In an article dated January 19, Mr. Chilikin told how a. shipper, having entrusted merchandise to the Chinese Eastern Railway had been subjected to extensive delays, had been obliged to pay without necessity costs of storage in a refrigerator and to pay a freight higher than he would have had to pay if he had made use of the Japanese railway or the Chinese posts; he added that, the rigorousness of the Customs inspection had been caused by the suspicions which the consignee had awakened in the minds of the Customs officials.
'The comparison established in this article between the tariffs and the GER. and that of the Japanese' railway permits of the inference that) the oather desired to serve the in-forests of the latter, but assistance] such as this even though it be illicit Aes not constitute an offence under: Article 369 of the Chinese Penal Tt has not been established that! the facts reported by Chilikin were) true or untrue or that if they were! false he knew of their falsity. 7 burden of the proof of this falls on the plaints Chilikin in his articles of! January 5, 6, 7 and 19, 1928, had injured by unproved assertions the anal credit of the business of tiff, he would have committed fault reparable by damages, the recovery of which would have; to be sought before a competent tribunal.
For these reasons Mr. Chilikin is! acquitted.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.