A case of importance to China companies was heard on Thurs day in H. M. Police Court, before Mr. G. iW. King, Police Magistrate, when the Shanghai Garage Ca., Ld., was summoned on the following information "{nformation has this day been laid before this Court, by His Majesty's Crown Advocate that you have not complied with section 76 of The Companies Ordinance 1911 (As amended by section 8 of the Companies Amendment Ordinance 1913) from the 11th day of September, 1918, to the 28th day of January, 1920, and thereby have become liable to a fine not exceeding $50 a day for 504 days, that is to
apport of the charge and Mr.
13 4 fine of $25,200."
S. H. McKean appeared in Strafford Levinson for the Couipany, Evidence was given by Mr. J. F. Brenan, the Deputy Registrar of Companies, that default had been made by the Company in filing the returns required since Septem ber 11,1918. The Company had, on January 28, 1990, taken the initia-tivo in' putting themselves straight and as a result of the recent motion in the Supreme Court had now complied with all the requirements.
Addressing the Bench in mitigation Mr. Levinson pointed out that this company appeared to have been made the scapegoat in order to draw the attention of other companies to the requirements of the Order in Council. Their default was due to inadvertence und not to any mala fides and in the circumstances an exemplary penalty ought not to be impose he Magistrate, in a judgement in which he fully reviewed the law, said it was unfortunate for the company that they had been chosen as an example. It was the duty of companies to know the provisions of the Orders in Council. He imposed a fine of $100 and allowed costs to the prosecution.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.