^%» o.. Vt IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 |50 ""^ M 22 2.0 1.8 U i 1.6 %

<* 4^^ ^-"%. >A. 6^ n=> mHE PRESENT APPEAL is from a judgment rendered by His Honor, Mr. Jus i tioe Short, ia the Circuit Court for th. Di.trict of S.iat Franci*. o« the 30th day of ^r^ "'b" «., 1 The Mrion of the AppeUant wm to recover the baUnce of an account due by the late Joeeph Bariey. JlbaTdof the Ro'^ndent. and the amount of a .mail acoun; due b, her .. Tu.rix to her m.nor li^ldren "eilf the I.^T Jo.eph Bailey. The pleading. ar« referred to at length .n the ?• •t'""- Aj" chUdren, «'" Aonendix Owing to the fact that the Appellant, during a great part of. the S; ;';•«". l':thTn:^^^^^^ ^ l e.p.ey. .„d the inability of the Respondent in her ^-l- tTof Tutrix to give admiesion. in the cau«. a great deal ot evidence had to be adduced .n proof of he ^ nt nf the L^llant Ina.tnuch. however, a. by the judgment of the Court below, the account of rrppeUa i. formS dec "^ to have been proved, by far the largest portion of the evidence adduced 'he^'c^i e ha.':; be/ring upon the .ueation to be detennined by the pre^nt appeaL AlUhose part, of the evidence which the Appellant conceive. .ff-.ct the po.n.. at „.u. are pnn.,ed m the Ap«?"f ^.^ . The only question that ari.e. in thi. appeal i.. whether the APPe'l^nt ««=-nted to the late Jo^ph o -1 1. .K«.,.m of £79 16. 4d . and ihe.uu of £6 5.. Od., received by the Appellant from th. «i« of Sill iCr. aflntLl ; be crried.o the late Jo«.ph B.i.ey. «t Sherbroo.e. TJ. for- .«« walTrL" d by the Appellant on the twenty-fifth day of May. 1863. the latter on the 13tU day of Sep- ''^h^ptlrofTe Respondent i. that th«« .am, were never accounted for by the Appellant r.nd thev Le . uTJy her in com,Kn.a.io« of the ..ppellaat's account. That thi. po.U.on .. untenable w.ll they are *'\^P ^I'l!"^ ^ m,inlain., from the statement, and declaration, of the late Jowph Batley Zlll ;V'ltT^ta h 'LTe -cts of the Defendant herseU u.ter ,he death of her husband, irom .he n ir^f^rdelg. beweeu the Appellant and the late Joseph B.il.y and from m.n, c.roumsunces whirarTbrought out in evidence. The Appellant will briefly advert to th. facU rehed upon by htm tn *0„"Te"2Cth day of May 1863. the Ut. Joseph Bailey was Indebted to the Plaintiff In the sum of £19 ,4?U It sXn-eLry to remark upon the improbability that the late Mr I alley re,um.g to L actely J i. bLnes. a.', manufacturer, the w..ol, of hi. av.ilabi. me..n.. wculd m.ke an advance tue actneiy in oi. ^ ^ .^ ^ possession for a per- Hailev was sufficient to p.y the whole account of th. Appellant fur nearly a year tn advance and to lea e ?t aUe nlv r„f Baii. at the time of his death, of upwards of £20. The witness Thomson, .bo wa^ane Kht itti^atlV^^^ of B.iley. ,pe,.W. strongly from hi. knowledge of B-i'.ey. pos.uon und businZ of the extrcnc i.nprobabiU.y of his leaving .um. so considerable m the hand, of th. Appellant XVstlmelr'o. Buley a short time before his death agree with the rretenMon of the Appo'.l .nt thnt fc, iou T o »,. lay for'll moneys received. He stated, not long before his death to App.Ha.U ... -Uo ^.rnce .f the w,t,.Js llv.inu. L U. (Bulcy) -.v.. deeply inJ.Hte.. to the App.llint. Iho s.m. ..a- Eun in s.h.t ,«-.«. . .s m..l. by B.iley in the hcMriu, or the witness Burns. It is .nconc.iv.ble .h t TZyZl LI b..ea .. gra.tiy i. error. «. th, preteoalons ot tae Respondent would indicate b.m to have been. [»a^ts?