with the defendant company.
Particulars Bond fide loss by fire, which occurred on the under—mentioned dates, under the plaintiff company's policies, re-insured partly with the defendant company as follows: (1) Fire of April 18, 1912, Plaintiff company's policy, for Tls. 36,300—reinsured with the defendant Company for Ts. 3,630. Net loss paid by the plaintiff company Tis, 3,000. Defendant company's share of the loss, Tls. 300. (2) Fire on June 10, 1918, plaintiff company's policy for Ti 5,000. Reinsured with the defend. ant company for Tls. 2,000. Net loss paid by the plaintiff company Tls. 1,750. Defendant company's share of the loss, Tls. 700. (3) Fire on June %, 1919, plaintiff company's policy for Tls. 43,000. Reinsured with the defendant company for Tls. 862. Net loss paid by the plaintiff company Tls. 32,656.20. Defendant—dpmpany's share of the loss Tls. 2,978. Total, Tls. 3,978.
Mr. 8. R. Sebastian appeared for the plaintiffs. The defendanta were not present.
Mr. Sebastian asked for judgement under rule 101.
The Registrar said this was one of the cases he could not try. He would take formal evidence of the writ being served and refer the case to the Judge.
The Acting Usher gave evidence of serving the writ to Mr. Fong, an accountant at the company's office, 19 Kiangse Road.
Mr. Sebastian said that a communication had been received admitting the debt. The defendants wanted the case to be taken at Hongkong.
The Resistrar adjourned the case until Monday for formal judgement to be given for the plaintiffs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.