was claim for $1,538.08 for etendenn did not appear.
is supplied.
T. E. N. Rosser, sworn, said that he had served the writ upon defendant in his (witness's) office at 9.50 a.m. on the 18th instant.
Plaintiff stated that $1,200 of his claim was the value of furniture for the Weising Gardens at 10 Robison Road. Defendant had hired it at $80 per month, and had had it for a month and a half without paying a cent. The rest of his claim was made up of payments on behalf of, or loans made to, defendant.
His Lordship gave judgement for $80 for the hire of furniture, $338.08 for money due for loans, and good supplied, and said that defendant would be informed that if he did not appear on Monday morning an order would be made for hin to retarn the furniture to plaintiff. Judgement would, therefore, be. iven for $418.08 with costs, and under Rule 154, i Lordship found that the absence of the defendant was excusable and that he had a defence, he could rehear the case.
Shanghai, August 24.
Defendant admitted that the plaintiff had supplied the articles of farnitare claimed for, bat said that plaintiff had eroployed a broker who recently took the goods y- Plaintiff, therefore, held witness's receipt for the goods also.
Plaintiff stated that he had not received all the goods.
His Lordship made an order that the plaintiff be put in possession of the Property. Plaintiff must be allowed to ry away what was his. If plaintiff had anything farther to'
bout any accounts he would hat to come to Court again.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.