith returned by the Clerk of the Supreme C»»urt of the .ludicial Di.strict of Northern Alberta in the Sheriff of the said .ludicial District, and that said writ of execution when 20 delivered to said Siieriff hav' like priority and t^tt'ect with respect to any goods chattels and property in the Sheriff's liHuds and with respect tn the proceeds of the sale nf any goods chattels and property in theSherilf's hands as if such execution ha.<: Co. or their .\gents or Advocate 27 do 36 74 501 ; do 2(t 1 2lii 29 do 1(» 1559 60|i 1559 60 \i If 1 certify that the above is a true copy of E. H. Riley & (Jo's, account, with purticuhirs of discounts added. W. H. Hogg, 30 Accountant. 23rd Deer., 1889. i EXHIBIT "Y" IN THE yCPREME COURT OF THE NORTH VVEoT TERUITORIES, NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 533 35 40 00 239 30 267 05 119 20 40 77 70 72 65 40 36 20 1(» 559 60 iilurs of int. 42 p'n 4 BETWEEN Georgina Jane Riley, PlaintifT, and E. H. Riley, doing business as K. H. Riley & Co., Defendant. I, Edward Pease Davis, of the town of Calgary, in the Northwest Territories, Barrister, make oath and say : — 1. 1 did, on the 17th day of March, A. D. 1888, personally serve the above named defendant with copies of the statement of claim, writ (if summons, notice of motion and order of His Lord- ship, Mr. Justice Rouleau tliis day dated which are now shown to me, and marked as exhibits 10 "A," "B," "C" and "D," respectively, by delivering the said copies to him at Calgary aforesaid. 2. 1 know the said defendant personally. (efore me at the Town of Calgary, "i the Northwest Territories, this > E. P. Davis, th day of March, A. D. 1888. ) Sworn l»efore me at the Town of Calgary, in ' _ - . 17th W. T. Ramsay, A Notary Public in and for the N. W. T. KXHIBIT Y r IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THK NORTH WEST TERRITORIES, NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. :iOhETWEEN: Georgina Jane Riley, Plaintiff. and E. H. Riley doing business as E. H. Riley & Co., Defendant. 1 ThoHjas Riley, of the town of Calgary, in the Northwest Territories of Canada, clerk, make oath and say : — f. t. make :;ndant Lord- xhibits resaid. it. , inak<' 48 1. T am the husband and agent of the above named plaintifl, and have a i»ersonaI knowledge of the matters in question herein. 2. The plaintifl' herein advanced to the defendant herein by way of loan at his request, be- tween the 21st day of July hist |)H8t and the 29th day of September last past, the sum of S2448.31. 3. The defendant has not repaid the said money or any part thereof, although requested so to do by the plaintiff, and still owes her tin- said amount. 4. The defendant has no defence to this action. 5. The Hnancial affairs of the ilefendant are very much involved; his commercial paper has gone to protest; he has been sued in this Court, and is threatened with more suits. 1- <^ •<> «^ ;:: WIST MAIN STRHT WltSTIR,N.Y. I4SM (716)«72-4S03 ^^^ ^ €4" a^ 4^ 46 EXHIBIT "Y 6" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NORTHERN ALHERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN Oeorgina Jane Riley, PlaintifT. aad E. H. Riley, doing huHiuess Ktn E. H. Riley & Co., Defendant. 19th Mui-cli, 1888. Thiflday lKffor« Ilia Lonl, of March, A. I)., 1888. (SEAL) H. A. L. Dundas, Clerk of Court. 1N1>0K8EJ> : lU N. B. -This writ is to l>e served within twelve months from th(^ date thereof, or if reneweil within six months from the day of the last renewal, including; the day of such date, and not afterwards. This writ was issued by K. P. Davis of (.'algary, N. W, T. Advocate for the within named plaintitf. No. »28 EXHIBIT "Z" IN THE SUPREME COIKT (JF THE NORTHWFilT TEKRITORIFS, NORTHERN AI.BERTA JUUKMAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN: 20 John Myles O'L.ughlin and .MacRoy O'l/iughlin, trading as O'Loughliu Bros. & Co., Plaintifts. ami E H. Riley, trading as 'A. H. Riley & Co., Defendant. The third day of April, A, D. 1888. Pursuant to the order of the Judge of this Court dat«d the 3rd day of April, 1888, whereby y « ii .„ ord.r«i .h., th. pl.in.ifr. might «gn immedi..* j«dgn..nt for th. .»..™n. cUim«l i. .h.ir Statement uf claim. It is this day adjudged that the plHintiffs recover against the said defendant. $89.52 and cost, to be tAxed. The above costs have been taxed and allowed at $26.90. .