Mr. Moss questioned _whether witness had any knowledge of the present whereabouts of Mr. Tessier, alleged to have had the confidence of Yang Sen in the matter of ascertaining sources for purchasing seen him on August 7 or believing that he had gone Szechuan before August 10, Purther cross-examination.evine the evidence that Mr. Tuan's duties in the transaction were primarily to pay out the money required for the purchases. Witness and Mr. Tuan consulted together: however. They had first been told that the cargo of ammunition was in the International Settlement and they had believed that they were getting German ammunition. In reply to question as to whether or not witness had seen anyone " also in Shanghai about buying ammunition, witness said no. He had never signed any other contract in Shanghai. Most emphatically he had no° signed any contract for bullet} proof vests he said in answer to question by the counsel for the defence. Following this, witness was shown a contract upon which his name appeared, alleged to be his signature, Witness denied that is was his signature and was! called upon by counsel to sign his name on various parts of a sheet of paper before. the court, these signatures being entered as an exhibit for the defence, Questioned as to whether he had objected to two contracts being given to "Mr. Thompson (as Mr. Widler is called throughout the trial) and to Mr, Crawley, respectively, and only one to himself, ro copy having been given to Mr. Tuan, witness said he had not objected. Mr. Mose:—Why wasn't Mr. Tuan present when the old contract" was torn up to make a new one? In reply to this witness said that Mr. Tuan had promised to come on the day in question but that he had been too busy. Additional quizzing brought out the fact that Mr. Tuan had been "getting married."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.