Shanghai, 24th October. Before H. S. Witxrxsoy, Chief Justice. met Yv Foo-cure v. Evays axp Ca, The plaintiff in this case was not re-resented by cou Mr. W. A. C.
"att (Messrs. Stokes and Platt) appeared for the defendants.
The petition of the plaintiff read as follows 1.—The pi if is general merchant, carrying on business at Shanghai, and is 8 firm of general! merchants end commission agents carry on business at Shanghai, and are British 3.—On the.5th day of November, 199s, the defendants contracted with the plaintiff to purchase an agents torand on the pli 's account 2,000 bales of drill at a price and other terms stated in the contract note. The price so charged ws over the current market price. The plaintiff took delivery of 1,150 bales out of the said 2,000 bales, and' claims the cliff rence on the said 1,150 baes between the market price on the date of contract and that stated in the contract note. The plaintiff al-o paid ings certain sums as margin money in respect of the said contract. by the defendants. The plaintiff claims the difference between the market price on the diate of the said contract of the said 850 bales, and the price st the time when the contract was broken by non-delive 5.—The plaintiff paid duty ov 1,800 of the said bales to the am-unt of Tls. 3.05: He claims from the defendants the difference between the amount so paid and the duty payable on the said 1,150 bales delivered to him.
6.—On the 27th January, 1899, the defendants contracted with the plaintiff to purchase as agents for and on the plaintiff's account 100 bales of sheeting, and on 30th January, 1899, also contracted to purchase as agents for and. on the plaintif"s account another 100 bales sheeting. The defendants failed to carry the contract by non-delivery of the said bales.
The plaintiff therefore pray That the defendants may to the plaintiff, Under Paragraph 3 4
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.