The defendant, James Joh moves that the words "on and all other persons, bolting such scrip, except the defendants, and such of the said hereinafter com "on behalf of himself and the other inhabitants of Shanghai interested in the maintenance. of the said Homo" allin the title of the amended petition may be struck out, or that proceeding; thie euib may be stayed until such words are struck out.
(Signed) C. Dowpatt, Solicitor for the Defendant, J. J. Keswick Mr, Dowpazt said that he had thought it well to bring the matter that formed the subject of this motion forward before the case came on for hearing, as in the number of Weekly Notes for 20th November, 1880, it was recorded that an objection to the want of parties in Sheehan v. The Great Eastern Railway, had been over-ruled because it should have been made at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
Mr. Warxewnrcer thought that th motion looked as if it were in the nature of objection toit. He thought his learned friend should state his grounds for making the application, as the case fell under Rule 43. He did not know why the word be struck out, whether point of law, or merely to Laras His Lonpsnrr said that as the case fell under Rule 37 and not Rule 43, the objection would be over-raled, remaining scripholders bad disagreed with the sale, a To a question from His Lordship as to whether would sus i dowdall replied in the His Lorpsmr referred to the spoken of with raga usual of information part of Messrs, Jardine, Mr, Wainewright said it would be filed short!
Mr. Watvewaronr Messrs. Ringer & Canoo had filed ata that they should have bes Mr. Dowpatn coi all person unless they were defendants, Now, according, to paragraph 20 of the petition, it appeare that 96 out of 105 holders of scrip receipts for Tis, 100 each, had assented to the sale that was complained of; three of these receipts were held by the plaintiff, and therefore there could only be six others left at the most; and these should have been made plaintiffs had they felt inclined to become #0. According to Onder 16 Rule 9 of the Judicature Act; it seemed that the names of parties to suits should only be left out when they were "numerous," and it was not alleged that the plaintiffs in this suit were numerous and he contended besides that the plaintiff could not be allowed to ano on behalf of persons out of the jurisdiction of the Court, who could not be served with a decree of the Court if one were issued, and who might perhaps bring another suit after th Property bd been handed over by the defendants, in the event of a decision being gi against them, or bad passed out of thei possession. Then as to the plaintiff olaimin, right to represent inhabitants of Shanghai in the way he did, the learned Counsel maintained that as the words stood they imply that the judges of that Court wer well as also the defendants themselves.
Mr. Watvewatont had tried to follow the argument of his learned friend, and he thought it seemed to point to an ingenious attempt on fendante, whom he might jas result if the argument person could not sue and if it were true, _a decree on Shanghai, 3rd December, 1880, Messrs, Janpixe, Mararsox & Ca, Gzxtuewex,—I shall be much obliged if you will inform me who is the lessee of that portion of the Associated Wharves, situated in Hongkew, knowe as the Sailor' Home frontage.
Yours faithfully, W. Haxpyste Tare, Shanghai, 3rd December, 1880.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.