Mr Cooper stated that Mrs Francis paid Mr Vailo the actual disbursements he had made in roference to the property, a sum of £10 7s, and refused to admiu Mr Vailo'a right to anything more. Mr Vaile was in structed by Mrs Francis' agent, Mr Aickon, to pub bho properties up for sale. In compliance with bis instruc tions, ho took the neoessary steps for preparing bhe property for sale, and put ib up to auction at a reserve of £1,100. A purchaser nob being found ab that h'guro, the property was withdrawn and left in Mr Vailo's hands for private sale. The proporty wos eventually sold without Mr Vailo's intervention, and the defendant refused to recompense him for the trouble ho had incurred in trying to sell ib, since he had nob been directly iusbrumeubal in ibs being disposed of. Mr Cooper sub mitted thab thoro was an implied contract thab if Mr Vailo did nob sell tho pro perty he was to bo repaid his exponses. Ho instanced tho decisions given in similar casoß in tho English Courts, and thought thab had euch a caso as tbo proeent been boforo tho judges thoy would havo girur. a reasonable remuneration to the plnintilL Counsel fluid thab ho believer) ho would Also bo able to show that Mr Courb, who pur chased tho proporby from Mr Thorno, was led to do so by tho advertisomonb of Mr Vailo.
Mr Buddie said thab this was quite a now contention, and of courso if his friond could make ib good be would give up tho ease.
Mr Vailo was then examined, and gavo evidence as to tho labour and expense ho had been put to in preparing tho property for sab.
