Mi.'Bi'Vrii v. 1-1 istox.—Claim £19 8* damages fur breach of contract to allow jilaiutiff tn cut growing flax agreed to be sold. Mr Hay for defendant. The plain tilf, Mi'J. R. MeUeth, stated that about Juno, 1888, ho bought from defendant some growing flax on his farm for £\S. Ho paid u deposit ot £1 and took a receipt which he had mislaid. In October last he paid ,t2 and took a receipt as follows :—" Received of Mr J. 11. Mcßeth t'2 for flax." Tho defendant admitted in cross-examination that there was no written agreement. The only writing was the receipts. Mr Hay then raised the point, that in the absence of a. written agreement specifying the names of the parties, the subject matter of the contract and the con sideration signed by the defendant, the plaintiff could not recover, and it was need less to proceed further with the case. Tha flax—the subject matter of the contract — was an interest in land under the 4th sec tion of the Statute of frauds. Mr Hay quoted from Agnew on tho Statute of Frauds and Benjamin on sales, and the Court referred to South on contracts, all of which authorities concurred in holdinp that the natural products of the soil raised spontaneously without tho industry of man called fructus naturales were an interest in land, within the meaning of the 4th Section, and that products raised annually by tho labour of men, and not spontaneously, called fructus industrials, were goods wares and merchandise under the 17th Section of the same statute The language of the 4th Suction was im perative, as follows :—"No action shall bo brought on any contracts or sale of lands or any interest in or concerning them, tin less the agreement upon which such action shall be brought or some memorandum or note thereof shall bo in writing and signed liy the parties to be chargcd therewith." The receipt was not a sufficient nolo or memorandum as it omitted tho considera tion. This had been held to be fatal in tho leading case, Wain v. Wartlers. The U.M. intimated that ho thought the objec tion fatal, but would hear plaintiff's evi dence. Plaintiff then stated that lie com menced to cut the llax in March and cut and removed about IS tons, and that he was stopped by the defendant. 