In the U.S. Court for China, on Tuesday, his Honour Judge M. D. Purdy commenced the hearing of the suit for libel instituted by Mr. Alfred John Ross against the "China Press" in connexion with the Soochow Road silk filature fire, the plaidtif claiming—$60,000 damages. Mr. P. Faison appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. 8. Fessenden and Mr. H, R. Snyder for the defendants.
'The plaintiff in his petition alleged that on January 8 of this year the defendants published false and defamatory matter concerning him, in a report of Mixed Court proceedings, arising out of the allege'! incendiarism which caused the fire at Soochow Road, in March, 1921, involving a loss of some Tls. 7,000,000. The port port complained of stated 'Fong Mel-soong, the sentonacl today, was' empl Yolvedaforeigner named Hoos in the conspiracy, me the time clearing the Silk dealer, This, plaintiff" claimed, stigmatized him as being a member of @ gang] of incendiaries who conspired to fend did commit arson. As a result} thereof, the complaint continued, plaintiff had failed to secure a contract for the sale of beer over a period of three years thereby dam-wing him to the amount of the sum claimed.
The defendants admitted publication of the article in question, but} said it was done without actual malice, or gross negligence, and in the bona fide, but mistaken belief, that the published matter was a fair and accurate report of the judicial Proceedings in the Mixed Court. Defendants further alleged that} they offered to make a retraction and apology, which- offer was refused by counsel for plaintiff, and; that they did subsequently publish' auch retraction and apology. fendant further denied that plaintiff suffered the damage complained Mr. Faison said that in March, 1921, a group of public godowns in North Soochow and North Thibet, Roads were burnt down. The fire was one of the most disastrous in Shanghai for many years: the losses being enormous. Various foreign and Chinese insurance companies had paid out over $7,500,000, At the time the Fire Brigade suspected the fire to be the work of incehdiaries. That view was shared by the Shanghai Municipal Police. spite of every effort being made, they were unable to trace the perpetrators and nothing was heard of fatter until October of Inat, At that time he (Mr, Faison)
practising law in Shanghai with Mr. Heath, and two Chinese coolies came to his office and stated that had taken part in the fire, but had not received the promised amount from the leuder of the gang. They ided that they were anxious to Proceedings, but were told that could not be done.
They were advised to make a confession
thei fo the police which might lend to being treated leniently. They} confessed, but one of them loot heart and xan away from Shanghai. The other was arrested. ar to the police in persuading the coolies to make the confession. Other coolies were arrested as result of information given by the first man and the trial subsequently took place in the Mixed Court. On. January 7 of this year the leader of the gang—Foong Mei-soong—was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for arson.
The statement in the "China Press" that "He involved a foreigner named Ross in: the: osnspiracy, st} the same time clearing: the silk dealer, Zia" was clearly a. libel agqieat his diet; whose. reputation had been ruined and absolutely' destroyed as a result of its publication. The Mixed Court records! showed that he had had nothing whatever to do_with the matter. Where the "China Press" had secured their information, he was quite unable to say. With regard to the question of damages, the answer to the petition acknowledged the libel but denied the construction put upon it by the plaintiff. The} question, therefore, was solely that of the amount of damages the! Plaintiff should be awarded.
He did not know of any law which required the plaintiff to request the defendants to publish an apology, and did not know why the matter had been introduced by the defendants by way of mitigating damages. Evidence would show that plaintiff never refused the offer of the defendants. The offer ha been made in a letter addressed to the plaintiff and the defendants Jeould not show that Mfr. Ross ever refused.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.