««WiWK*) E3S Th* kwp^nilwsli In ^r «Mw»rt «^n /(4(i» # «rtfcfe»,:*taW tl»t bn Uto hotoaBd. (ft far from admit, ting to her thit he ww indebted to the Appellant, aUltd tlat ttie Appellant was iDdabttid to Um. That thU aaaattion of the Keapondenl ia at Tatianw with at-itemenU by Bailey to other* Upoii th» laow aabjMt •iUapp««r>y»l*ren«B tolh»eTtd«mo«t)(^he witnesaea Hyndman and Burna Already referredi^.Let ua M« how far it it eorrobojaied by the acu of the Re«pondent after her husband'* death. When the Ap- pellant presented hia account to her ahe did not expresa any surprise at finding the indebtedneas of bei bukband ao conaiderable, nor did aha then remamber the pretended sUtemonts of the late Mr. Bailey, ia regard to the balance of account being ag linst the Appellant, but she merely wished to look over tbo ac- ..« - 1. ,-:ii Wi. ^%ts,«t,A ih»». at thin nm*. thn Ream indent had in her Duaaessiun the uoconnt. Defend- Mit'a BxhiUt No. 10. »bich ia an account of Nelson and Butters and contains the charge of £6. 3b. Od., afterwards claimed to be doe by the Appellant, it is but f.ir to prcaume that while the account of the Appellant was in the Reapondent'a hunda for ins; action ahe wrote to Nelaon and Butters for information respecting those of her husband's business transactions with which the AppelUnl was connect sd, and re- ceived in veply the letter DQfjnJuots BthilU No. 9, dated USth ApHl. 1854. A few days afterward* (May 4th) the Respondent transferred to the Appellant moveable property to the amount of £28 16s. Od. in part payinen* of th« Appellant's account against the lute Mr. Bailey. The fact that no charge appears in the books of account of Bailoy against the Appellant, of th-) moneys in question in thii ciuse, tends etrongly to eitablinh the prete ision of the Appellant that thsy were imme- diately accounted for by him to the luie Joseph Bailey. His books of account were kept with Accuracy and care, as will appear in comparing many of tho charges in the Appellant's account for orders paid and ♦He charges in the accounU (Nos. 25. 2d, 27, 28 and 29 of the Recard) copied from Bailey's account book*. The force of thi* fact (the absence of any charge against Appellant) was felt by the Respondent for with her approbation, if not upon hsr express direction, charg'.s were made in the hooks by her sun of the sums allegeu to be unaccounted for by the Appellant. A few days after the Appellaat brought the £79 IBs. 4d.. from Montreal for Bailey, the latter paid to the witnes* William Brooks, upon a promissory note, 'lie sum of sirty pounds. It is extremely improba- Me that thi* sum came from any other source than from NtUon and Cutters. It represents almost the exact balance which would remain in Bailey's hand* sft;r deducti ig the £iO credited by the Appellant upon his account. It is natural to suppose that when Bailey wrote to Nelson and Butters thut he was in need of money and wished to have the balance due him remitted he had particularly in uew the note due to Brooks which was shortly to mature. After the witness Burns was examined, the Appellant asceitained that he could prove material fact*. aptto which he had not been interrogated. The AppeUant therefore petitioned to be permitted to examine Boras -a second time. This application was refused. The Appellant would refer the Court to hi* petition and affidavit ard also to tho vague and unasual terms ol the counter affidavit of the RespouJent. The re- jection of the Petition of the Appellant would, he conceives, under the circumstances, warrant the rever- •elof the judgment of the court below. ^urtier , « .j ,u , . It is hardly necessary for the Appellant to commentupon the evidence m the cause. Bestdes the fact* and circumstances alluded to it is established that the moneys in dispute, were not received in the regular way of buHness but rather as the friend and neighbor of Bailoy, and