« appears by the taxing officer's certificate dated April 3rd, 1888. H. A. L. Dundas, Clerk of Court. KXHIBIT "AA" 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTH WEST TERitlTORIKS, NORTHERN ALHERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN A. A. MacKenzie and E. M. Mills trading as MacKenaie & Mills, Plaintifts. and n'f? I E. H. Riley & 0{.., The third day of April, A. D. 1888. Defendants. Pursuant to the order of tlu' Judge of this Court, dated the 3rd day of April, 1888, whereby it was ordered that the plaintifl might sign iuiniediate judgment for the amount claimed in their statement of claim. It is this day adjudged that the ]»laintiffs recoviir against the said defendants $210.10 and costs to be taxed. The ab«ive costs have been taxed and allowed at $260.20, as appears by the taxing officer's •■ertiticate, dated April 3rd, 1888. H. A. L. Dundas, Clerk of Court MiUh, 41 EXHIBIT "BB" IN THE SUPREME COUKT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN : Lyon, MacKenzie & Powis, and Plaintiff's. Defendant. E H. Riley, trading as E. H. Riley & Co., The third day of April, A, D. 1888. Pursuant to the order of the Judge of this Court dated the 3rd day of April, 1888, whereby 10 it was ordered that the plaintitts might sign immediate judgment for the amount claimed in their statement of claim. It is this day adjudged to be taxed. 9 plaintiffs recover against the said defendants $99.74 and costs The above costs have been taxed and allowed at $28.02, as appears by the taxing otticer's certificate dated April 3rd, 1888. H. A. L. Dundas, Clerk of Court. ¥'■■■ In 4 \\ f KXHIBIT "CC" 20 IN THE SUPREME COUItT OF THE NORTH WFJST TERRITORI^S, NORTHKRN ALBKRTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN Campbell, Spera & Co., E. H. Riley & Co., and Plaintiffs. Defendants. B. hereby a their d costs jtticer's rt. m. Its. M The third day of April, A. I». 1888. P„««ant U. the order of the Judge of this Court, dated the Hrd day of April. 1888 whereby it wa8 oniered that the plaintiff might sign iu.mediate judgment for the amount claimed m their statement of claim. It i«thiH day adjudged that thi.plainriffsrmiver agaiiwt the Mid defeudanta «79.16 and ctMtH to In* taxed. The ab.,ve «.8t8 have l^eu taxed ami allowed at $26.26. as aj.iK^ars by the taxing otHcer's certificate, dated April 3rd. 1888. H. A. L. Dumias, Clerk of Court . KXHIBIT"ni)" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THK NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN Stokiart, Soud and Company, K. H. Riley and Company, JUlMiMKNT. and Plaintiffs. Defenda!tt«. ■ i The 5th day of April 1888. on The plaintiffs by th • order of Mr. Justice Rouleau dated the 5th day of April 1888 obtained leave to sign judgment under section 233 of the Civil Justict^ Ordinanct^ 1886 for the amount of their claim namely ^333.61. It is this day adjudged tliat the plaintitts recover against the defendants $333.61 ai:d costs which have been this day taxed at |55.83 in all amounting to $389.44. H. A. L. Dundas, Clerk of Court. ireby their and icer'8 ttained mnt of d coata Ri;« 51 EXHIBIT "EE" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES. NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN : H. Shcirey Hi C(.., and Plaintiffs. Defendants. E. H. Riley & Co., The 2nd day of June, A, D. 1888. Pursuant to the order of the Honorable Chas. B. Rouleau. Judge of this Court, dated the Lst 10 day of June. 1888, whereby it was ordered that the plaintitts should be «t liberty to sign judgment for the amount of their debt and costs as claimed in the statement of claim and for costs of the plaintifiV application for immediate judgment, and t,. issue execution forthwith upon such judgment. It is this day adjudged that the plaintiffs recover against the said defendants $678.86 and costs to be taxed. The above costs have been taxed and allowed at SI 12.44. as appears by the certificate of the Clerk of this Court dated the 2nd day of .Mine, 1888. H. A. L. Dundas. Clerk of Court. i i jS« he 1st dgnient of the tn such nd costs cate of irt. EXHIBIT "FF" m I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN Plaintififl. Defendants. The Ames Holden Company, Limited, and E. H. Riley & Co., Thursday, the 12th day of April, A. D. 1888. 10 Pursuant to the order of His Honor Judge Rouleau, dated the 1 2th day of April, 1888, whereby it was ordered that the plaintiffs be at liberty to sign final judgment herein against the defendants for the full amount of their claim and interest, if any, and costs. It is this day adjudged that the plaintiffs recover against the said defendants $218.13 and costs to be taxed. The above costs have been taxed and allowed at $62.85, as appears by the certificate of the Clerk of this Court. H. A. L. Dundas, Clerk of Court. bereby ndants d costs ate of 53 EXHIBIT "GG" I a o WRIT OF EXECUTION. 