The judge reminded counsel for the defence that the Peking Senate had ruled that superannuation fees could only be withheld in ease the Railway had been working at a loss, therefore how was it the Railway had refused to pay the petitioners?
Counsel for defence stated that the Railway Administration had decided not to give any more superannuation fees, but that no written resolution to this effect had been made by them, it had merely been verbally agreed upon, The Judge evinced great surprise at this and asked how this was possible, counsel for defence not being able to give any lucid ex: planation, The judge then pointed out that even if counsel was able to prove his contention which he was not, having no documentary evidence, such a resolution could not have any bearing on claimants who had left the railway before 1928.
The reply was that the sums paid out were only small, and that. the Railway had lost several law cases of late it was unable to pay the claimants, The next question put by the Judge was as to whether the C.
R, had any other debts besides that for the milliard of roubles. Counsel for defence replied in the affirmative, The judge told the former that he must produce written proofs fand then adjourned the case for a fortnight.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.