for bis accommodation. Upon this poi.nt the Appellant would refer to the depositions of the witnesses Butters, Brooks and Thomson. Had the late Joseph BaUey lived to effect a .Jttlement with the Appellant, the suit which gives rise to the preient oppeal would probably have been unnece**ary. Nor, under ordinary circumstances, would the Appellant have troubled this Honorable Court with a matter »o trifling in amount. But he conceived that the assertions of the Respondent put in question his character for integrity and that his duty to him- •elf requited him to submit the judgment of the court below to reviewal of this Court. The Appellant is confident that a just appreciation of the evidence of record in the cause muat letd to a rever-l of the judgment ap,«.l.d from. TaOHLAB W. MTOHIB, \ "^t~*« A P P E N B I X |l,0W£BOAirAI>A, TO WITj ) OOPY OF PljttTION IN APPEAL. C U E f OF QUEEN'S BENCH ! To the Honoralile tbe Chief JiiBti<» and Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench, holding the said Court on its Appeal 3ide i r[E PETItlON OF Albert G. Woodward, of tlie Town of Sherbrooke, in the District of Saint Francis, Trader, Plaintiff in the Conrt below, HUMBLY 8HEWETH:— Thit h«i»tofote, to wit, on the tweaty-flrrt 4flfT of Ptbruirjr, one tliauMnd tight hundred and &fty-eix, jaxa PetitioiMr iiutitatad in Mtion la the Ciieuit Coart.Bt Iho Wen Sherbrooke Citcuit, »gBiMt H««n»h Bellituipor the uid Town «f Sber jrooke, widow of the late Joeeph Bailey in hit lifetime of the tamn place. Pail Manufaciuver, in her quality ef Tutrix dnW appointed to Andrew J. Bailey, Hannah Bailey, Edwari Bailey, Joseph Bailey, Jeste BaUey, Kmily BaUey, Frederick Bailey and KUen Bailey, minor ehlldten, istna of her marriage with the uid late Jeteph Bailey, di .eated. Defendant in the Court Wow, for I' e «um of twenty-«ix ponndt and one ehllling, currency, for the balance of an ao- connt (annexed to the declaration in the said came) for goodt. ware* and mewihandiae, by your PetitioDer lold and de- UTtred. and money lent to the taid late Jo»ph Bullcy, at hi* retjupit, and fet money by your Pvtitbnar paid, laid out and expended to and for the ute of the taid late Joseph Bailey, and at hit request ; and for goodj, warea and merchan- dixe, by your Petitioner sold and delhered and money lent to the taid Hannah Belknap, in her said quatity and at her requeM, id for money by your Petitioner paid, laid out and expended by your Petitioner to and for the use of the said Hot uah Belknap in her aald^ualiiy, and a. her requeat, the whole at Sherbrooke aforesaid, in the then Sherbrooke Circuit. That to the aaid action and dtmtinit of your JS'etitioner in the said Circuit Court, the said Defendant la her saU quality, pleaded amongst other things that on «h* thiiteenth day ol September, one thautacd eight hundred and fifty- three, your Petiticiier become and T-aa indebted to the Iste Joseph Bailey, in the sum of eighly-six pounds one shilling «nd four pence currency as and for so much money then and theretofore by him received of and belonging to the aaid late Joseph Bailey, from Nelson and Butters, traders, in the City of Montreal, and not accounted for or paid to the lata Joseph Bailey, or to the Defendant, t« gualiti, and that the account of your Petitioner had been paid, compensated and discharged by the said sum so alleged to have been received by your Petitieuer fsem (he said Neitoa and Bulttra. To this plea of the Defendant in the Court below, your Petitions* ans>f eced that in all his U'anractione with the said Nelson and Buttoia in relation to the moneys of the laid late Joseph Bailey, your Petitioner merely acted at the firiond