Major Holcomb asked fo missal on the ground that if pi had any legal cause of action which remed: law and no equitable] was mot admitted there was a,
grounds are alleged. That the bill contains no direct specific allegation that the defendant is subject to the Jurisdiction of the Court. That the alleged acts of fraud, by whom they were committed, under what circumstances and the times were not set forth as required. And lastly, that! the plaintiff's bill was filed two years after the grounds for suit arose.
After hearing the argument his Honour denied the motion for di missal and gave defendant 20 days in which to file an answer.
The complaint in the motion for} demurrer alleges that during the last six months of 1924 plaints agent in Peking on behalf of the plaintiff loaned to defendant on current account various sums} amounting to $92,890.13. The defendant agreed to repay the money on demand with interest at 12 per! recut. a year, to be compounded quarterly. On January 31, 1925 defendant received $355.62. ' There was still owing $31,174.51 together with interest.
In his demurrer Major Holeomb set out that the nationality of the defendant or the jurisdiction of the Court had not been set out. That there was no cause of action] sufficient to require the defendant to
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.