Two Succeseful Claims: Counsel's Comment on Rascally Sikhs The Sikh money lending business in Shanghai was once again under discussion at Supreme Court last Friday, when Nan Singh sued V. M. Britto for $67.50 money lent on a promissory note. The case was heard by his Honour Judge Grain.
Mr. P. W. Goldring appeared for defendant.
Plaintiff produced a promissory note dated July, 1920, and swore that he paid the money out in notes to defendant. It was an original transaction.
Defendant's story was that he arranged a loan of $50, on behalf of a lady, receiving the money from a Sikh named Bagat Singh, now deceased. He received no money from the present plaintiff, whose note now produced was a renewal of the old promissory note. Interest was charged at the rate of 7 per cent. per month, and $70 had been repaid.
His Lordship:—Why did you not get back the promissory note? Defendant:—Plaintiff would not give it to me.
da Souza gave evidence that he also arranged a loan of $100 with Bagat Singh on behalf of the same lady, and that interest amounting to, $10.50 per month was paid, on the two loans.
His Lordship:—Have you the receipts?
Witness—They never give receipts for interest. They don't bother you if the interest is paid.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.