00 00 iU •2 s s s t •s O o « 1 ;: CANADA, In the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, Northern Alberta Judicial District. S 0> - 00 ^ 2 BETWEEN Georgina Jane Riley, Plaintiff, and •° ^ s ^ .« w a> o a ^ o :^ OS E. H. Riley, doing business as E. H. Riley & Co., Defendant. VICTORIA, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, QUEEN, DEFENDER of the FAITH, etc., etc., etc To the Sheriff of the Northern Alberta Judicial District: You are commanded that of the goods of the defendant in the Northern Alberta Judicial Dis- trict, you cause to be made two thousand five her Mr. Vj. P. Davis, her Advocate. 25th Sept. 1888. P. W. King, Sheriff*. m ■ ■i Received at 12.15 P. M. this 5th January, 1889, to l>e filed as at 12.15 P. M. of the 19th March, 1888, in pursuance of an order of the Court in banc, dated 7th December, 1888, made in the suit of O'Loughlin vs Riley, a c«jpy of which order is hereto annexed. This writ is sub- ject t-o the control of Stobart, Sons & Co. or their agent or Advocate, only, and not to the control of 20 the plaintiff', Georgina Jane Riley or her Advocate, E, P. Davis, in pursuance of said order. 5th Jany. 1889. P. W. King. The above sale was postpmned from time to time until Friday the 8th day of Feby. 1889 when they were sold to I. G. Baker & Co. at 41 cents on the dollar «)n the invoiced value of $586.93 — less two cups and 1 doz. medium forks, valued at $3.75,— $23*.^.10. 8th Feby. 1889. P. W. King. ^:R EXHIBIT "HH* WRIT OF EXECUTION in suit of O'LOUGHLIN et al vs RILEY. Dated 4th day of April 1888 • Amount— $116.42. Delivered to Sherifl 4th April 1888, as 3-66 pjn. iU EXHIBIT "I I" WRIT OF EXECUTION in suit of MACKENZIE et al vh RILEY. Dated 4th day of April 1888. Amount— $260.20. Delivered to Sheriff 4th April 1888, at 3.55 p. m. EXHIBIT "J J" WRIT OF EXECUTION in suit of LYON et al vs RILEY. Dated 4th day of April 1888. Amount — $127.76. Dehvered to Sheriff 4th April 1888; at 3.65 p. m. EXHIBIT "K K* *'l I %d 2U WRIT OF EXECUTION in suit of CAMPBELL et al vs RILEY. Dated 4th day of April 1888. Amount— $105.41. Delivered to Sheriff 4th April 1888, at 3.55 p. m. EXHIBIT "L L" WRIT OF EXECUTION in suit of STOBART et al vs RILEY. Dated 5th day of April 1888. Amount— $389.44. Delivered to Sheriff" 5th April 1888, at 1 p. m. EXHIBIT "MM." WRIT OF EXECUTION in suit of AMES HOLDEN CO. vs RILEY. Dated 13th day of April, 1888. Amount— 9270.98. Delivered to Sheriff 14th April, 1888, at 10 u. m. J, EXHIBIT "NN" WRIT OF EXECUTION in suit of SHOREY et al vs RILEY. Dated 2nd day of June 1888. AiRouut— $791.30. 10 Delivered to Sheriff 4th June 1888, at 10 a. m. EXHIBIT '00" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTH WEST TERRITORIES, NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN 20 No. 328 No. 333 No. 335 No. 339 Georgina Jane Riley, und E. H. Riley doing business as £. H. Riley & Co., John Myles O'Loughliu aud MacRuy O'Loughlin tradiug as O'Loughlin Bros. & Co., and E. U. Riley trading as E. H. Riley & Co., Stobart Sons & Co., E. H. Riley & Co., Campbell Spera & Co., E. H. Riley & Co., and and Plaintiff. Defendant. Plaintiffs, Defendant ; Plaintiffs, Defendant : Plaintiffs, Defendants. m n 4 No. 340 Lyon MacKenzie & Powia, E. H. Riley & Co., and Plaintiffs, Defendants ; No. 341 A. A. MacKenzie and E. M. Mills trading ad Mac- Kenzie & Mills, Plaintiffs, and E. U. Riley .& Co., Defendants ; % and John Myles O'Loughlin and MacRoy O'Lough- • lin trading as 0'Li»ughliii Bros' & Co., Stobart *** Sons & Co., Camptell Spera & Co., Lyon Mac- Kenzie & Powis, A .A. MacKenzie and E. M. Mills trading as MacKenzie & Mills, Claimants, and The said Geoigina Jane Riley, execnlion creditor, and the Sherifl of the Northern AUierta Judicial District, Respondents ; Upon hearing the Advocate for the yherilf aforesaid and upon reading his attidavit, filed on the 9th day of April 1888, and tlie depositions of the defendant and Thomas Riley, and upon 2oh^Ariiig Counsel for the said (Jeorgina Jane Riley ; It is ordered that the said ISheritl jiroeeed to sell the gonds seized by him under the several writs of fieri facias issued at thi suits of the alx^ve named plaintitts herein, aud pay the proceeds of the sale, after deducting tlw irxpenses tliereof, SlieriH's fees, j)oundage, .j.ossession money, adver- tising and rent, into Court to abide the further order