Sec.  1)  PAYMENT  AND  RENUNCIATION.  663

It  is  insisted  that  the  motion  of  defendant  for  judgment  on  his  coun-
terclaim was  not  disposed  of  when  the  court  rendered  judgment  on  the
verdict,  and  that  this  is  such  an  error  or  irregularity  as  should  reverse
the  order  appealed  from.  Assuming  that  the  objection  is  borne  out  by
the  record,  still,  upon  the  views  expressed  upon  the  merits  of  the  coun-
terclaim, the  error  could  not  have  affected  any  substantial  right  of  the
defendant.  The  order,  therefore,  should  not  be  reversed  by  reason  of
the  error  or  irregularity  complained  of.  Section  40,  c.  125,  Rev.  St. ;
Allard  v.  Lamirande,  29  Wis.  502-510 ;  Bonnell  v.  Gray,  36  Wis.  574,
decided  herewith.
The  order  of  the  circuit  court  is  affirmed.*


NASH  et  al.  v.  DE  FREVILLE.
(Court  of  Appeal,  [1900]  2  Q.  B.  72.)

A.  L.  Smith,  L.  J.,  read  the  following  judgment:  In  this  case  the
plaintiffs,  who  are  tailors  and  money  lenders,  sue  Major  Freville  upon
five  promissory  notes  amounting  in  all  to  i5,300.,  payable  on  demand,
of  which  notes  the  defendant  was  the  maker  and  a  solicitor  named
Peed  was  the  payee.  These  notes  at  one  time  had  been  in  the  plain-
tiffs' possession,  though  they  had  been  fraudulently  induced  by  Peed
to  hand  them  back  to  him,  and  the  notes  then  got  back  into  the  de-
fendant's hands,  as  hereafter  will  appear.  There  is  also  a  count  in
trover.
