Browwer, Mon & Ca, Curtis Baas, This was the hearing of a motion by counsel for Brunner, Mond & Ca. for an order that the award made between the parties to an arbitration by Mesars V.R. Eckford and J. C. Fraser and dated at Chefoo March 30, 1908, might be set aside on the ground that the award was bad in point of law on the face of it or alternatively because it did not extend to all matters submitted to the arbitrators.
Mr. Loftus E. P. Jones appeared in support of motion. Mr. A. 8. Wilson represented Messrs Curtis Bros.
Mr. Jones said that thia application arose out of an arbitration at Chefoo and the parties to it were Messrs Brenner, Mond & ('o, and Messrs Cartis Bros. of Chefoo. The actual contract was in Chin i words being the affidavit Mr. E. 8. Little stated:—The said contract marked "A to be made between Curtis Bros. and Brunner, Mond & Company and is signed by this deponent on behalf of Brunner, Mond & Company and chopped by Curtis Bros, and signed by one U. 8. Chuck, who was at that time in their employ and who I naturally inferred had authority to enter into the said contract on their behalf as their agent or otherwise, (4) The said contract was sent by we to (Curtis Bros. to be signed and returned by them to me after being signed and the correspondence relating to the said contract was exclusively between Jurtis Bros. and myself and referred to the said (. 8. Chuck.
The said contract contained the provision that cash was to be paid against all deliveries. (8) All goods under the said contract were shipped in the name of Curtis Bros.
Bros. delivered monthly accounts of the said goods in their own name. (7) In or about the month of December 1907 the said C. 8. Chuck absconded leaving @ deficiency of about Tls. 6,057. 60 in respect of the ssid goods whi he had disposed of. (8) Messrs. Curtis Bros. refused to hold themselves respon-for the defalcations of the C. 8. Chuck either under the contract or otherwise and "all matters difference between us" were submitted to arbitration. (9) Inthe award made by the arbitrators they confined themselves to the question whether Cartis Bros. entered into the said contract and, deciding they had not, held Curtis Bros. were not sible for the loss. (10) They did not decide (a) whether Curtis Bros. had by reason of their conduct as evidenced by their-——~ correspondence and otherwise, themselves from denying that thee
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.