Important Question of Supreme Court's Jurisdiction Three applications for Ieaye to appeal against judgments recently given by him were made to his Honour Judge Sir Skinner Turner in the Supreme Court on Thursday.
The first concerned the action brought by Messrs, Moorhead Halse against the Shanghai Ice Cold Storage Ca. and the Union Cold Storage Ca., in which the latter firm had entered a motion for their name to be struck out of the ease on the ground that they are London Company not registered in China and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They had been joined as defendants as being owners of a piece of land (the subject of the pending action) of which the Shanghai Ice Ca, are tenants, and his Lordship ruled that the court had jurisdiction over them. Leave to appeal against this ruling was now sought.
Mr. G. H. Wright, for appellant said that he was awaiting call instructions, but had to file his motion for leave to appeal within the specified 15 days, the Court having now power to extend the period.
Mr, Reader Harris, for respon: ents, said he had no objection to the matter going to the Privy Council, it being one of special importance, His "Lordship—1 quite agri 'The whole jurisdiction of this court has been challenged on a very important matter, and a large amount. of property not only in Shanghai but in China may be affected, 'The Jurisdiction of this court to' have any control over it at all has been challenged and I think certainly it is a matter which should go to the Privy Council.
Leave to appeal was accordingly granted, appellants to furnish £300 security' and $150 for the cost of preparing the record, The "return day" was adjourned sine die, A Question of Cotton Futures The second motion for leave to appeal was made by Mr. Reader Harris on behalf of Mr. Maurice David, defendant in the action brought by Messrs. A. & B, Rosenfeld for Tis, 21,146 damages arising out of an alleged breach of partner= ship. "His Lordship's " judgment was in favour of plaintiffs for the amount claimed (less a sum due to Mesars. Spunt & Ca, in respect of a special' "arrangement made with them by Mr. Rosenfeld, senior).
Counsel said the appeal was against a portion of the judgement only, that relating to" "Cotton On February 12, or 18, certain contracts for cotton futures were in existence, and these (as stated in his Lordship's judgment) showed some slight loss' at the time of Mr. David's wit from the partnethip. Pi who were left to carry on the business, did. not lose these contracts till a later date And they then showed very eonsiderable loss, Plaintiffs urged that defendant should take his share of these losses, but defendant contend-that the contracts, being an asset should, for the purposes of a. dissolution account, be valued as at the ate of dissolution. "His Lordshi held that under the partnership, d fendant must be held Hable for his share of the later losses, and. this ruling is the subject of the present appeal.
Leave to appeal was granted, appellant being ordered. to. furnish £2300 security and $250 for the cost of the record,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.