herein ; Audit is further ordered that the parlies prt»ceed to the trial of an issue in the Supreme Court of the North West Territories, Northern Alberta .ludioiai District, in which the 8ai<' claim- ants shall l)e plaintifl's, and the said execution creditttr, (ieorgina .lane Riley, shall be defendant ; and that the tjuestinn to be tried shall l>e whether the jiitlgmi'nt of the said (Jeorgina Jane Riley is fraudulent aad void as against the said claimants ; OQ And it is further ordered that this issue be i)repared 'ind delivered by the plaintiffs therein within ten days from tliis date, and be retunwd by the defendant within four days, and to be tried at the town of Calgary before a jtiry ; And it is further (trdered th;it the iiuestion of costs and all further questions be reserved until the trial of the said issue, and that n(» action be brought against the said Sheriff for the seizure of the said goods. m Dated at Chambers the 25th day of Apiil A. D. 1888. Chas. B. Rouleau, J. S. C. EXHIBIT • P p •• IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES. NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN 10 2 M «■> e a < >> f" .a a . z •^ 00 -o «<-> 00 t O r-( O ^ ee a) CS •S as i 5 « a 3 73 a >^ I-? P OS nd part ; WHEREAS the said party of the first part, on or about the nineteenth day of Marcli, one lU thousand eight hundred and eit^hty-eight recovered a judgment in the Supreme Court of the North- west Territories, Northern Alberta District, against Ezra H. Riley, of the said town of Calgary, for the sum of two thousand four hundred and forty eight 39-100 dollars damages and ninety three 03-100 dollars costs making together the sum of two thousand five hundred aiMl furty one 42-100 dollars. AND WHEREAS the said party of the first part has agreed to assign the sai4 judgment and aU benefit to arise therefrom either at law or in equity unto the said parties of the^ second part in manner hereinafter expressed ; NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH that in pursuance of the said agreement and in consideration of the sum of two thousand five hundred and fifty one dollars of lawful money of '^0 Canada to the said party of the first part in baud well and truly paid by the said parties of the second part , at or before the execution hereof, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, she the said party of the first part bath granted, bargained, sold, assigned, transferred and set (iver, and by these presents doth grant, bargain, sell, assign, transfer, and set over unto the said parties of the second part their executors, administrators and assigns, ALLTHAT THE SAID HEREINBEFORE MENTIONED JUDGMENT, and all and every sum and suras of money now due, and hereafter to grow due by virtue thereof, for princiftal, interest, and costs, and all benefit to Ik' derived there- from, either at law or in equity, or otherwise howsoever ; TO HAVE, HOLD, RECEIVE, TAKE AND ENJOY the same, and all benefit and advantage thereof, unto the said parties of the second part, their executors, administrators and assigns to and for 30 their own proper use and as and for their own proper moneys and efleots absolutely. And the said party of the first part hereby constitutes and ap|)oints the said parties of the second part, their executors and administrators to be the true and lawful attorney and attorneys in the name of the said party of the first part, or otherwise, to ask, demand and receive of and from the said E* H. Riley, his executors or administrators, the said Judgment debt and pr(jmi8e8 hereby assigned, and on non-payment of the same, or any part thereof to obtain any execution or execu- n 63 tioM or bring, commence and prosecute any action or actions, 8uit or 8uitB as well as at law m eTuTforth recovery of the same, and to use all such other lawful remed.es. ways and means a. IsaCrty of the first part could or might have used or taken for the recovery of the same, and t r^eir- recovery tLof to sign and give go«l and effectual receipt or receipts for he same w°th fuU power from time to time to appoint a substitute or substitutes for all or any of the purposes aforesaid. And the said party of the first part doth hereby agree to ratify and confim whatsoever the ..id parties of the second part their executors or administrators, shall lawfully do or cause u. be aone in or about the premises. ,ft Provided that the hereinbefore mentioned costs are not hereby assigned and that any expenses incidental to enforcing said judgment are to be all the costs and charges of th. party of the first part. IN WITNMSS WHEREOF the said parties hereto have hereunto set there Hands and Seals the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of J. D. Cameron. } G. J. Riley (SEAL) per Thos. Riley her attorney. 