A decision and judgment was: given in the U. S. Court for China on July 6 by Judge Milton D. Purdy, in the case, Siemssen & Ca., and Peters & Ca. v. Lam Glines Ca, Me, following the intro duction of a claim by Mr. Tei Chen. tang, a Chinese resident of Tientsin,' who petitioned for the dissolving of an attachment previously given by the Court for the plaintiffs, Mr. Tsi, through his counsel, Mr.
8. Franklin, held that he had a Prior claim to the attached property. and following evidence in the case his Honour ordered that the order of attachment should be dissolved and the attached property returned forthwith. The property included, among other items, eight miles of railroad and two locomo-
Petitioner claimed that on April 14, 1927 the had executed a chattel mortgage whereby he lent Lam Glines & Ca. $50,000. In September, 1927, following failure by defendant to make certain payments, Mr. Tsi took possession of certain property. Petitioner claimed that on March 31, 1928, there was owing to him by defendant the sum of $57,252.31 Tientsin currency.
In giving the order for dissolving the attachment for plaintiffs, Judge Purdy ruled that a stay of 10 days should be entered from the time of notice, so that an appeal might be perfected by the plaintiffs if so advised.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.