MAY 3f 1925 THECHARLOTTETOWN GUARDIAN PAGE SEVEN

-' “+05

,,H,_“,” Iiflllll no ol-nnlqlnnhilmi- | l - qucstfon was ever btfore u Judge on account fthi 1 it f 191% l-t £31610“ hchfl" of thehdereudafvll ' u . ’ ' i . o so: o -. an (l8 qules on ortcjury s: n ' . The Dennlstoun ‘and a fury. for if retraction be given ttbe payment was not u puynrsnt on'“Dltl she pay that, or any other \ Case lto the character of the alleged account. but avmerc gft irtrespec-htuhl. m; the defgndunfs behalf?" L leness, then the question of damulrPs live of the ulicgcd debt, then i-t ditl=lhe polnlt again being Whether tho , is One of considerable difficulty. [not Ollirlll‘ to rt-vivo the débllpuylngnlg wire loaned); glﬂg Th. Mo“ Flam". M"r|m°n_ ' ‘which was otherwise extingllllllltrtli 'i‘hn|_ conuitltles—untl lht- jury '

h | , The Money Claim: lby-Lhc Stltntc of Llnrfntluns. 'I‘hut'nlgy think that they urc en0u"ll

' Ealmﬁ". ﬁr“ c n‘ a u. ‘illliiﬁtiﬁll- l think. should be u >419"llllllsliﬁllﬁ-"llllt mnln qucz-ltions. 5x H“ | The next question (No. 8) that I plomental question, 8a. cnpt that, on the record, there l5 o

prcpos-sl to ask-and I IIITILHOW to .A further subordinate question counterclaim in respect of turni

The Marriage " moment lthe lesslmonrtant partotche case. llwl nlny Misc under 8 is: “What ture I do not propose at the prt _ _ lrhn money claimed. and I ‘take first was the ulttct 01' the hill o! sole? t.’ ht moment to indli-trnte my non-u liad you loomed a view with re- of all paragraph 2 of the statement whether it was genuine or not". he‘ upon that matter. but; 1 llllllf! that , \ gurd to money and seuLItenleutY-l :1’ clam. wheheby the iplainttilff oause tho defendant says that thc counsel for the plulntilti‘ and to: l h-nd most decidedly. jllims £616 as having ‘been Paid real point o1 tht- llliym nt of £616 the defendant will consltl- r t-rc lhl - What balpponedih-Alt the bime l by her to the use of tfbc defendant by ihr- point lf was lhnt he hltd'close of this case th-c points thnt

i\ o

had ‘hopcdtrhnt th-s day would come. in 1913-15: “Did the ‘plaintiff given hcr n lnrge quantity of vniul]; that countur-taluinl h’