64 INDORSEMENT ON EXHIBIT "D" PAGE 24. THE MERCANTILE AGENCY. OF Dun. Wiman & Co.. R. G. Dun & Co.. E. RusBell & Co. The infonnation given on this sheet is an answer to an ^"^"^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Mercantile Agency, who asks for the same as an a,d to ^etermme the P-P" J ^^ ^^ J^^^^.^^^ The information is cc,n.mnnicated under the conditions .^ an agr^^m^^^^^^^^ who expressly stipulates that the said infonnat.on ^^^-^^^^^^^ l^,,^, stipulates employes of the said subscriber and on his behalf. The said agreemt J j^^ ^.^^ „f 10 that the said MercantUe Agency shall not ^ ^^^^^f "7"^ ^ru^^^^ «»d any of the said subscriber's servants, clerks attorneys aiul ^^Pj^ ^^". J^"^^^^^^^^ ,, „, J^nner For Messrs Stobart, Sons & Co., City, No. 1333. Nov. 1. 1887. A» •Ki ^i; ^■^'. 65 JUDGMENT. This is an action to set aside a judgment of Georgina Jane Horntield Riley against E. H. Riley, which said judgment was afterwards assigned to the defendants, as fraudulent and void, and thatjthe executions issued thereunder may in like manner be set aside and that the plaintiffs may be paid upon their said executions the proceeds of said goods so sold and of those remaining to be sold. This action was met by the following defence, to wit ; Special denials of all the facts alleged in the statement of claim, a:»d also that the defendants acce]tted the assignment of the said judgment recovered by Georgina Jane Hornstield Riley against E. H. Riley and became and are assignees and purchasers thereof in good faith and gave good valu- 10 able and adequate consideration therefor, and that they had not at the date of the said assignment, nor did they ever have nor have they since then acquired notice or knowledge of any actual or constructive fraud, collusion or want of consideration whatever in connection therewitli or in oon- necticm with the claim on which said judgment was founded. That urder an agreement made l)etween the said Georgina .lane Hurnstield Riley and the defendants the said assignment of judgment was taken as collateral security for the repayment of certain advances, made by them to her, and (m re-payment of said advances, the said Georgina Jane Homsfield Riley is (mtitled to a re-assigninent of the said judgment. That the said assignment was takesi on or aliout the eleventh day of May, A. 1)., 1888, sub- sequently to the making of the interpleader order in the statement of claim mentioned. 20 That the plaintiffs having then all the knowledge relating to the matters in question which they are now possessed were parties to an agreement entered into between the creditors of E, H. Rilwy, other than the defendants, and Geoi'gina Jane Homsfield Riley in Sei)tember A. T). 1888, whereby they agreed to settle their alleged claims as against the judgment in question herein and to with- draw all proceedings that had been taken to set aside the same, on the terms net forth in said agreement, and the defendants say that the plaintiffs are now precluded and estopped from im- peaching the same upon any grounds 'vhatsoever. That tht^ plaintiffs H. Shoiey & Co. and the .Xme.-, Holden Company, Limited, were not jart- ies to the interpleader proceedings mentioned in the st&tement of claim and were and are not en- titled to the l)eneHt of the order made by th(( Supreme Court in banc on the 7th day of Dewmbet, 30 A. D., 1888, in the said interpleader proceedings and the monies in the hands of the Sheriff of the said District ought to have l)een fiaid over to the defendants under the terms of the said ord«^r, but have not btten so paid over though demanded by the defendants. That the plaintiffs have by delay on their part in their ^troceedings to impeach the said judg- ment, and more es,)ecially by their not taking such proceedings until long after the said assignment of judgment to the defendants, of which they had notice, acquiesced th<^r<)in< and are now debarred from attacking the same. .1 h': n. «,•■. '-i •I .V ■'".<.• .J ', !