This was an action on a jadgement for Tis, 2,370 obtained in the Consalar Court some years ago.
Mr. GF. Curtis appeared for jintiff and Mr. S. Fessenden and Mr. oR. Holeomb for the defeadante.
is Honour intimated to the witesses in attendance that they need not remain, there being certain legal points to be argued before the case would be reached for trial.
Mr. Fessenden said defendants bad filed @ demurrer on the ground that t! amended bill did not set forth the cause of which an Equity Court shoald take cognisance, because the plaintiff had haw. Tt appeared to bim that the jadge-Lain, complete and adequate remedy at
ment in the old Consulsr Court had become a jadgement of that Court, aod the proper coure of procedure would really be some procedure to revive that vent, recovered in 1902. effort bad been made to enforce the judgement, bat there wax a hazy statement that a demand had been made. bier hed not asked for a decree wat any property, but simply for Georee fore specie som of mote; Counsel submitted that that would no more relief than he already bad io his jadgement. If the decree were sustained, plaintiff would still be where he was nom. and his only relief would be to bring an action in law upon this decree in equity. It appeared to be an attempt to persuade the Court to take equity jariediction of an sction which plaintiff himself mast and °#s¢. did in the first instance regarded action at law. Mr. Andrews had basines in Shanghai for some years and was at present in Japan.
Mr. Cartis dealt with the rales of practice in equity cases, and alter-wards observed that the case before the Court was saturated with fraud.
Fessendes—I object to Mr. he case in saturated with fraud. He is not alleging fraud. The only fraud he alleges in that bill la that the original case in the U. 8. Consular, Court was based on fraud. To
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.