Sir Henry Gollan's judgment follows:—
'This is an appeal against a deci-son of Si Peter Grain in which he Frvour of the' respondent." The ive judgment, with costs,
claim was for Hankow Tls. 4,006, 16, the properly assessed _amout due under a policy of fire insurance ated March, 6, 1927) in respect of a fire which practically destroyed the. insured premises on June 1027; and there is nu dispute, tween the parties as to the validity fof the policy, the occurrence and results of the fire, and the figure and Currency at of in which the loss fulford by the Plaintitt! wore 'The main dispute between the wrlies arises on the question fo the cvireney in which toc omoubt so foun to be due to the plaintiff fg to be paid; and this differores arise: Keeause, though in tne poley: find according' to the awanl of the fusercor, the amount pasab'e is 1 expressed in Hankow els there in fact no such coin in actual use as a Hankow tel which is merely a unit of account, In practices commercial firms and banks keep their accounts in tae, though for the purposes of makings local pay-monts it is usual to keep a dollar faceount with banks as well, and a result if payment ju cash under 'a Contract expressed in terms of Hankow tacts is to be made, Hankow taels have to be turned into dollars at the market rate of exchange which, in normal times, is published daily.
Nationalist Government in Power Subsequently to March 8, 1927, the date of the policy question in this case, the Government then functioning Hankow was, according to the ease for the defendants, replaced by the Nationalist Government of China (hereinafter referred to as the Nationalist Government) and on Apirl 18, 1027, Mr. 'T. Y. Soon purported, as Minister of Finance under that Government, to issue certain regulations dealing, armongs: other things, with the rate of exchange between Hankow taels and dollars. This rate was fixed at Tls. 11 to $100.
The Plaintify, ina letter date 1 Apiil 17, 1928, written by his solicitors, in answer to a letter date March 26, 1998, from the defendants" solicitors, admitted that on Ap 18, 1927, the reulations above yaentioned were made by the Nationalis: Government, but denied that on that date or on the date of the fire or upon any material dates referred ty the defence the Nationalist Government was de facto in control The plaintiff gave evidence and stated that he left Hankow in April, 192 and that at that time th Nationalist Government was control (Judge's notes p. 4): and. that on his return to Hankow la July, 1927, this Government them, also, in control. (Judge's notes pp. 2 and 4).
He stated furth: that he refused to accept a cheque for Tls, 4,006.16 on a Chinese bask shown '0 hi by a Mr. Chu, the compradore of the defendants, on the ground that under the regulations of April, 1927, he would only have received payment in the notes of the three banks mentioned in the Regulatio and that these were only worth 20 per cent. of their face ne. (Judge's notes p. 2).
The Plainti@t also admitted that if the policy had heer by a Chinese firm he would have had to accept payment in depreciated notes that Chinese made payments to the Government in these depres ed atest and that some Chinese were actually executed because the hes of the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.