- M ■• i'.v ■. /:;. m Taat the defendants will object that on the faots of the pleadings the said Georgina Jane Hornjfield Riley should have been a party to this acaon and that they are not necessary or pro- per parties and in no event ought they to be ordered to pay costs. That the defendants further say that they are ncc execution creditors of E. H. Riley whose executions rank prior in date and in their receij)t by the Sheriff to those of the plaintiff's and are subsequent to those of Georgina Jane Hornsfield Riley. That the defendants say that writs of execution issued in the judgment by Georgina Jane Hornslield Riley against E. H. Riley as aforesaid were placed in the hands of the proper Sherift' in that behalf that the said writs were therefore duly executed by the said Sherift" and payment of M)the moneys realized by him thereunder was demanded by the defendants and-ouj^^ to have been made long prior to the commencement of this action, and the (iefendants say tlujt by reason of the premises the plaintifts became and are estopped and debarred from impeaching or in any way attacking the said judgment or the writs of execution issued therein. To this defence the plaintifts mndc a special reply to the last paTagra]li whereby they allege notice given to the Sherift' not t<» i)ay over the money to the said Georgina .lane. Hornsfield Riley as they intended to contest the validity (»f the judgment and executions &c, and also two replies in law to the same paragiaph of the defence. As there was no attem])t on the part of the defendants to sustain either their answer in law or to argue the plaintiff's' objections ir luw to the 17th jarRj'raph of their defence, I have reason 20 to believe that they found their positutn untenable, and therefore I will dismiss, the defendants' answer in law, and sustain the plaintifts' objections in law to the said ITtli. paragraph of the defence. The first and most important question to be decided in this case is this ; whether a fraudulent judgment duly assigned for good and valid consideration, can be attacked by the creditors of the assi;.;i>urs in the hands of the assignees. By 13th. Kliz. C. 5, it is enacted that all and every feoft'ment, gift, grant, alienation &c, and all and ever}' bond, suit, judgment, and execution, which have br^en and are devised and contrived of malice, fraud jovin, collusion or guile, to the end, purpose and intent, to delay, hinder or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts &c, are declared to be yO clearly and utt<*i ly void, frustrate and of none eft'ect &c. Thi>re are several exceptions to that enactment 1 find in Sec, VI of the same act that this, or anything therein contained shall not extend to any estate or interest in lands, tenements heredita- ments, leases, rents, commons, profits, goods or chattels, had, made, conveyed or assured or here- after to l)e had, made, conveyed or assured, which estate or interei t is or shall be ujton good con- sideration and bona fide lawfully conveyed or assured to any person or }itrsons &c, not having at the time of such conveyance or assurance to them made any manner of notice or knowledge of such covin, fraud or collusion as is aforesaid, but I <^annot find any exception relating to judg- ii^: >'■' ■■■■v\ v.-y i',; 'T: . -, .>• . V; 67 ments and executions and therefore the assignments of judgments must be governed by the ' common law. The only case in point cited was that of McDonald vs Boice 12 Grants' Chancery Reports p. 48, where it was decided that a subsequent encumbrance had a right to impeach the judgment of a prior judgment creditor. In that case there was a bill filed impeaching the judgment recovered on cognovit by the defendant Joseph S. Beatty against one William Beaty and which had been assigned to the defendant Boice, on the ground that by the fraud of the parties the judgment had been recovered tor an amount greatly in excess to what was due by William to Joseph S. Beatty thereby depriving the Plaintiff of the means of enforcing his judgment. IQ By analogy I think this case shoiilii be decided on the same principle as the case of Pressey vs, Trotter Q. C. Grant p. 154, where tl>'; '' "as laid that an assignee of a mortgage takes it sub- ject to all the existing equities. On the part of the defendants the case of Trotter vs Douglas 18 Grant p. 341 was greatly re- lied u}ion, but in reading carefully the case, I am of opinion that the facts are very different, G Wynne J. states in his judgment that if the estate which was conveyed by the mortgage executed by Alexander Douglass in favor of his son James still remained vested in James, the transaction would be open to impeachment as a mortgage fraudulent and void against the creditors of Alex- ander, under 13th, Eliz. Chap. 5; but James Douglas