and agent of the said late Joseph Baile/, and always accounted (o him for all moneys received by him, said Plaintif, from aaid Nelson and Buttera on account of *h« said late Joseph Bailey to his entire satisfaetinn, and never rtceiTcd any moneys belonging to the aaid Ute Joseph Ikiley for the use and benefit of hin 'e said PUintiff, to w»t, your Peti- tioner. . That heretofore, to v.i m the thirtieth day of June now4a»t pssf, final judguent wss rendered in the taid cause by thre HonoraWe Edward abort, one of the Judges of the Superior Ceurt in the Circuit Voutt for the District of Saint francis, having jurisdiction over tiie said cause, by which said iinaJ judgment the amount claimed by your Petitioner, «a wit, the sum Of twtuty-tix pounds and one shilling currency, »at and it dedared to have been and to be paid and f smpentateil by the Mid. sum of eighty-sdx pounds, one shilling and four pence cumuey, and the action of your Peti- titfe't wax oismi«ted with costs against -■' 'isr Petitioner. That the said linal judgment is erroneous, illegal and unjnst and yaur Petitioner is aggrieved therehf, ^ j wdl as by a certain interlocutory judgment rendered In the said cause, sad hereinafter refgored U, and the said JudgmeuU oaght te U: rerersed, ior the tolloning, ameiiget other raasa>n.4o wit:— First— Becauae the said final judgment wntroudoted contrary to law and evidenco, and the action ef tour Petitioner was ditmissed whereat judgment ought to hare been rendered ag.iinst the said Uantiah Belknap in lier said quality for the said sum of twenty-six paunds and oae shilling, currency, with inteeest and eosts. Secondly— Because the Dofendant failed xo e«Wlilish that your Petitionee ever received for his own ute and bcneUt (torn the said Nelson and Butters of the maiieys of the said late Joseph Bailey, the said sum of eighty-six pounds oao shilling and four pd the iimouuk tvmm ■MM thciwf dae, bnt mcnt, wbhtd "to look th* neeranti on." tnd tflwwwdi, and tiM tioM the dMtli of btr nUt li«a> but4, dfiU««Ml to jrour Pititiouu tfluu to th* amauut if ttrnitf -tight pgmad* uul B((««n •hilling*. In put ptnuM of jrour Pttitiouer'a Mid account. Eighdr— BecauM ty (ii inttrlooiUOTT juiifrac^t nndcred in the wid eaiiM on th* tweutf-MOOiul i»f of April iut, th* pttilion of your Petitioner to be permitted to exemiiie one Alexander O. Burna, a teonad time, u * wttneaa oa hi* b«- hall waa impitiperly lejeeted, and your Petitioner wat thereby |trer*at«d ttom addaeiug matcritl «rld*u«« in Ih* aaid Maae, whereat the aaid petition ought to have been granted. Kiothly— Because your Petitioner ceUbliihed In evidence th* material Mlegationt M hi* wid declaration, and apttial Muvan, and the Defendant failid to proee the atlegationa of her lald pi** or any of tlieea. That the aeeurity required by Uw hai been duly given by your Petitioner a« will appear by eertiSed eopimof th* Ap> peal Bond and Affidavit* of JuitlBoation hereunto annexed. All which your PeHtioner even to bt true, and the aame wi'l reriiy when and ae thi* Uonorabl* Court may direct. Wharefbre your Petitioner humby prayt that by the judgment of thi* I{aB<»abl* (kmrt, thi aaid final judgment ef the Court below now appealed horn be reveraed and that thia tnluorable Court will render auch Judgment a* th* Court below ought to have rendered and will adjudge and condemn the aaid Uaunah Belknap in her aaid quality to pay tu your Petitioner, the aaid aum of Twenty-aix pouiida and one ahilling ounrency, with intereat, from Ihi dttuutdt jttUimnn vt the Court below, and ooM*, a* wall in th* Court b*low, ** in thi* Court, of which ooat* the underaigued «tturu*r i>n/* Utitttciioiii* THOMAS W. RITCHIE. Dated, 22d Jniy, lUB. Attorney lot jfetiuooer. > DsposiTiow of HoB.