The question of jurisdiction was then proceeded with. Mr. Yang! first enumerated his. reasons which were in the nature of a demurrer: to the jurisdiction of the Court. Under Art, 14 and 15 of the law] of criminal procedure, he said, the jurisdiction of the Court was confined to defendants' residence. The Shanghai District Court hed jurisdiction in this case. Could a mixed ease be brought to the attention of this (the Provisional) - Court when defendants resided outside the Settlement? Did the treaties be-
Chinese ment could be brought to. the Provisional Court?) If a Chinese! who resided outside the Settlement could be sued in this Court, then' this Court had jurisdiction over any Chinese anywhere in China. There] was no treaty between China and Sweden by which a Chinese could) be brought before the Provisional Court. Experience showed that, in cases where a foreigner sued a man in the District Court and a Consul! with extraterritorial "rights _asked for leave to send' an official to watch the ease, such requests always had been refused. In feal estate transactions, a man must be sued before the Court of a forum, ies where the land was, and the land in dispute was outside the Settlement. A Swedish subject could not own property in the interior,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.