having conveyed that estate to Cook, and Cook having conveyed it to Nesbitt before any steps had been taken to impeach and avoid the '■^^ mortgage, we have now to decide what is the effect of these two separate alienations of the estate. So that the action instituted in that case is quite different to the action instituted in this. Tht- Sheriff' in this case was notified that the creditors would attack the vahdity of the judgment before it was assigned at all, and the very defendants in this case were amongst the creditors who notified the Sheriff. It was declared also in that case that the property was never vested in James Douglas, but he acted only as the agent of Alexander Douglas, so that the action against James rould not be sustained in any case. In the case of Elloitt vs McConnell 21 Grant p. 376, it was clearly decided that the assignee (»f a mortgage, like the assignee of a promissory note (after matur- ity) or othei' chose in action, takes the same subject to all equities, as well those of third parties, as those of the parties to tlie instrument and Strong, P. C. in his judgment makes use of tiiefoUow- 30 ing language. "There is a number of cases, of which I may mention the decision of the full Court in Smart vs McEwan, and my own decision in Rychman vs The Canada Life Assurance Company, 17 Gr. 550 , in which it has been determined that the assignee of a mortgage, like the assignee of a chose in action, stands in no better [tosition than the assignor, the original creditor or mortgagee, and this not merely as regards the debtor or mortgagor, hut as regards the world". In conclusion I must add that I cannot see the difference between the assignment of a mortgage, or chose in action and a judgment. I think the same law governs them all and I am therefore of opinion that the assignment of a fraudulent judgment duly assigned for good and valid consideration can be attacked or impeached by the creditors of the assignor and that the assignee takes that judgment subject to all equities. Now returning to the facts of the case, I find that on the 19th day of "^0 March 1888, Georgina Jane Riley obtained judgment against E. H. Riley & Co. for the sum of '"i •«■ ■: »■'. n.. ' -.-.I 68 $2448.31 and costs. The writ was issued on 17th day of March and judgment obtained on a notice of motion for judgment upon the affidavits of Thomas Riley, the plaintiff's husband. This execution as v sll as many others were placed in the hands of the Sheriff, and on the 6th day of April 1888, M. M. Lougheed & McCarthy on behalf of O'Loughlin et al MacKenzie et al ; Lyon & al, and Campbell & al ; and Mr. Jephson on behalf of Stobart Sons & Co. gave a notice in writing to the Sheriff' that they intended to contest the validity of the judgment and execution in the suit of Georgina Jane Riley vs E. H. Riley. \]\mn those two notices the Sheriff' applied to me by his affidavit on behalf of the above judgment creditors for an interpleader summons which was grant- ed on the same day. On the 29th day of May 1888 an interpleader issue was taken and on the 10 same day Stobart Sons & Co. had their names struck out from the same. On the 11th day of May of the same year, M. M. Stobart Sons & Co. got the assignment of Georgina Jane Riley's judgment. Afterwards the abo\e orders for interpleader summons and issue were diet aside by the Supreme Court in banc on the ground that I had exceeded my jurisdiction as our laAv in that re- sped is not similar to that of Ontario and the parties placed in the same position as they were be- fore the Interpleader order was granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court in banc was deliv- ered on 7th Dec. 1888, and proceedings to set aside the judgment in this case taken on the 27th day of the same month, within the time specified by the judgment of the Suprenn?. Court in banc. At the trial of this case Thomas Riley was examined and without entering into long com- ments on his testimony I will merely say that he swore amongst other things, that the money 20 advanced to his son by Mrs. Riley, was advanced in a motherly kind of way, she was not to get any interest. It was for the purpose t(( help my son. There was no arrangement afntut the re- payment of that money. No acknowledgment of that money or promissory note taken by Mrs. Riley. Mrs. Riley's name does not appear in the books at all, and no sums received from Mrs. Riley appear, nor is there anything to show that Mrs. Riley's uicmey was a liability lo the t'usiness. In all his