‘there were no lueans available by iuake -pny1ll8ntt of £616. or any IE8! able furniture, lil stands, thrrn must he a t-‘ralr which lion-id in any way provide il|!~‘illll. on behalf of the defendant, in i aslslnrl; from the subordinate l; mtllglimr or Ixﬂfﬂg at iggug l... g / _ V 1' ( settlement which would enable Colihis sense. thzat she was {hanging gtlestions (‘NI No. S. the )n-;1xt-?u't;]s- wot-ii the partials, The qucstlonﬁl‘, a T —-" ' ' . . -. ~ l - i i p ,“ ,1 . _ l‘ - ., 1.‘- fqwmufh "f_”"mepm: zAMJgllg Ilyglﬁtiwlllendgulldlvlgfrrellpgntcav; 02117184510? zznéltllsiwnrt lt(I1Zn?ur:th!rlrl.t .lgallelhelllutﬁrcltalllq)T“);reltlles tgl::olrl€:eth.clll1;ldl2r?tt; din hiﬁztvtfgtlﬁcwvydtlen I 9d’ I?‘ v / l 1/ fllkc-rglwﬂy a” Pill" "I"! 40",!"- lllS own, u-mless it were that l wsahhat those pnymfntn were gifts. no|ollrgcd lpnynu-tlts by tholplol-ntiff lnith- lm. ‘ lusrl-cls of thl» coon. 'l‘lr rl- wctllti illlhJllIY olltlvvillilllh; 0:Lil*ll0ﬁ‘ii_a‘:l';$ﬁv ' 1 ' JIJIQ to soil nccntain amount owl Dlc- {llrtlilrrg qhuciltion arises phn thhlspfvﬂlii-flrf '11 bu] 11:; stipnf “Flats: Mr. Birkett ‘said t'llnt he agree-l he the lllllrlﬁll0llllﬂllvlrlflif l'l‘ll:)llt>llISI;'l!'l]- “Slllrl lallllllllli-l-l‘ ‘h3g4 on bezhlu u-f - - - ' - , _ .. w l. .. ‘l - _ ._ 9 l. - 'n.~:lll1'lvlt~'-:l '.~i.'~ * V \ NJURY t? ‘h? 5km m“! q“ ckyendza ‘is?! ‘Elrryfgle was a cov-ennng-wmh rho bug- Edie, (fr! at“; injrPtrIhIehrdIQlI‘, wztrstaflllllq llIltliSl‘ yltlflrxullr‘ 2:3‘ flrllti wvhrlt-QwlSIrllglliZaHII-dllsfflkli/illlinnls said LllilillllllizuflllilSlrlfldiln (Iowans, as l)i'iil'- Airs. llcuniatotln. ‘in dcalng ‘wind; mﬂﬂllﬁ 3 bmaklng OI wmLh even ea y hand to pay 5210011410 ibefor-e March, udvunce then prlmo. fncie itlle clalimipart thrlrtltrf?" l lily iampllﬂlllfl on there Wilt-l one other qut-s-llion, and lnp upon thll qul-stiom gonvrtliiy» iili‘ ““iili‘i""3’ he 5”“! m“ m“ 9mm‘. W091i: hm” m face‘ 1924. Wua there any conccu-lmetlt of tho plaintiff t0 those moneyﬂ isptha word "lend" in contrallic- that was the int-rest on tiwl Mr. ililkltr Ffllil‘ that. (Willi! ‘l0 hull 11nd the‘ grfruéhztlgriiollilelillhdﬁnlg; ‘ Yo“ aim" i” i" ‘"8 l*.".'.':".:;: ‘i.’ ’;":l:.'::"".*::.';. “ti”. ... . ....lrt?wit:ourr..l“..!:;1xl2:1,.it: a.l'.:¢1.1'ultimate _ ‘ __ _ A .,- jqqﬂiovqﬂu yyhpj- ()4 5.1 l. tlscsxyctts av 11- '1. '\ . t. 1.1a." :24 ‘n l’ '-,.l '1. ...1--..» l , _ _ 4 dlate liability t0 lnlec- 51"”, of .33“; mid mpkd qpghtpgL 1 would have Ibeeu glad to sctl. Then, if the plaintiff were to upon from the main defence that n qul st'on oi‘ -lllw for him. mftcr the present to nlllirl-ss tilt’ Jilly lls ll" ul ‘Mrs. I'll untstoun. bulphe was Kiwi! t‘ from (I'm erous hcuhng m acQdcnt or " cl ‘that he had the money. for I ﬁtlcccetl. she m-ust show that th-Prolthe ll-ll'rndurlt has rail-ted on tho lury had found as t.o tho int-ts had wisln d to do. ills illness lining to read from ’lhe TlnWﬂ P8110 . m“ I g ski" diﬂas“ with a box knew his sensitive. refined nntnrc. hats been n payment on account,‘ £616 nnd the i! 3516. t‘h' re are 11150 <S‘r Ellis lluiuti-W-illinlll-s said capncitntcll h'lu t-utirvly. in lthtrw .21‘ tho cash, which he hnd found ex- Serms thét Cause IFS‘ of Zullhtduk close at mghuy or wrongm do y)“ agyee'flllll she so alleges in hcr very a5bly;m'ilor points as to the illilsllill ptlvy-Hhnl tho znnountrol lIllPPQill. was-duo! cirtsuulstzlncls ht: llnpvrl rht- jllfy‘il‘:|(irtllllilfllyhflitﬂﬂbylllfﬁéd ma! the lﬂflllgl "lﬂilimllatlml hand Proved by scien- with tlhn character which has been drawn statement of clniim, Thusdments made _ _ ldiillllliPil- “with! i! ' lit him stutrtsin-itltlu nitric‘ qlglsshlllillrigzeull ‘M-“ifﬂrdlbly ‘wponed " and blood_pggsqn_ tmc us‘ u, be ovﬂ- civcn to your husband by my lt-uru- th- qnnlntltlf has to gqtlgfy the jury, Tile tenth question arising in un- llis Lordship said that inn cont h ~ ls. us Hume-Vt an.‘ out c. u“ i Time“ Therefore be‘ ready 99% he‘. a] origin ll llriorldii-it is wicked nnd ill)0- illzlt£tho defendant made a Daymrent dlerilpalzlfxrtlph o1‘ stptemerltthloﬁf pegtllllllt winl the uultwlsatllons aha had tarot lthrlylplll rvgﬁt-ttod Sll‘ Itllltiltl’ u 1t , . . _ ' mlmrhltr of l00—and 1 e deifendanlt as cam ‘lu paint a-‘eges n on et lore wont we ot rer ant orsm - n ‘s l llPSS. *‘—'-"—{_'_” to apply at once n piece Znm-Buk contains 110 H-‘a Lordship-The Buggﬁslltlnu admitted that; he paid that sum- bctwrcn 11119 zlud 1920 sh: 1111111 egrnvt: considclatonn upon further ; Mr. llirltvlt prﬁctvtllitl ttrnlldl- ss ( _ oi lint or clean rag rangid anlrlal fats or rzlzﬂinat Ilia character or.» In’ cm"- " . A," ' r ' ' " " ' " W’ smeared with Zamqguk zilnL mclrcnry, ' or l-..<t. They are absolutely "vthuul

