The hearing was resumed of the plaintiff's claim for $20 wages said tw be due for the month of April.
Plaintiff eaid he was dismissed on April 30 by Mr. David. Two of them went to Mr. David and he selected witness as his watchman.
Defendant said he gave plaintiff a watch to give to another watchman and told him he was not to spoil it or break it. On April 29) he came to witness and said somebody had stolen the watch, and witness was surprised to hear this, that instead of catching a thief he had allowed himself to be robbed. The Captain-Superintendent of Police told him not to pay the watchman until the watch was returned, The watch was worth 840.
Plaintiff, recalled, sai the other Indian watchman must have stolen the watch.
His Lordehip ordered defendant toipay the money claimed into Court. It would remain there ten days and within that time defendant could prosecute plaintiff if he liked for the theft of the watch. If not, the money was to be paid to the plaintiff. He would not get it if convicted upon proceedings being taken again, him in the polies Court.
Shanghai, June 99.
Before F. 8. A, Bournz, Esq., c.m.G,, Assistant Judge.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.