The Mixed Court on Wednesday gave its decision in the. case of Sung Ding-faring v. Yuan Jing-tsao, which was an action for the recovery of $4,000 and interest alleged to be a deposit for rent made with defendant's deceased father in February 1913. The claim was based chiefly on a document unsigned, but bearing a chop stated to be the personal chop of defendant's father—in the following terms "T, Yuan Tseng-tsur, hereby acknowledge receipt from Sung Ding-faring of the sum of Dollars Four Thousand ($4,000) in a cash native order "No, 7034 issued by the Dong Mur Bank, og cash deposit for rent for the 3-storied' premises in foreign style known as No. 96 Foocchow Rond leased by Kung Woo-toong. This sum of money shall carry interest according to Banking rate and shall be
fail upon the termination of this repaid together with interest without tenancy.
Lest there is no proof by verbal arrangement, this receipt for deposit for rent is made for future reference.
Dated the 30th day of the 12th moon of Nine Tse Year (February 5, 1913).
chopped—Yuan Tseng-tsur.
Defendant did not deny that hi father received this sum of $4,000 from_ plaintiff, but alleged that it was key money—so not repayable, and that the above mentioned do-cement was a forgery.
After reviewing the facts of the case at Tength, the judgement con-claded: The question is, was the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.