There were. unexpected devolopments at the U, 8, Court on Tuesday in the Tls. 1,200 damages suit brought by Li "Chok-siang against A. 8. Allan and L. W. Hartigai "Hartigan is "at. present Manila, but Mr, Allan asked for a separate trial inasmuch serted that he was not, been associated with Mr. Hartigan as a partner and that action in this. case could not properly be brought against him, 'The point at issue in yesterday's hearing, therefore, was lether Mr. Allan could be' considered the law partner of Me. Hartigan, In opening the ease for the plain Me, SH. Lewis stated that while he realized that from a moral point of view Mr. Allan might be held responsible from a strictly legal point of view. He then proceeded to outline the case, saying that his clint had been brought into touch with the firm of Allan & Hartigan in the matter of renewing a lease for property on Broadway, all doatings being: had with the firm of that name and receipts for fees being given in that name. Plaintiff had paid two retainers and one-half the contingent feo of Tls. 2,400, although the latter was dependent upon the louse of the Premises being secured through the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.