In the United States Court for China on Friday of last. Week Judge M. D. Purdy dis-id' the action brought by. E. Carroll against the China Finance Corporation, in which plaintiff claimed damages amounting to Tis. }20,864, as a result of defendant's jsclzure of a motor ear, which he was purchasing on the instalment plan. Plaintiff claimed damages for Tis, 20,000 and incidentals such as lear hire, ete., which he had incurred, Mr, 8. A. Moss, with whom was a jaocinted Mr. R,'F, C, Mester, repre. sented plaintiff, while Mr, [Schuhl noted for defendant, Mr. C, E. Sparke gave evidence regarding a duplicate insurance policy taken out in July by plaintiff, Jwhich was antedated February rebuttal plainti® said that thorized the purchase of and paid for the insurance policy to Mr. P. O'Driscoll, who acted as a broker for insurance, Several days later Mr. O'Driscoll told him that the Policy would be sent him. Some time later plainti? again questioned Mr, O'Driscoll, who confessed that hho had spent the money and he in July then paid him for a second policy, which was mis laid, and he goto duplicate from the Excess In-suraness Ca, Mr, Schubl:—I suggest that after seized the ear, that you thought that it would be'a good ti the policy?—You suggest 1 will say that T cannot thi such a deal could be put over, In argument, Mr, Moss submitted that plaintiff never received notice that insurance was due. He complied with Messrs, Schuhl & Schoen-fold's letter and sent an overdue payment. If he had been notified }of another amount due why would not have sent this as well, counsel contended, Mr. Schubt contended that Mr.
'Carroll still had the original policy, dated July 14. In some manner, unknown to Mr, Sparke, someone the office had sent' out the plicate. About the bill for ear hire, counsel would say, that plaintiff had produced no receipts Jat all. No proof of damage was offered, counsel contended.
Mr, Schuhl was willing to cite an jeuthority from every state in the Union and from the District of, Columbia, whereby a similar company to defendants had a right to jscize n car if payments were not made. In this instance payments were not made as per contract, and "we had a perfect right to lear," Mr, Schuh concluded. to accused and through an inter-prefer enutioned him. Accused made no reply.
Tu demanding the case until November 23, Mr. Morris told accused that Re was charged with a most serious crime and advised hi to engage counsel to defend him. Accused will romain in Amoy Road until thie time for trial,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.