Important evidence was called by fs. Crown in the case against the Yangtsre Insurance Association, La., which is charged with trading with the enemy.
Mr. 8. H. McKean appeared for the prosecution and Mr. R. N. Macleod for the defence.
Mr. Jackson having been recalled to answer further questions by the magistrate, Mr. Wakeford Cox entered the witness box to make a correction of a statement, which he had made the previous day. He stuted that he had sid he did no rman business. That was a mivtake in an answer to a question. which he took +o refer to over-seas shipments from Shanghai to Amer ica, As a matter of fact he had done some insuraner of German cargs, in some rifling lines ati, pout the time stated, but that was in coastal waters—domestic surance, verard Fraser, British Con-L-General was then' called. He he recollected Mr. Burnie calling upon him once, but had no recollection of his Gaving called se mes. I: was so long ago.
that he could no! remem-
Sir Everard said that his atti-j fede from the begin [sas that loyal Br subjects should have no deal zs with enemy ts in China, at any rate in hi district of Shanghai, Witness made representations on thy matter t th Foreign Office and the Lega-
UN
685, tion. The Foreign Office did not reply for a long time. The ques tion was raised locally as to whether, in an extraterritorial country, you could have commercial domicile. Witness held you could not because the essence of commercial domicile was that you were living en a country to the Courts of which you were subject, whereas in extraterritorial Jeountries you were not subject to the Courts of the country.
However, on November 3, 1914, the Foreign Office sent witness a Hel gram. It was in cipher, so he was precluded from reading to them the actual text, but he would \sive any information the Court wanted about it. It practically sid that the legal advisers to the Foreign Office held you could have commercial domicile in China and that therefore the point would be whether a German, Austrian or Turkish firm was domiciled: in China and had branches elsewhere, or whether it was domiciled in one of the enemy countries and had branches in China, In the former case the firm could not technically be an enemy firm, in the latter it could.
The telegram ended:—This is the stria ly legal point of view, but in practice you will do your beet to Aissnade and prevent British—sublets from having any dealings with the enemy, which His Majesty's Government considers in extremely undesirable," or words to that effect. 'The telegram also mentioned a longer despatch, which reached witness on December 17, That sct forth the same view as ox: pressed in the telegram. Witneas read extracts from the dcepatch and remarked tha', in the cireumsanees, though he did not remem-her Mr. Burnie's questions, he had no hesitation in denying that he made any such sta''emon: as was alleeed. Te_was possible that afer the interview Mr. Burnie had that impression.
After she war had stared a prone eny people came to them to put questions and very soon they found when te callers Jef thes had ne the impression they had me nied to convey, and as far as poe she they urea at heir qnesions in writing and th woul? receive a runly also in writing. Tt was very difficult, when 2 man came to ask ques and kept elaborating and Jahoral ing chem, and that if he me hoping the answ would in a certain dirveti ko would 0 th the impres ien he had got Tu answer to Mr Macleod, wit-mss said tha, as referring to the complaint in she charge, he did net think that anything had arisen he-ween October, 1914. and January, 6. to alter his view on the legal:
of what the defendant company Mr. A. P. Blunt, shipping vieecmsnl. said he recollected various Original fr
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.