Shanghai, 20th Feb. aT, Eeq. Mooroo. is a native furniture dealer and he sought to recover from the defendant, who is a man of colour, th ona sum of ory note.
Defendant a \debtedness, but money to pay the amount. As soon as he had money be would pay answer to his Honour, explained time ago, when defendant was chief boy in the service of Mr. sold him furniture, on of $175. Defendant left Mr. ice and subsequently sold the furniture for $125, Out of this amount he was paid only $90. thi ng$35, and gave him the promissory Defendant paid off other debts he owed with
produced for $50. The note had been uted for payment, but defendant had Hoxour gave judgment for the amount lined with costs, but tell the had acted very foolishly in defendant to the extent lo hud. ant to recover $$ for damage done Lo a The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effect that on Friday ing on the south pang Creek, near the Bund Bridge, set down a passenger, when dete up in his trap and smashed the wheel of the jinrikeha. He had "shed defendant to pay for the damage done, but defendant refused, Defendant explained that he was driving along the street next to the Yang-king-pang Creek, in the French Concession, and gain toward the Bund. Between Mr. Millot's house and Morris' and Co,'s, there was a wriksba, and standing opposite Morris and ©o.'s on the right-hand site of t was a pony and trap. He wax left_ side of the street, with the wheel against the kerbstone, and just before he passed the jinrikelia he saw, plaintiff with 1 appeared from sumewhere—probably from behind the other one—and ran across the street 1g the shafts of the nrikeha on the footpath. He did i hest pull up, hut had not time to do re, and the pony funashed the wheel of th a with his feet. He refused to pay the plaintiff for the damage sone because he did not think he Was to blame for the accident; and he had a sergeant of police to prove that plaintiff had first asked four dollars for the damage done, and now he claimed eight.
Plaintiff, in answer to his Honour, said he should be' satisfied with four dollars, which would make -good the damage done. Ho claimed §$ because some Ningpo men told him to do Tt transpired that Mr. AN, Brown, of Messrs, Morris & Ca. and Mr. Millet saw the accident, and had sent a note to the Mixed Court respecting it. This note was now produced and read, It was to the effect that, they considered Mr. Rivington entirely to blame for the accident, and thnt be ought to pay the damages, Defendant said he had been told that neither Mr. Brown nor Mr, Millet saw the occurrence.
His Aoxovr said the note could not be admitted as evidence, but if it was ne Mr. Brown and Mr. Millet would attend the Court and explain what th It was a serious matter to the plaintiff for his jiusiksha to be damaged, but " trumpery cate to dceupy thet Millet, and the necessary to go to ti ing them to attend, would be satisfied with $4, end (hin asked defendant if it would' not be. b to pay him that amount and cattle the case at one but thought lo of the rood should b Defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff $4,
followed by jinni n, as ti dangerous and' might be attended with loss of life to warn the plaintiff to be more careful in fature.
His Hoxour—It I did, he might ask me to warn you to be more careful in future,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.