\TTo A. Nblson, of MoirrsKAi., Mkrchant; taken 3rd April, 1858. I am a partner with Isaac Buttera a witneaa in thia cause, and do buaineaa under the name of Nelaon and Batter*. I know the plaintiff in thia cause, and knew Joseph Bailey the lat* husband of the Defendant in this cause, and had frequent buaineae tranaactious with him in hia lifetime and also with the defendant in this caut*, since said Bailey'* death. On the 2Sth day of May 1853, our firm balanced acoounu with the said Bailey, and also on th* 16th of August and nth of Heptember ot same year, and on the Igth of January and 10th of April of next year, to wit, 185t, and also with the defendant io thio cause on the 29th of June aime year. On or about the 10th of May 18S3, tlie said Joseph Bailey requnted us to ascertain how accounu stood between him and us, and to send whatev ■ buUnce there might be com- ing to him, to him at Sherbrooke, by the plaintiff in this cauae. We accordingly sent him the sum ul aereuty-nine pouiids sixteen ahillirga and four pence, currency, by the plaintiff, taking his receipt for thu amount which receipt w* tcM, and of which receipt Defendant's Exhibit No. 7, is a true Copy. in subeequent settlements had by our firm with the aaid Josefth Uailey in hia lifetime, and with the Defendant in th*a cause, since his death, our firm never had any intimation that the said sum had rot been received by the i>aid Joseph Bailey. In fact no reference was made to it, though the said amount was c arged iu our books, and in alaternvnts of account, which were doubtless rendered, as cash paid to Irim. In the balane "-i our accounts on the said 2ath May, th* (aid amiiunt of aeventy-uine pounds sixteen shillings a: d four pence, appears as an item ot cash paid tu the aaid Bailey, •aid sum was by Witness sent to said Bailey through (he plaintiff in this cause on his Bailey's order to do so. Un on* other occasion we had sent monies to said Bailey by a party residing in the T.^wuship^, and whicli were charged in th* **me way as the item of aeveniy-nine pounds sixteen shillings and four pence, currency, from which our tirm as wit* neia recollects had not any direct word from, but were always allowed U' by aaid Bailey iu subaeiiueiit settlements. Cross Exahinbd. — The promissory note fyled iu this cause as Defendants Exhibit No. 4, was by the Urm ot Nelson and Butters paid at the City Bank in Monueal, on the 13th of Scptcm'jer, 1853, at the reiiueat and of and fur the said Ute Joseph Bailey, and the sum of £31 Os Ud., currency, rdentioned in said uoteand so iwid, was cliargad against the •aid Uailey in our hooka. The letter, Defendant'a Exhibit No. D, in this cause, is in my hand-writing, is signed by m* in the name of our firm, and was by us sent to the Defendant iu this cause, uu the 13th of September 18^3.* The sum of six pounds live shilluigs waa paid by qur aaid firm to the ^Plaintiff iu thu cause, on the written order of the said Joseph Bailey. Bz-ExAuinED.— The aaid £ thibit No. 10., wa* aoeepted by th* aaid Bailay as a settlement of our accounts with him, a* f*r *s witness knows. DEPOStiioN of Isaac Bottebs, of Montbeal, Mbbchant; taken 3rd April, 1853. He knows the Plaintiff in this cause, but does not know the Defendant persoually. Ue knew Joseph Bailey h*r lat* husband mentioned in this cause, and had frequent business transactions with him, iii his lifetime. The firm of Nelson and Butters, of which witness ia a partner, have alw had buniuess transactions with the Defen- dant in this cause, since the said Bailey's death. Un the tweuty-fil'ih of May 18J3, the