the great first-aid and other mineral drugs ‘fitlellﬁfigguiﬂgggnltigttufréscfplﬁkgvimli: ﬁkill-"Imedll- found in ordinary oint- i,b5_.,|m.:qy_ ' " - ' l - mCIlYS and Silliwﬁ- Sir Edward Marshailllllnll -~ if Zam Bu l s s ease germs and takcs A hDXOIY-Illllflfl-llilsilililidbi’ “Iillkrircwixtlutli/Izlscostrllrllllitgfotlllllgltlzvlvlllll a“ ‘mmedmle danger ill el/"Y lloillﬁ- iiillliliil‘ “-“_“ l qonl in Mrs. Denn-istotlnhi hands,

the protective layer of ‘- epidermis and imme-

.________-— _

-—~ —- -r—.-—- — — v» ——-———

The ‘Sanitary, Ecgnonmricalpggranent

out of any cut, scratch

curious/in calses of eczema.

i" Wm- “ “is .‘Z’L°.".‘.““:..L‘“STQL‘.Z' pain and *n“amma“9n’ lpTisouedg woundsp and other dfﬂw$ 9“ Conupuo“. deep-seated skin and scalp

and poisonous matter, troubles. 50c. all drugysts.

D g I Q

ENSURE! “n- "u", a

TT“ r . ‘\\\\\\ ‘IRYRXK $\$ Q&\\$ \.\Q,\\\, (raven a\\\\\'o\y

a "———"-znfxﬁm>~'s = i _ £05m ﬁm/ 7/1’: ovﬁ/ r0 70%

TH//V ZEPHYR BlS_(l/@__

After a strenuous day at the office — Invigorating as a sea breeze !

