SOCIETE DE BIENFAISANCE.—DOMMAGES.—DECLARATION PRIVILEGIEE

COUR SUPÉRIEURE, Montréal, 17 mai 1872.

Présent : MACKAY, J.

DURETTE #s CARDINAL.

Jugé: Qu'un membre d’une société de bienfaisance a le droit de déclarer, dans une assemblée de cette société, que la personne qui sollicite l'admission dans cette société, a volé, même lorsqu'il y a 5 ou 6 ans que la conviction a eu lieu, et qu’une telle déclaration est privilégiée, et ne peut donner lieu à des dommages.

This was an action of damages. Un the 3rd november 1866, plaintiff had two bills found against him, for stealing a watch. On the 3rd july 1871, five yeurs afterwards, plaintiff was proposed as member of a certain society, Union Saint-Joseph, and pluintiff says that defendant, without any cause, maliciously said to those present : “ Don't you know that plaintift has stolen a watch?” This remark referred to the unfortunate occurence of defendant’s youth. Plainutiff alleged that he had since acquired an honest reputatisn. This is true. The plea was that the remurk was privileged ; that defendant was a member of the society ; that perfect character was required of candidates, and defendant only said what was true, and that he was right in saying what he did. Pluintitf replied that defendant was not to be allowed to prove the truth of the charge, and that defendant was actuated by malice. The evidence showed that eight days’ notice was to be given by candidates ; when the person who proposed plaintiff came in, defendant "who had previously objected to plaintiff’s admission, was forced to speak out and tell what he knew. For five or six years, the plaintitff has borne a good character. He had been sent out of the room before he was spoken of, so his feelings were spared, as far as possible, There were none but members present, and the place was a private place. As to the truth of ine charge, Shiller proved four convictions against plaintif® and there were other indictments on which plaintiff had pleaded guilty. Plaintiff proposed to get admis-

had Th:

sue va V wi] Un i afte and sue acce that ban ans suce Lee lin, ques hote fact sai dl

She

paid

ntracter u.” (4

droit de qui solli- ) ou 6 ans ilégiée, et

er ISG6, a watch.

tif was l Joseph, se, mauliplaintifl

rue, T

lant was required rue, and ; replied ruth of ve. T

riven by came in,

victions n which t admis-

sion into the society, he had expected that the members would inquire into his antecedents ; though christian charity might lead one to take a favorable view of piaintitfs position, after such an “accident ” as had happened to him’ the members, as à matter of duty to their society, would be justitied in refusing him the privileges of membership. Plaintitf should never have brought this action; the place was privileged, and the speaking was not in malice, but privileged. Therefore the action must be dismi-sed. (4 R, L., 223.)

FEMME MARIEE.—DOUAIRE PREFIX.

Cour SUPÉRIEURE, Montréal, 17 mai 1872.

Présent: MACKAY, dJ.

ACKERMAN #s GAUTHIER et vir.

Jugé : Que la renonciation, faite par une femme à la succession testamentaire de son mari, ne sera pas affectée pur le fuit que, comme exécntrice du testament, elle aurait reçu une somme d'argent qu'elle se serait appropriée en déduction de son douaire préfix.

The female defendant was the widow of Poulin, but she had married, in second taarriage, the other defendant, Thibault, from where is séparée de biens. She is now sued on a promissory note for $103, which the first husband save to pluintiff. After giving the note he died, and, by his will, he left the present defendant all his property à titre ‘universel. She was also named executrix of the will. Shortly after, she received a certain sum, over 81000, due to Poulin, and preserved silence respecting it. Subsequently, she was sued by plaintif, on the note, and it was alleged that she had accepted the succession of her deceased husband. She pleadeil that she had renounced the legaey on the 21st sept., her husband having died in august preceeding. To this, it was answered that, before this renanciation, she had accepted the succession, by having received à sum from à man named Leclaire, She replied, that ste received à sum from one Pou ln, but only ès-qualité of exeeutrix of deceased’s Will. he question was whether defendant could be charged to pay this note, The court held in favour of defendant, #s in point of fact she was'execeutrix. She had appropriated this momey and said not a word about it, yet, this wus not fatal to ler case She said she had received it ns exeeutrix of the will, amd hudl paid it to herself on account of the sum of £500, dou:

préfiæ settled upon her by murriage contract. It was true she had no right to keep this sum by priority over all the other creditors; she, as executrix, ought to have asked them to come in and divide with her, «uw marc la Livre. This, however, could not nullify her renuaciation. The action would be dismissed, but without costs. (4 R. L., 224.)

PAILLITZ.—CONCORDAT.—COLLOCATION.

SUPERIOR COURT, Montreal, 17th may 1872.

Present : MACkAY, J.

In re CLARK & CLAYTON, insolvents, «nd THE MoLsoNs BANK, claimant, «nd BUCHANAXN et al. contestants.

Jugé: Qu'un créancier peut réclamer d’un ‘débiteur, lors d’une seconde faillite de ce dernier, tout le montant de la réclamation qu'il avait contre lui lors d'une première faillite, lorsqu'il y a eu concordat, et que le débiteur n’en a pas accompli les conditions.

This was an appeal from the awurd of an assignee. Clark and Clayton, from the 5th august 1867 to 21st april 186$, were trading as Davie, Clark & Clayton. Then, they assigned to Stewart, assignee, and this bankrupey ended that co-partnership. Under that assignment, the Molsons Bank proved à claim for $9,785. Davie, Clark & Clayton offered x composition of 10s 6d in the £, got a discharge and their property was given back to them. Then they continued trading as Clark & Clayton. The Molsons Bank received certain suras on account of the composition. In 1869, on the 5th august, Clark & Clayton made x second assignment to R. Watson, and, thereupon, the Molsons Bank filed a elañm for the whole amount due at the time of the first assignment, ess what had been paid on account, A contestation was raised before the assignee, and it was contended by the contesting creditors, Buchanan, Leckie & Co., that the Molsons Bank could not be allowed to claim more than the balance due of the composition. The assignee had sustained this contestation and eut down the claim of the Molsons Bank to $1,712. The Molsons Bank has appealed from this award, and contends that the claim must stand as filed :; that the bankrupts having failed to eurry out the terms of the first com: position, the origimal claim revived. It was important to observe that the firms of the first bankrupey and of the second were composed of the same individuals, carrying on

the dee

ten Wa,

not the

sust

cl) gr

san not beir

crec be ce