ity (as to the existence of which the Court passed no opinion), but also its connection with the transactions in question; the signatures of defendant to the mortgages being admitted and the advance of the money not being contested, the plaintiff established a prima facie case by showing non-payment; he was not obliged to invoke in any wise the alleged illegal transactions in support of his claim; the burden of establishing these and their connection with the claim sued upon remained upon defendant, and that burden he failed to discharge.
F. D. Davis K.C. for the appellant.
Bernard Furlong for the respondents.
LOVERIDGE v. GROSCH
LOVERIDGE v. SMITH
APPEAL by the defendant from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario (1), which, allowing the plaintiffs' appeals from the judgment of McEvoy J. (1), held that the plaintiffs were each entitled to a one-third share of the net profits which the defendant made on the purchase and re-sale of certain lands.
On conclusion of the argument of counsel for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondents, the Court orally delivered judgment dismissing the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs. J. H. Rodd K.C. and A. W. R. Sinclair for the appellant. R. S. Robertson K.C. for the respondent Smith. W. P. Harvie for the respondent Grosch.