To the Editor of the Siz,—In your issue of the 7th of November last there appeared a letter signed "Observer" commenting on the Taotai's judgment in the Bank of China coe, The Writer refers to an article in the Journal of the China Branch of the "Royal Asiatic Society for 1887 on Chinese Partnerships, and argues that the opinions there express sed by Mr. Jamieson and others as to the liability of dormant partners, support the Taotai's judgment.
Tam not concerned at all to criticise the judgment, but I would ask your kind permission to say a word or to to show that the conclusion which ' Observer" seeks to draw is quite unwarranted, Assuining that the views set out m the article in question represent correctly the Chinese law, or the absence of law, on the subject of native partnerships,—a point on which I should be sorry t" dogmatise—it is obvious that the whole scope of the article had reference merely to Chinese partnerships formed in China among Chinese, where there was no written document defining liability, and not to Chinese shareholders in a foreign Company where the rights ang
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.