To the Editor of the Nonta-Ciixa Day News Sin,—We ask: your permission to make public the following facts with reference to the case of one Nerian Singh v. The Shanghai Municipal In November last Nerian Singh, an English-speaking Indian who had been engaged by the Municipal Police asi Sergeant Interpreter was summarily [dismissed under circumstances and upon charges which it is not the purpose of te Gazette. S05 this letter to deal with. It is suffi to state that the man considered that there had been no proper' inquiry into the case and that the charges which bad been preferred against him (solely by other Indians) were absolutely false. 'The terms of the man's engagement differ in no material respect from' any ordinary contract of employment' in which an employer is only entitled' to dismiss without notice for good cause, nor does it differ materially from the contract under which other Municipal servants are employed. Under no system of law of which we know is an employee, who has been summarily dismissed, debarred from testing in Court of law the justice of his dismissal.
On December 23 Nerian Singh sccordingly filed a petition in the Court of Consuls in accordance with his rights under the Land Regulations and with the rights of every person who has legal relations with the Council. This right is conferred under Land Regulstion XXVII, which also expressly says: "The Council shall incur the obligations which private defendants have in proceedings at law or suits in equity commenced against them." The proceedings were instituted strictly id accordance with the Rules of Procedure for the Court of Consuls On January 21 the Municipal Council filed "an answer containi mach irrelevant matter" and" mal ters of prejudice. against the plaintiff' (og. reference to the position that either the Court had not jurisdiction to try the case or if it had jurisdiction, that it should not in this particular case exercise such jurisdiction. Now although Courts have power to decide after hearing argument what cases are within their™ jurisdiction and what are not, we know of no Court worthy of the name which in decide leasure without & héar-ing when it will function and when it will not. Accordingly under Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure shore referred to application was made Yor's summons calling on the defendants to plead specifically whether or no they admitted or denied the jurisdiction of the Court. This was done in order to define accurately the issue the Court would have to try in order that the parties might be prepared with their" arguments thereon. The summons also called for the production of documents, etc., in order that the trial of the issu might be facilitated generally.
This summons was filed on January 22, 1908, but the Court refused to serve it or to hear the plaintiff or his counsel on the application, and "this, though they hed received and apparent. ly considered certain affidavits put in by the Municipal Council, notwith-' standing that there is no provision in the Rules of Procedure for hearing 9 case on affidavits.
On February 11, 1908, the following Mien coped "was recent in a" chit
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.