evidence Thomas Riley cannot say how that sum of $2448.31 was advanced to his son f>y Mrs. Riley. He cannot give a detailed account of that amount. With the exception of £123, 0, which he handed to his son himself, he cannot swear to any other amount advanced- £. H. Riley was also examined in this case and he swears that he cannot remember the exact amount of money he got from his mother, and cannot either give any detail. So according to the 30 evidence of the parties who are supjiosed to have received the money loaned by Mrs. Riley, it is impossible to form any idea what sums of money Mrs. Riley has advanced, although it was at the suggestion of Thomas Riley that she took judgment for the large amount of $2448.31. In view of that evidence, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that amount of money for which judgment was obtained was never advanced, and if part of it was advanced at all, the evidence shows that it was advanced not as a loan, but as a gift, and that therefore the judgment obtained by Mrs. Riley was fraudulent and void as against the creditors. A great many authorities have l)een quoted to show that such transactions between relatives are looked upon by Courts of Justice as suspicious, if the testimony of the parties interested is not corroborated, and I may add that it is a well settled jurispruden. . f I' .» • f There ore several other points raised in this case, but I am not going to adjudicate on them, for if the law as laid down by me in this case is correct, there is no necessity for me to refer to points which cannot materially affect this case. The judgment of the Court is that the said judgment recovered by Georgina Jane Homsfield Riley against E. H. Riley and assigned to the de- fendants is declared fraudulent and void and is set aside and vacated, and that the executions issued thereunder are in like manner set aside, and that the plaintiffs be paid upon their said executions the proceeds of said goods so sold and of those remaining to be sold, the whole with costs of this suit against the defendants. 10 Calgary, 17th Feb., 1890. Chas. B. Rouleau, J. S. C IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NORTHERN ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT. BETWEEN : H. Shorey & Co., John Myles O'Loughlin and MacRoy O'Loughlin trading as O'Loughlin IJros. & Co., Campbell, Spera & Co., Lyon, MacKenzie & Powis, A. A. MacKenzie and £. M. Mills, trading as MacKenzie & Mills, and the Ames Holden Company, Limited, Plaintiff's, and '4Q Stobart Sons & Co., NOTICE OF APPEAL. Defendants ; TAKE NOTICE that the defendants appeal against the judgment of the Honorable Mr. Justice Rouleau, rendered heiein on ^he 27th day of February, 1890, whereby judgment wj;s ordered to be entered for the plaintiffs, and the judgment of Georgina Jane Hornsfield Riley against E. H. Riley, doing business as £. H. Riley & Co., and assigned to the defendants, was declared fraudulent and void, and was set aside and vacated, and that the executions issued there- under were in like manner set aside, and that the plaintiffs should be [)aid upon their said executions the proceeds of the goods sold and those remainit^ to be sold ; the whole with costs. And take notice that at the sittings of this Court, in banc, to be held at Uegina at 10 o'clock 30 in the forenoon of t^e second day of June, 1890, or so soon thereafter as Counsel can be heard, a motion will be ma^ ^n behalf of the defendants to the Court in banc by way of appeal from the said verdict and finding and judgment aforesaid, and for a judgment entered herein for the defend- /•o» •' .1 .. , .J ,, U .HP •■ . . Kl!.. ^: 70 ^. „ tut a new tH.. .. diree^d U, ^ had ^--Mke p.*. he^^. -^tu^tirr"" be ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the said appeal, and their costs in And take notice that the grounds of the defendants' said appeal are, among others, as fol- lows: — 1 That the said verdict is against law and evidence and the weight of evidence ; co„"d be attacked in the hands of a bona fide purchaser without notice . 3. ^at the e^idence ^^-V^^^r^TkCto t^^^^ n:^ZLf.^rt ,n ment made by the said Georgina Jane Hornsfield Riley to the said t.. n. y derstanding that the same was to be re-paid to her. 4. ThatthelearnedJudgeerredinfindingthatthesaidjudgmentwasfraudulentandvoid as against the creditors of the said E. H. Riley. Dated this 17th day of March 1890. Yours &c., Smith & West, Defendants' Advocates. k Messrs. Lougheed McCarthy & Beck, 30 Plaintiffs' Advocates. M • d