Shanghai, 17th March, Before G. Frescu, Exq., Chiey Justice, An Mow, C. Mantis, Plaintiff a storekeeper in the French Concessi an defendant is a clerk. The action was to $210.55, for furniture, vered. tted "hie liability, but eaid could not pay the debt at once.
An attempt to settle the matter out of Court failed, plaintiff (represented, by his h) declining to accept defen debt by instalments 18th March.
Rosertson v. W. Poranaxp.
This was an action to recover the sum of $10, or the return of a goat and kid.
Plaintiff' expressed his regret at having to trouble his Lordship with a small matter of this kind, and then went on to say that in September last he went to Japan and was tabouta month. On his return, he found that a lot of valuable articles h stracted from his house, and things he missed was the goat u subjects of the present claim. The first mornit after he returned he told his boy to brine him his usual glass of goat's milk, and th hoy told him "Goat no hab gt," ' The boy then explained that while ho (plaintiff) was in of hig in the Chines Japan a man nameil Scott, who was a confiere vice, came to the hou and took the goat and ki ched Scott who took them to thed property, and Scott to dispose of them, He recent very insulting reply from the defendant—be was sorry he had lost the letter—who refused to return the goat and kid, On receipt of this letter, he went and saw the defendant, who tried to pass the m: an off-hand manner. He insisted, however, on ha goat and kid back again, that he could prove they were his property, that hi never per them away. ut slefoudant right Scott returned to Shao, \d explained the matter, Scott was then expected back in a that he was in in Hongkong for libel, defendant another letter re return the goat and kid, and ut him an insulting reply, 1g him up before the head of his department, In anewer to His Lonpsur, plaintiff eaid hho was firat be
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.