Majority
As to the incidental demand for damages claimed by l1o the appellant for the alleged breach of the contract of
29th February, 1896, the judgment dismissing the 1896,CORDAGE same must be confirmed, not only for the reasons given in the courts below, but also because it purports to CONNOLLY. enforce an illegal contract.
Girouard J. For these reasons, I would deduct from the itemized account all the items for interest, amounting altogether to $4,339.62, thus reducing the judgment against the respondents to $18,041.86, with interest thereon from the 23rd of December, 1896, date of th institution of the action, and all costs
The judgment on the incidental demand is confirmed with costs
Judgment of the Court
THE (oral).-We are all of opinion that this application must be refused. It is not a case in which leave to appeal per sallum can be granted.
It has not been shown that there was any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal which is necessary to give us jurisdiction; on the contrary it appears that there is no such right of appeal.
The motion is refused with costs.
Motion refused with costs.