Thereupon the Peking Supply Ca, asked for leave to amend their writ and statement of claim, produced a document called in the Judge's notes ''a deed of assignment fof interest," and on ascertaining that no harm could accrue to the defendants, the Judge sanctioned the alteration. The ffs now appear as "Miss Mild Thornbill adjourned sine settlement.
This wax on May 29, 1923. That suited the convenience of the Peking Supply Ca. It was then a plaintiff. But the boot. is now on the other log:—the Peking, Supply Ca. finds itself a defendant and likely to have an order for payment made against it. All is well: the very same document. which was used in 1923 to show the British character of the ce cern is now solemnly put forward to prove its American character; and it is not suggested that anything, hus happened in the meantime. This really ix enough to decide the appeal. It ix not right that lit gants should play fast and loose with the procedu By the other wa and on exactly the) same evidence "General Ma Evidence The Peking Supply Company elected, and deliberately, to come into a British Court aya British concern and, they must abide by it. But it is said that Thornhill hat-no knowledge of the substitu. tion or addition of her name and therefore cannot be bound by it.
that I find no evidence of that fact anyo in the man who called him. self "General Manager" of ern which now desires to claim as his own: fe is the man who put forward the document (Exh. 8) to prove that he was not the owner now comes and swears that he is the owner.
I also know that the name of Miss Thornhill wgs added in the form in which it appears on the writ by a member of the Bar this Court and I also know that The Court below held, that Cor-, the document (Exh. 8) was produc-haley acted as agent for Miss! ed in Court in that case; it may Thornbill and the Supply Ca. in the have been signed in duplicate but Fequest he made to dhe plaintiff, there is nothing to show it. The and that therefore the present de-relationship of Miss Thornhill to. fendants are liable for his acre done' this business has been in existence! as such agent. 'The plea here is\since 1922; and I confess to so cally that the Court thad no juris-doubt in my mind how far she ws Giection in the case at all; that the' really ignorant of what occurred. Peking Supply Ca. is an American! All Corba'ey says is that he di concern, whose sole owner is Mr.'not tell her about the change Corboley, an American citizen, and the writ in 1923. But apart from that Mies Thornhill is not a part- this, Corbaley put her forward as riner or even part owner in the con-ithe owner of the business in 1923 cern, which is not British. The! and I decline to listen to him state Court below on. this point, basing ing now, on exactly the same evi-{te decision on its own records, held dence as the used in 1923, that she
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.