Section 43 of the Act reads : " Until the Directors are appointed, the subscribers to the memorandum of Associa tion shall, for the purposes of this Act, be considered to be the Directors." Cross-examination (continued) : Plaintiff had mentioned that an order book would be bandy, but the Directors did not think it was necessary, and therefore did not obtain one for him. Mr Bailey asked witness if he thought that that was a proper way to do business; whereupon His Worship said that the Directors had a. right to transact their business in the manner they thought fie, and therefore co-.dd please themselves whether they provided defendant with an order-book or not. He was decidedly of the opinion that the plain tiff should have obeyed the orders of the Dir«ctora regardtmg the farm of order he •koald i*»u«,

This was the defence. Mr M'Carthy : There has been a great deal of contradictory evidence givsn in this case, and in deciding who is to be believed a great deal will depend upon the character of the witnesses. Now, I contend that grave suspicion must, attach to Sutherland's testi mony. It will be remembered that, in a recent case against one of the Directors of the Company, a great riea- depended upon the proper construction to be placed on a cer tain telegram The origiual could not be produced—Sutherland said it was not in his possession, and produced whit was really a garb ed copy of it, in which there was no dash betw'een the words "say nothing" and "failing engagement," the evident in tention of the omission beinn to mike that which was only a conditional promise appear to be an absolute and unconditional one Strange to say, when it suits Su'norland's own purposes, he can produce (as he did yes terday) the original telegram, which reads as follows: "Send Sutherland up Monday. Bring testimonials. Say untiling. Failing engagement, will guarantee coach - fare." Here comes out the true nature of the case. It is only r-asonablo to assume tint Suther land all along had this telegram in his possession. Why, then, did he not produce it in 'he other case ? Why did he on that occasion deny that he bad it in his poa-ession ? Evidently, ho had been guilty of wilful coticea'ment in order to extort money from the defendant in that ac ion. 