In this action plaintiff claimed sum of $160 due on @ promissor, note.
In his evidence plaintiff that he had lost the promise note. He had lent the money i 1911, about July. He lent the mone, to Mr. Pearson, but both Mr. anc Mrs. Pearson had signed. Mr. Peat son was now dead.
The defendant: said that she had never seen the money, and she signed the pape: only as recognising her husband': signature, When the plaintiff hac called asking for the money, she promised to pay, because she did not want to come to court.
His Honour said that tunately for the plaintiff hi cipal piece of evidence, the pro-misery note, was lost. On that, of course, he could have ment with absolute certain seemed to him that on his own evidence the plaintiff lent the money to' Mr. Pearson and not to Mrs. Pear-n, Any subsequent promises by Mrs. Pearson were void in law, there was no consideration for them. They word what was called a nudum partum, He could not claim against Mrs. Pearson, and as Mr. Pearson was dead he would have to claim against his estate. This case was dismissed.
Shanghai, Sept. 25.
Defendant gave evidence that he had repaid the money, but had not received back the promissory note, nor any receipt, but there was an endorsement on the document that the money had been paid.
After hearing evidence on this point, the Registrar said the evidence in the case had as usual been contradictory. One which appealed to him in deciding the case was, why did not the defendant, when he paid the money back, take the paper which was evidence of the debt and destroy it or keep it in safe custody? It would be a lesson to the defendant, and_perhaps other Sikhs to be more circumspect in money dealings. Defendant had neglected to take the ordinary precautions, and judge ment would be given for the tiff for the amount claimed with coste, $25.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.