' The first question that I propose

zlbslolutelpuilty, He had no will; ho was a more rag.

The wiltni-"ss slid that at the time nl their xnolnniagc the Colonel was very “soetliyT _

(Illillliil. -— What has ‘been his --tnllt> of health during lllte whnln or the period since then? — ll have expent till.- whole of the tlllue nursl ng him.

llns thcre ever boon u point when you would have settled this action‘? — ‘Ngvor. for a single stllllllry mom- wilt.

Stir Ellis llumo-\Vi-l‘liams.»—l have no question to ask you. Lady Car- zlnrvon. ‘

The ‘hearing was zrdjmrrned.

The Questions for the Jury On Friday. his Lordship sold»- o have to the jury is. “Was the llltgcd agreement made?"

‘The second question that i pro- [i082 to leave is. "If ‘ycs,’ who), did

' "t lnrtan?"

"ISO oi‘ Stolllcry v. dinskolyno

in that connexion there is the‘ 41893). which is reported only in;

t .

These Charlottetown llculers Scll Ttlln Zephyr Biscuits:

Retail 'l‘l|ou|ns Michael ll.‘ (‘.1 llullliit-e . 1| )

I':lt Trainor .Ios~-ph Sllnlnu it ny Jl-ukina A’! 5"" Vnbili Hror. l". l). Webster h Cudulnrnr llrun.

1.. A. Hnsznrd 1.. t‘. Worthy .|. (‘utlin ,8: <0-

.|. l’ llnlfy A. u. Wise n “hole-nth

\v grawd". |,_ \\'_ (yr-huh; |~‘. Knyu r N. llntlcubury, Ltd l‘ . Mcllunairl John Kennedy \V. I‘. Wrluht llolllolu Bruin, Ltd. J. i. Fillnlullllll i‘. ll. Fo-IIo-r I .A. lllIvhlL/é (Tn. (‘nrvn-ll llrml.

M+o¢+¢4¢¢>q++¢o<~oaowl~¢~~» a 0’q-§0<06-0044£§+O-O§O4

HIOK E Y’8

BLACK TWIST CHEIWING TOBACCO. ' '

MILLIONS OF FIGS USED YEARLY WHY?

BECAUSE IT I8 THE BEST

. ' k _ 4 lliGllEY; 8t IIIGIIOLSOI ' 3 ‘roeacco comlnauv, LIMITED ‘

Manufacturers, ‘lllflillwiilwil

+¢4+4+0+oo+o++0+¢¢+4o+oo4 00-0-040-0-0-00-06 oaooo-o-ooooa

. A Large Lobster Pack Predicted I

Are You Prepared to Handle and Care for the FISH the

Sanitary Way? Have Us Make Your

METAL“ SUPPLIES BOILERS, TRAYS, srova PIPE,

.1. '1'. (‘rorltett s; (‘n l

The Times Law Reports (15 'l‘lrl<| 'l‘lnlcs l. R., 79). anti conilrnletl in ‘she liouse of Lords (16 The Tinlos L.R., 97). There the jury put thnlr nvn lilltunprctation on the contract. The next point is, ZWas the uliegq iii] agreement too vague to be en-l lnrcenble in law?" In re Vince (8_ Tile Titties 111.11., 3'34; (1892) 2 Q. B.‘ r178). ll the Court. is of opinion that. the alleged agreement was so va~|

‘I cue in its terlns that the Court is]

llllillhltl t0 plnce an intelligible in- lt-ntlretatllon upon it. it will not on- force it.

, The next question l promos-c tol put is. “Was there any, and what, consideration ior the lrliegl-d agron- fluent?" That may or may not bl.- u question wholly lfor the jury, but in c rnexllon with that it will bl- l1ecc..ary to consider the effect of the French code, and the oft-ct ot‘ the evidence olthe able members of the French liar which was given here.

