Loftus E. P. Jones was present to watch the case on behalf of the Shanghai and Hongkew Wharf Company; Mr. Latter (Messrs. Drummond and" White-Cooper)
appeared on behalf of a Chinese firm who had been defrauded, and at a later stage of the proceedings Mr. Holeomb appeared on belutlf of the prisoner, Mr. Nelson said that having regard to the proxi of the Chinese New Year, and also considering certain offers that had been made at recent interviews con-with the case, he thought it would be advisable to postpone the hearing until tier the New Year holidays. He was te prepared to go on with the case at once the Court wished, but if an adjournnient wer granted there was a possibility of a s tilement, Certain guaran tors might come forward gr the prisoner's behalf, and there might be a possibility that the Court would hear no more about the case.
Inspector Matheson said that in addition to the charge laid by Messrs. Castle Bros., there were several other claims against the prisoner.
In reply to the Assessor, Mr. Nelson said that he appeared in the first place for Messrs. Castle Bros., the prosecutors, but he also represented other clients who had claims against the prisoner. 7 Inspector Matheson asked if Mr. Nelson ed for a remand.
Mr. Nelson said that he did, and added that he did not object to the prisoner being let out on bail, but the bail must be very substantial—Tls. 25,000 at least.
Mr. Jones said that he was present to watch the case on behalf of the Shanghai and Hongkew Wharf Company, who were concerned. He objected most strongly to the prisoner being released on bail. He also objected to a remand at all. Most extensive frauds had been committed and there certainly ought to be a public examination of the prisoner. There were also some civil cases pending.
Mr. Nelson—There might be.
Mr. Latter said that he appeared on behalf of the manager of a Chinese hong, who bought from Messrs. Castle Bros. flour to the value of Tls. 5,800. They paid the bill for the flour to the compra-dare (prisoner). He was present to question the prisoner as to what had become of the money so naid by his clients. He was also there to bring a charge of theft against the prisoner.
The Magistrate asked how the money was paid. nae Mr. Latter replied that it was paid in four bank orders.
Mr. Nelson said that he represented nearly all the firms concerned except two for whom Mr. Jones and Mr. Latter appeared. He had simply suggested an adjournment as he thought it might lead to a satisfactory settlement of the case. Ho alone represented the prosecutors on the only criminal charge that had yet been preferred. Mr. Jones and Mr. Latter simply held watching briefs. The only charge actually preferred was that of forgery.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.