Argument as to jurisdiction in the action brought by the Kiangnan Dock & Engineering Works, agi the Commercial Express. &' Storag' Ca, was heard in the U. S, Court fon Monday morning and afternoon. The case involves some nice points of international law and is peculiar-' ly complicated by the political situation. Major J. R. Jones, of Messrs. Teesdale, Newman and Me~ Donald appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. B.S. Haskell for the inter-the Ye Tai Machine Tool Messrs. F. J. Schuh and schoenfeld watched the ease) made no argument. The case concerns a quantity of nails copper, ete, removed from the Dock at the time of the fighting by C. 8. Yung, acting: on the instructions of Gen. Ho Feng lin and sold to the Ye Tai Machine Tool Ca. The property in dispute was stored with the defendants who refuse to give it up until clear title Major Jones maintained that the plaintiffs were' an integral part of the Chinese Navy, which is a de-' partment of the Central Govern-! ment, and that such 1 statement was made in the complaint and! admitted in the pleadings. The counsel for the intervener objecting, to this, Major Jones was allowed by the Court to amend his complaint. Counsel further maintained that treaty terms the plaintiff was. lowed to bring action in the U. 8. Court, but that the intervener, a Portuguese subject, was not allowed to come into Court, as such action should properly be heard in the Mixed Court. His third contention was that a party in armed conflict i the Government could not give lo to Government property an' this connexion he alleged that Gen. Ho Feng-lin had seized Kiangnan Dock without authority, his com-' mission of Defense Commi having been revoked and his success sor appointed on Septmier 25. Many. cases were cited bearing upon these: points.
Mr. Haskell, for the intervener, claimed that, the case was outside the jurisdiction of the U. S. Court inasmuch as his client, a Portuguese subject was in controversy with a Chinece citizen, When asked by. Judge Purdy whether he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the U. S. Court in presenting a motion for the dissolution of the temporary, injunction and in intervening, Mr. Haskell stated that these were special orders and did not commi hig client to the U. S. Court'
Jurisdiction. Judge Purdy said that the point whether the Court: had lotion over the subject matter ion must. be decided, and the question was what is the" subject matter?
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.