No corrections yet
.;.-.- SUPREME COURT.
;v , , -BANCO JUKY COUHT.
ir, (Before Sir Wm. Cullen, C.J., and juries.)
[j'; . s -y" CLAIM ON PROMISSORY NOTE.
' m i Kennedy v Burnett.
i ',-;.-"?:.-.. The plaintiff, John Kennedy, sued lu this ac |Vi""-ln tion to recover £251 from A. H. Burnett, to- il); .. «ether with interest, in connection with a ! i i."'.* dishonoured promissory note. Plaintiff'stated i'.'ÍWi that he, with others, was a creditor of R.
?"?'.-? O. Cowlishaw, svho had assigned his estate for ';'??-?-? the benefit of his creditors, and the defendnnt, '!'.?;. ; In consideration of his (plaintiff's) refraining '!'. from instituting proceedings to make Cowll
?i: ' nhaw bankrupt, gave the promissory note sued ,.,'??" upon. In his pleas tho defendant stnted that
? the promissory note was given to the plain 'i titi In consideration that ho would institute
proceedings to bring about tho bankruptcy, yet the plaintiff would not nor did Institute .'' .'. mich proceedings. Mr. Abrahams (Instructed .'. ? by Messrs. John Williamson and Sons) ap
';., peared for tho plaintiff; and Mr. Boyce and » Mr. Gee (instructed by Messrs. Dowling, Tay - :.. 1er, and McDonald) for tho defendant.
.-:.. . :. The jury returned a verdict for the plain :.- -tiff for ¿250. A stay of proceedings was
»rantod on the customary terms.
''_',. A PICTURE PLAY CONTRACT.
J' Shlrloy v Higgins.
£.''.'",..'." "The plaintiff In this notion, Arthur Shirley,
V " «n actor, sued Ernest Henry Higgins clnlm V .^lng £1000 compensation for alleged breach of '«*?.' ' "'.'Bli ugrocment, and for the detention of cor ,f tain Ulms and plates In connection with a -.'¡., ...projected motion picture production entitled ?;» v',**Tho Throwback" or "The Comeback." Plain "..:'''!.! tltt stntçd that It w«b agreed between them - 'Vilii *nat tI,e defendant should carry out the pho , ,'l.' ' tographlc part of tho picture, and he (plaln ?'.. , |f'/'tlff) should perform his part in the acting
? -.. essential to Its completion, in accordnnco with ?-.?; ";,a term in the contract, and that nil moneys
necessary for the preparation and production ','??'.. tot tho picture should be provided by the de
.; _' fendant, to a maximum amount of £600. There ..'....woro other provisions in tho contract*refer ',,"".'. ring to the division of profits, etc., and de- ll! fendant complained thnt while he' was always
.!' .".'^S'eady and willing to perform the contract !?:]' on his part, the dofendant failed to carry
'?*?; '[".'" out his undertaking. Defondant filed a do jV,:,, tailed defence denying the plaintiff's olln i¡' . '«rations, and alleging that the arrangement ':;.,*.;,.,'.made between thom had been dopnrted from '4! ûy the plaintiff without his (defendant's)
'¿ijj nonsent In writing. Mr. Mack, K.C., and Mr. »jj Collins ('instructed by Messrs. Slade and ;;,< Traill) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. >S'. Windeyer, K.C., nnd Mr. Jaques (Instructed ?-if .. :. *y Mr. R. J. M. Foord) for the dofendant. Vp The ease 1b' part henrd.