In this case plaintiff claimed the sum of Tls. 4,000 which defendant had obtained from her by false pretences The case was last heard before Mr. Mayers and Mr. Wong, when it transpired that defendant had represented himself to be a mandarin sent to Shanghai by Viceroy Chang Chih-tung to purchase plant for the manufac-j ture of smokeless powder, but obtained the money from Mrs. Moore by saying he wished to purchase wood for coffins. The case had been remanded in order to give Mr. Ellis time to prepare his case. Mr. Bourne to-day remarked that he had read the petition and it looked like a criminal offence and in that case defendant should appear in Court and not by counsel. Mr. Nelson said he would not go into the evidence again, but would like to consult the Court whether the case was to go on or not. He was sure there need be no fear of the man not coming back. Mr. Ellis said if tant was 50 perhaps it would be advisable to adjourn the case. Mr. Nelson told the assessor that he was entirely in the dark as to what the defence was and thought that Mr. Ellis should put in an answer so that they could get to the bed-rock of the whole affair. Mr. Ellis said the petition appeared very vague to him, The assessor suggested that Mr. Ellis had better file an answer and the case was adjourned until nest Wednesday afternoon, 22nd June.
Before Mr. Wexo (Magistrate) and Me.
F. 8. A. Bove, (British sLseessor).
O. Anvetuyor v. Pay Yeay-cu'axa.
This was a dispute concerning the ownership of a piece of land. Mr. T. Morgan Phillips (Messrs. Drummond, Phillips, and White-Cooper), appear 1 for defendant and Me. T. Nelson (Messrs Stokes and Platt) for plaintiff. Mr. Phillips said that Mr. Chu Yue-chi had been called when the case was last heard, and ho now proposed to call three other witnesses, after which he would address the Court. The first witness said he had been manager of the Pow Yuen-chang Hong for several years, and produced' the firm's cash book, which showed the purchase of a piece of land for Tls. 1,000 on the 16th day of the 10th moon of the 17th year of Kuang Hsti. Mr. Phillips claimed that the original Bill of Sale had been deposited in the Mised Court in the former magistrate's time (Mr. U. K. Cheng). Mr. Nelson asked to see it, and Mr. Phillips told him it had somehow been mis laid by the Court, but handed to the Court a copy of the document in question. The Assessor remarked that Mr. Phillips would have to prove how the original was lost, and that the copy was an authentic one. Witness said he knew it was a copy, as he had kept it in his possession. The Assessor said it could not be a copy as it should commence with the name of the vendor. The cash book too, he added, did not show by the entry that that was the particular ground. A plan was then produced by Mr. Phillips, and the examination of the witness was proceeded with. He said his firm had always been in possession of the land since the purchase, and had been receiving rent from it for 14 years. Pan had no authority to sign the "perpetual lease, Chu Yue-chi would have to do that; they had paid taxes up to the 19th year of Kuang Hsii, at which time the tipe transferred the land to Messrs. Major Bros.' name. Mr. Nelson asked for the tax receipts. Mr. Phillips replied that these also had been this laid by the Court. The Assessor thought it peculiar that all these documents had been lost. Mr. Phillips said his witness had stated the fact upon oath that in 1898 he' had himself handed the missing documents to Mr. U. K. Cheng, and thought that matter proven.—Witness in answer to Mr. Nelson said ho knew it was the particular land only by his book, which had been shown to the Court. Mr. Nelson said the Shenko paper was dated the 8th year of Kuang Hsii and the Bill of Sale the 12th year, yet in witness' books the date was the 7th year. The Assessor observed that witness would have to prove that the land entered in the book was that in question. Wit
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.