In this case, in which Mr. F. Ellis appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. 'f. an Phillips was for the defence, the following judgment has been delivered In this case Brodie Augustus Clarke claims to appear and prosecute as plaintiff. His position as agent for the Zay Woo Godown Company is recognised, and he further claims that he had an agreement with them by which he was to receive a considerable share of net profits. The document produced in this agreomon: is a lotter apparently addressed to Mr. Clarke, containing terms of his agency. It provides for a share of profits to be paid to him, but is not signed and bears the following chop: "British firm, Hopkins, Dunn and Ca. (K'o Chien) Jui Ho Godown." Now K'o Chien is the chop of Mr. Clarke's own firm. Under these circumstances the Court is unable to accept this document as sufficient proof of the agreement referred to, to enable Mr, Clarke to appear as prosecutor for the Zay Woo Godown, nor doos the other evidence produced establish his positi factorily. Mr. Clarke's petition is therefore dismissed
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.