LANCE

Met VER

Fi

be à ç have

secon pay € proces woulc a jud ever 4

GOYE'

Jugé le print

Judge

plain DATE

tionec Remy priete

other

ct, that t to acbrovision Orps.

en chef,

tion pour

délibér ne to the that the ely fails al to the ww to the uned was ag of the e itsell is rendered to defenand not een paid.

nable 9th appeared the saune sts, under the 1ith ss of Sttt- 29nd the ww under judgment or conyt-

Lit would

be a contradiction to say that not being before court, it would have been possible to give him notice. It is contended, secondly, that plaintiff ought not to have been condemned to pay costs, because defendant was his debtor at the time the process ‘vas issued. There is no proof of payment at all, nor would the existence of a debt at all effect the correctness of a judgment granting congé-défaut, a thing accorded whenever à plaintiff does not return his writ. Judgment contirmed. (tb R. L, 537.)

CAPIAS