s.iid llrin of NeLion and But- ters had a settlement of account* with the said Joseph Bailey. We also had 8 the uid Joseph Bailey. He settled with us on that ground, and never to my knowledge iutima'.ed that tlie amount had nut been received by him. Uur firm had on other occaaiona senv out monies, to the said Baiiey by the Plaintiff, before the '24th of May, 1SS3, which were charged to Bailey in the same way as the said sum of seventy-nine pounds sixteen shillings and four pence, currency, and were included in (ettlements in precisely th* *ime manner, and which were eonaidered ai money paid to Baiiey. In some cases, the tald Uailey sent us an order to pay .'noaiea to Plaintiff, but on the occuica si the 24th of May, 18i3, it was an order to send any balance that might be due, by the Plaintiff. CaOBS ExAMHiED. The account fyled in this cause aa Defendant's Exhibit No. 10, ia a atatement of account render- ed by the firm of Nelson and Butter* to th* said lata Joseph Bailey. The item charged in said account a* cash paid, ta A. O. Woodward, 13th September, 1853. £6. 5b. Od., wa* for the sum of six pounds five shillings, paid on that da) liy tile satu uiiti wi Zt viiwii ir.i I^UZ^.v Z3 zzz X'ZZITHZ^ '" '"— n;~rT, m inr rrr:t"" — — ~ cr mc zm^ i^^zzpz I^wX^ The letter, fyied in this cause a* the D<-f::ndant'* Exhibit No. 9, now *hown to me, i« a letter trom the said fins i Nelson and Butter*, to the Defendant in this cauae, and ia in the hand- writing of Mr. Nelson, a member of our Sua. V *HaT>. IhtsUevlitenttTanemu. Tbs IsUsr relwrad ta bears data Uth AprU, ISM. barnid bio* ful Mnani* April tut, tte Haw on hi* be- ton in the Mid »n, and ifwaiil pimof th« Ap* : nujr dlnct. at judgmcut of II M tht Court r to pay to your i» juUituwt ai I alturatr pra/a BTTE. Petiuoosr. on and Bottcn. cauw, and had :a taid Bailcy'a of Aoguat and ti and alao wiili 1 Joseph Uulty mighi be com- \>t •eveutjr-iiiiie bioh reooipt wa efendant in tb*a the Mid Joseph in tlatnini'nu of d 2alh May, the thp said Bailey, tlo so. Un one ohntftd ill tha our ttrm as wit- lettlemeiits. > Hrir. ot Nebon aud fur the said ;ad ajdiiiat the is signed by ma W3.» The sum irdvr of the said auDtt with him, I Bailey her laU irith the Defen- leUoii and But- I of August and ■ar, that is 1854. he '20th ol June f iMJney, aud re- to him 10 Sher- fnur pence, eur> t receipt fur the to Mr. Baihn iy i% by Mr. Wood- ise;jh Bailey and 3r by Delendaut aouut was charg- ing the said sum ■ arm t.i the said luiit had not been F, before the 24th sixteen shillings err eonsidered u ra the oc«a>ion ol r account reader- t as cash paid, tc paid oa that da) -.z .;=:;cpn ;;».':; n the said firm i >et of our Sib. Ra-Bj4in»W-The a«id Dofendant's Bxhihit N .. I", wai aeoert'l hi tH» said JownS Daller as a settlem.nt «f « counu by hi., with our Arm. I «h, ,. that it w., so. a. we h.v, „ „ h«rd anything to the Jon.rVry T;r.a"iJ jLlhT';^ '!''""''":" "'•'°'"' •'^^''^"•"»' "^ »*" "•"«^'-. 8*««an : t«ke„ 3rd Aprif. 1858. th;tim7«f kT!. ,1 k" '"'""•' "'•"•"""•='' ' *"" «"• «" « » (J^'Uon and Uutters) from ssid il.h of M.i up to tilt r °l, ." / '*r "*""'"' ''" '"""• ""'""' '"- '■'"' "" """. »" ' "-J "» '""-".'io . '" any of X- iid 1 r '" f ""' ? ""'"' "' '""*• '" "" ""' '"'">' '" '"»«»» "«""- ■«'> H"» aad ..id Baileyth" «id .em nf serenty nine pounJ, sixteen .hilling, and four pence, currency, wa, charged a, casHpalTAZM r« w' t f,-"""*-"/"""*'" " *•«• '■' «- " «*-'^«'. ""i • ' mvariibly rend r ,,t.t.menu ». '; „u. .. on ^1.