Rival Book Shops: A "Breeze' a Hongkong Court Summonses for infringement of. copyrights were brought by Messrs. Kelly & Walsh against' Messrs. Brewer & Company and the Chinese Commercial Press before Mr. R. E. Lindsell, at the Central Magistracy in Hongkong on August 27.
Mr. J. A. G. Leask prosecuted, whilst Mr. N. T. Brewer appeared for Messrs. Brewer and Company.
Mr. Brewer said he protested inst the ease being brought within the jurisdiction of the Court, jon the ground that the summons was bad, because it was directed against Brower and Company. Tt accused Brewer and Company of knowingly selling books, and, Brewer und Company being a' non-existent personage, could not do anything knowingly. A summons, to be effec-must be cither against the manager of partner.
Mr. Leask.—In that case I shalt ask your Worship to amend the' summons to one against D. Pasco, trading as Brewer and Company.
Mr. "Brewer:—If your Worship grants this amendment, T shall ask} for a remand of-the ease, as I know nothing about His Worship: this character, defendant can be represented cither by counsel or} solicitor.
Air. Brewor:—I am appearing in personal character, and I appeal Jon the grund that the summons has never been served.
Mr. Leask:—I am sorry to trouble your Worship so much, but I'shall now ask your Worship to amend the summons again to-one against N. I. Brewer and D. Pasco.
Mr. Brewer:—I am not accused lof knowingly selling books, as it is fairly common knowledge that I don't sell books, knowingly or unknowingly.
Mr. Leask:—My trouble is that I don't know who represents Brewer and Company.
His Worship:—I don't think it can do any harm to name N, 1. Brewer in the summons.
Mr. Brewer:—It can do considerable harm, your Worship. It is gross travesty. of the criminal procedure of the Colony. This summons is an act of malice on the part of Messrs, Kelly and Walsh. It is simply a case of a rival firm trying to throw us gut.
Mr. Leask:-—I " must protest Jagainst that, your Worship.
is Worship:—I adjourn the summons until this day week, the /ard, September at 10 am, to fix a date for the hearing.
Mr. Brewer again raised the point of wrong service. Brewer and Company, he said did not exist as a party that could be summoned, The firm might be sued, but it could not be party to a criminal charge fund it was a quasi-criminal charge
them. that "had been brought against His Worship said the summons would be served on the Manager of the firm, He would put it simply this way: "The Manager, Messrs, Brewer and Company." This would mmiect the euse, The summons against the Commercial Press was similar ud-journed,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.