rhcplaintiffB  delivered  to  one  R.   nine  cnltivaton  for  tbe  purpose  of

feUiDg,  aa  their  agent,  (or  cutt  or  good  notea.  Three  of  these
Ji6  eichanged  with  the  defendant;  who  waa  aware  of  the  fact  of
MSDcy,  for  a  buggy,  which  he  sold  and  retained  the  proceeds.  It  was
^hewc  that  on  a  previous  ocuaalofi  R.  had  traded  a  cultivator  with  one
M.  for  a  horse,  which  ha  Hold,  sod  gave  the  plaintiffs  a  forged  note
[inrporting  to  be  that  of  the  purchaser  ;  and  On  the  Bame  day  be  traded
:^other  cultivator  with  one  D.,  for  a  watch  and  {7,  but  for  this  also  it
wBA  said  be  returneil  a  note  to  the  plaintiffs.  It  was  not  shewn  that
ilefendaut  knew  of  either  tran&iction,  and  the  plaintiffs  bad  proBeouted
R.  for  the  forgery.  In  an  action  of  replevin  the  jury  gave  a  verdict  in
I'avonr  of  the  defendant,  but  the  Connty  Judge  in  term  set  it  aaide,
.-md  directed  judgment  to  be  entered  for  the  plaintiffs,  which  on  appeal
waa  alErnied,  with  coBti.
Jnder  Rule  3Q1,  0.  J.  A.,  the  Court  may,  upon  motion  for  judgment
or  for  a  new  trial,  if  satisfied  that  it  has  before  it  all  the  materials
necessary  for  finally  determining  the  question  in  dispute  '  *  give
Judgment  accordingly  ;  but

"rr  WlldOH,  C  J. — Unquestionably  that  power  most  be  most  sparingly
and  cautiously  exercised.
Appeal  from  the  County  Court  of  Oxford.
Action  in  replevin  for  three  cultivators.
Pleas.  1st.  Did  not  take  the  goods.  2nd.  Goods  not
)laintiffa'.
The  case  was  tried  before  his  Honour  Judge  MacQueen
ind  a  jury,  at  Woodstock,  December  14th,  1881.