^ ::' B^S "/i ; ;f """''j". ■: r- -f ' " "• "'" """ - •"""• "• "^ '^ «""' r:. ^f *™ ■ Jtrs r« o... f'.K '^^^ , "*. "' *' '"""' ~''''°""«"''' '*-• • "" ^i'o* he did no. object to the s.ia ch..rao. And U ZIT f "7' "'••"'"»«"»• "«' •«» "in. at that time. I was intimate with the .,11 Mr. lu.loy m hi, llf" time and frequently d.lbu.ine,. .iaihin. ani c^nj.r M,«. ./ *. n„not r„.i,„l ,U ..il am.7of»?J^L\Zl foun^.>sU4n.MUi.,.,.ifo„rp,n«, «.«,«y. A.„,uU;i„„ .„*„ „• «. since i, was shar^,, him .TdlLrr. would have claimed it in the alter settle nent, had with him by the Mid ttrm *' ' Extract from the Depoaitionuf W,l,,um Buook,. of Suw.bookk. Ta^DKa ; taken 12lh Deeembw. In'tL* .!»°" ^""^''n '^^ f"ty-«"..tH page ol said Ledger, a copy of wh.c-, is «,e , „,i ..id Exhibit N embraced wUh- .t LVl ,h . ::: ." '" 1 " """'"'""'"' »' A""'- «-'«r. a. are also the words -crried page 47" a, seen Jrit- en across the Ledger at ,«gc 4 in manner as shewn in said Exhibit N". the word, ..carried page 47" an,l the sa d^^ ^ZT r'"*"'" \»'"*"'";''^""''«"A> »"*-.'■'. «yp".«««. and since it wa, delivered brm To h. « usual for Traders in 8herbr.oke to bring out monie. for each other fro.n Town, and to t,ike m,ney into Montreal and purchaied, and unless there were uMicnlar .easonx lor a-king for a ree.ii.t I would not do so 8 •» EXTBACT from thu Depoaition of Alexander Thom.o.h, of Suerbroukk. E.quiro; taken 10th De- cenibpr, 1856. M« Ta-?"'*'*" "■".'T! 'T.'!'"".' """' ""•*"'' •"'"'» '"'" '"'" »° **'«'"'"^ by Defendant .boat the «onth oi May. 18j«. on account of the debt due Plaintiff by the late Jo«ph Bailey ' >« > ' le -onin o. .h.^^f^rf '^li '^;''™''':!f ' "^''T " """""« '" ^""' •'»'»''•'»'» "y Defendant, a, Tutrix, of an indebtedncM by the late Joseph Bailey to '''aintilf. (Ueserfed.) ■■■ mucuieui ci» oy H.*,!!!l["~'^"w ""''"u "'"'•""""' 'I! "" ''"""" '""•"'' "* "''' """ "' Summons, via : one waggon, one Horse Cart. H.rne«. one Waggon Ilarncs. one Hiding Bridie, one old Saddle, and Two Ilor.e .;„rt,. amounii,; to twemv-ei^ pounds, aiteen shilling,, currency, was sold by Defendant to. the IMain.iff in the spring or i„ the »ui„m« o7 S5I „ 1 pu?XT;:id';rp';f " """ """" """""" "' "•^ »'■' ''^'^''^"»' '- »•>« •"-» p-p-^-y -'» ^^ «. «h.t was th. . Objected to by Defendant as parol evidence of a written document, no such rocolpt bei .. produced. (Ueserved ) Joseph Bailey. 1 do not remember wi.ether I or the Siff rrthc't-prTrr'^^^^ *'■"■"'* ^''. """•" Defendant in settling the .«Uirs of hor late husband-s c.ate occa" n iy. "o' Ubly w t di::::' P " 'tV ,"""' '\' regard to the sale of the property ab«.c referred to. I might h.ve «. ,o bl I » 1 Z ' ur r • "u '" Plaintiff r„ue.,.d of Defendant the amount of an account which he elLoH, T . "^ I . , '"" •"'"■"" '''""' J:^;^:;:^::/^^^"''"''^"''-'"'' "'•''--"-" ''-'>- "« >'■ >.- capacity asTutrixtob. a... Answer-I thought that at the time the above priporty w I, turneJ nit hvts„n r, J . . u „■ formed a part payment of the debt due Plain.i.f, and that the ewrubl.J '" " ""'""*• ""' '' """ occasionally to the account book, of the said l.rc ] l,.h ,. 7 T "-balance remi.nin^ due to him, I have had acoesa them once or tw^ce shortly after M^.B:i;e;VdLh' "' '"' ""' '"" " '"'""'""^ "'^"""'"^ *"" '"«-• ' - in t^;: tX' Xte:.:," ""■ *"""° '"" """"""-^ ^^ " ^""'^'-^ - '"«■»"""'"'' - P-- i..debtedn«,. by he, EviJence resumed on the Eleventh day of December 1856 J^know there wa, an attempt to settle the accounU i,..tweeu Plaiutiif.nd Defendant a y«.r ago las, summer by arbl- bitrators. IwentandsawDe,enda1it-Lconsentedl'u,::;V:-r rgr^t^^ rators. 1 mentioned a number of gentlemen to her. She objected to mo.t all of ,1s,? " " "•"'• rr,.r """-■ '"■ ' •*■«' » «• "•'•■— -"-<^ ."~':'™.r jr.r 'Ct"".™,-!' Answer-She merely mentioned thWr names in a casual wav. S'le mi.Ie nn !,», ™i ,. rators. I remember Plaintiff at the time w«, anxioi, that thr„h T .