The fourth question will be. “Did the parties mutually intend that the words ailclgetl by the plaintiff to be used by ‘the defend-ant should con- stitute a legal and binding bargain between them?" That question is based upon the obsenvatiions of the COIIIFI. of Appeal in Bzrltfotlr v. Bull four (35 The Times LIL, 476, 609; (1919) 2 K. B. 571).

The ‘fifth question that I propose 1019"‘! to the jury ls, "Was the a1- ll ged agreement a collusive agree- ment, -in til-e sense that it was pant of nn- arrangement between the par- ties for a collusllve divorce?" That will give rise to the meaning of the word "collulslolf ‘as enlployiod in English Courts of Law. -l ho-pe that counsel will consider that rpoint. be cause there has not as yet been a olear, fulii. and authoritative dertiini- tion of lthe meaning of the word “collusion” as used in the matri- monial Courts in this country. But. as nt present advised, I shaii follow and npply‘ the views expressed by Lord Si. Hell-fer tin the well-known tznso of Chunchwa-rd v. Churchword

are wholly unsatisfactory-

' Wall Coating i

Alubautlnc Inns decided atlvznltngrcsrover any lu- tcrior tlccorullllg nlntt-rlal ycl nnmufurhlrctl. 'l‘l|c|'t- nrc- substiinitls of ctmrso, Every’ 1:000 ]II‘iIi|lli'l l" fill-l lmvt-tl by a host oi‘ imitators seeking to gain furor qm-"ugh U“. prestige of tlu- original] product.

lush-at on Alnbastinc. Tho tltlnlt-rs li-“llﬂl 11910“ will be plt-zlsetl to supply you. Ask flu-m for further‘ inibrnlutioll. tlt-t-orufing sllglzvsiitnls and color curtlH or write us for booklets.

10c ‘."..!!.’;....... 75c

Ills econonllt-nl

It Matters ,N0t

Mixed with hot wuicr Alubuutiut- is bottor than any hot wutcr substitute. Wilt-n ntlxetl with cold watt-r it is bolt/er than any cold watt-r substitute.

2 ‘l J3 ll)

put-langu-

t no sulssrrrurns WILL no.

» ALABASTINE

IS THE ONLY SANITARY WATER COLOR. FOR WALIS

A sanitary wall coating is imperative for use on Prince Edward Island. The moist air on the Atlantic (‘cast plays havoc with decorating materials when they are manufactured from ingredients that are impure or become unsanitary from exposure .10 a damp atmos- phere.

Alabastine can be found in hundreds of Islandilome-s. _lf 211111500 ilewrginlg t” ections it has" not cracked, chipped, peeled or rtlbbe.d_,ol_f..and 1s absolutely 0 or ess a _ sanitary. .

‘ t’ I l d h h ' if ior substitute has been used the results _ on mspec mg s an omlldilslvyflsfrltillllly ‘Iotfrlhs are found, turned mould)’ b)’ 50th the

. - - - - s ' ' been r.e- damp climate and improper unsanitary ingredients. Many iesilmiillials haYe. . ceived from users praising ’Alaba.stine who have also tried _a subsrtlrtute fclalnglllllgigtﬁteg: sanitary but found lacking when put to the _test 0f long service. . l8, 1i A0 v convincing argument for the superior qualities of Alabastme.

Decorate a room 0r the whole house. Let the beautiful, lasting effect prove itself as a

really sanitary wall coating that is easy to apply and mixes ill hill 01' 001d Wat"-

llere are the Dealers who Sell Alabastinen- The Sanitary Wall Boating

'- .~ >’*~ f...

m, 5r .-.~

1 h 'l‘i . ., ti; 5 .. ETcv rThire (qllfzsgioﬁs h t N f on this question of collusion‘. The Made at S or o lee-

question Rs to the -I"rcnc‘h law upon FIlEII ll. Tllllliilll

the matter ;‘that will be for ‘me. There may be questions as to the PM". “ML o” "m" Edwmg Theatre 80 Grafton 8"“!

