In'the case of Wu Yung-oung r. Benrertz (1906) 79."North-China Herald" p77, it was definitely decided by the Judge of this Court (Sir Havilland de Sausmarez) that although a counter-claim could not be pleaded, a set-off could be pleaded, and in his judgment he said, that to establish a set-off it must be shown that it arose out of the same transaction as the elgin and roth must be for 4 of the Court trying each ease." the case Hsing Chang v. Foucard (1921) 138 "North-China Herald" 763 the learned Judge (Sir Skinner, Turner) appears to doubt that there is any distinction between "set-off" and "counter-claim" as he says "it has been decided in this Court that set-off is not included in the word cross-action' of counter-claim.' Iam not sure that that is right," and referring to the judg. ment in Imperial Japanese Govern ment v, P. & 0. Company 1895)
R. app, eases 814 he says "It! is true the judgment of their Lordships does not refer set-off.' But on careful reading of that judgment came to the conclusion that distinction can be drawn betwee the two. In that ease the whole argument and ledgment were on the question of an admitted "counter-claim."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.