^ , . " *" "° ?""'«"'" "e" " a'Mt- of the arbitration Bonds, and was L ^ l^e' Z" n of saS a b " •"' ' r~'""' ""'''"'* '" ^' '"« «P*"" suH being brought. ^ "Peccat.on ol said arbitration proceeding aud in consequence deferred thi. l^b. «.id aecounu a., co„ec.,y cpied and are true eo;; ;! Therid'eo' rarTunl r'^ 'u£ ""^ fd r^ "'«» »-« <« -ppo-ed to have bcin'^^d ^7^ t": tti L:,ruaXro:rt '^''' :'"""" ""^^ '" '"• trist are made in uiH hint.., Ti,„ „:.i .. . .„..._' ""^ "'"''""'<'«", where corresuondiiiir en. in fact of the account found m «,id Lcdgc^r asaiii«7he «irPlain tir'n,"."" . '" "'°' " """"''P* •"'"» '» f™" »'>d aubrequent to the account being closed on'p.ge 4. by Mr. Brlk, rd!'„ "a 1 «)M» to >«• aiaia 't M* PkUmyT* kmnitfnm th* iitk dm^ af Kay 1813, aiui (A* fmrtStr turn ^f tit petuult Jin §MIHitf fiitm lk» XUh Sifltmt*r, 19 (a (A* IJa« in tattMM, and / Mtxr tkaujiu Hnd*r tuck eiraawtlaacM »/ tahinj a rtttift «n paj^inj ««•. ti» noiMjf. Huek tkii^ ««r« MatidWnd a tuigkiarlji act, aad twr* iw»r JsoiM sa ai a malltr <(f imimu. Cnota-BzAMiaaD— It U impotilble for ma to ttata tha {omim convaraation which took placa batwaen Mn. Bailay and tba Plaistlff, bat t^j imptfuitm than «a» aati wUt U, that tkf*» tkiitgt uw« tvrmd am iy ktr in pmt paf/mrnt e( a rfeii im to Ikt Plaintiff iy A«r lati kiuiaiid. When I want iuto tha Boom, PUiatiir and Ur*. Bailejr war* together, and Ur. Wootiwant waa anzioua that ihe ihoald jjay the account, m he wished to go t« Montreal, aad ihe daeUned mltU kit acoount. Bjtile) taid Ikero kkm no Aur/y at ko mu ixpoeling leveral kundrcd DoUartfrotn Uontrtat, and alf> money /rom Stantttnd, la tekom ka kad told pailt, and Ikm loktn he rtreictd Ikat kt Kould pajf Mr. Woodmtrd montp. 1 do not remember what waa said about the amount bat I undarttood from tokat Ikon iaik taid, ikat Ikt amoant wot mmidtrabia ukick Bailty then omd. I do not recollaet now what wte s&id about tha amonnt, or whether anjrthing was said abont tha aiuocnt but I got tkt impro—ion (A«» { Ikal {I mu jmlt largo. Extract from the Deposition of Williak RiToniE, of Sherbrookb, EsauiRB; Uken 30th April, 1858. In 18ent in the money to uke up the note, I made n^ charge in my Uioka against itie said late Joseph Bailey, on ae- I count of the said note which was due by him to me, and I have no doubt that he paid it to me about tha tine it be> cams doe. U'he said lata Joseph Bailey was then manufacturing pails which waa his principal busiucia aud the largetl j part of the pails were seat to Nelson and Butters, of Moutreal. Extract from the Depositioo of Carbt M. HyxDXAit, of Shbrbbooxb, Esquibe; taken 21st April, I 18A8. I remember at the time of the eonversation of the boiler plate and the large tub o' sugar not long befiwe his death, hearing him (the late Mr, Bailey) say that the Arm of Nelson and Butters, of Montreal, were owiug him a large sum I of money lor pails he ^ad sanl them, and that he expected the money aooc, and tk*. tekon ko get it, kt would let Aim Aoes j wiaa o» oeeowi*, o. A« «e«j d«!|»^ <» ip»a Ami. / uaderKoed /rem IA« MmemKtas UlUitgt fnm (At MM th» haiUfor thtir tr»iliton, iHt timai nhmt I r< Htuk tki»f$ lln. Bailar tnd r« togather, tnd dieUntd tioini tktit Ur. HTo^ y htr •)>«( «■( takeo IfltK Uy'i itHK thit I rrn kmu ne kurry i told /milt, cMtt lut the amvant do not ncoUwt r impnukn M«» n 20th April, Plaintiff WW of { 1 Uailey, in tbM r th* paiUi oukIa it the piiueipal ' [lenpe, oomney, I iit8 of lr>6 asmo ] I Bailey, on «c- I tha time it be- I I and the largcal | en 2 lit April, I ^cfisn hi* death, I him a large tam | vuld let him AoM i M afaeddtatiml