,. CUTCLIFFE a CUTCLIFFE, Hunter River. F. W. STRONG a. co.. Summorlide, SINCLAIR a. srswanr. 1.10., Summuroldl.

neussu TUPLIN a co.. Kenalngton. N ' ~ w. A. roots a co.. Lower Montague. c "°' CARLETO ' 5°“ °' 1

. rue J J. HUGHES co.. LTD., Souril. COOK a” SON’ Mun" “W” MATTli-IEW a MeLEAN Sollrll RUSSEL C. CLARKE. Mount Stewart. _ AUGUSTUS MCDONALD’ sum‘ -y POOLE a THOMPSON co.. LTD., Montague. STERN“ BROS" um sou“, KENNEDY d’- CO. Ltd" OW-elrv. STERNS sou a co.. Sourla, TURNERS LTD., 0'Loary.

i c. a. PRATT sou a co.. at. Peters. anoce. McK-AY a co.. 1.10., Summorllde. ssnumu monms a co.. Tlﬂnllh. . w. J. LIDSTONE, summer-lei. -

J, H. MYRICK, Alborton.

mas. DAV-ID T. sorts, Bloomﬁeld Station. MARTIN Q ARBENAULT, Bloomﬁeld Station. ARTHUR J. PRATT, Bloomfield Station. FENNELL d. CHANDLER, Charlottetown. . ROGERS HARDWARE 00., LTD., Charlottetown. STANLEY, SHAW l. PEARDON, Charlottetown. WALLER a DOYLE, cnol-lotmown.

ARTHUR L. RENNIE, Elmsdalo.

SGULLY. DELORIE A CO-r GWPOQWWW

effect of collusion upon this alleged alglreernen-y, in English law; and thereon will arise questions as to whether or not this alleged agree- mcht. if collusive. was against French public policy. and therefore void, or was against English public poikey. and therefore void. 0! -AQQQQ course, in connexion with English wu+n+w~o+oooo pulhllc policy, counsel will reﬂect upon section 30 of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1847 and npon sec- tion 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1860, which provides for the

intervention of the King's proctor

E. K. Brow ~ I ln cases of oollusron.‘ ‘ 146 mchmwd Site“ ‘r ...:*.':::.:"::. i...‘;”'l.‘i"_--..';:.°r::°...°. Uh dftlionn of the alleged n5: mwnt

- l‘??? $i‘.."i'i§fi.?l‘-r-ii"i1l£§§° die-Elli’. Fire, Life, Accident, Sickness and ‘Plate Glass insurance at Lowest rate.

J. H. MYRIOK 60., Ltd" Ilqnllll.

The Alabastine Company, ‘Paris, Limited‘

PARIS, ONTARIO ‘ l‘

I CHURCITYS nororcoLnATen

of murae, ithe jury wl-ll have to consider the relationship bet-ween the moneys alleged to be the do fendanrs and the fact that those moneys massed from Lady Carnar von. There will be several points of not to consider In connexion Wm, that. As ll pointed out to the

Agent at “Summerside, Uoiil “will Goﬂd jury 501119 days ago there are for more and rm mver unset-m in

his th My 9001710 "llllll- M+w+0+4r0+o0+o0+ooo++oo+a t Thslggmx “run” ‘m be. n"

0"““"°' m m’ mm“ m" TYr°'l°"-. (nnonetlreu ll/‘gnfalngmlwzstlf- 2m 212m 12.3.1 the l‘ - . I ' 7.: cert) ‘*1 h ll t ll w this con- ' an . s- , ~ cert to pnrsaadnﬁautlil?! know who rin’ about who called the otnaar ii other defences fall. tllﬂl Wllll i!

.. mo" the lut linger a nwtton- rgtatttglxrgzillll. ‘luplnsvovpg called the gghlrzlgngremolfmdatgttmlmorg 613m

(“I

r 1-!» ‘ f“ *3 ~ ..-.-1~