There was an echo of the Leicester case (which recently occupied the attention of the British Court) at the Mixed Court on Monday when Dr. F. T. Kiang sued the Far Eastern Steamship Ca., and Hsia Kian-chang for the recovery of monies duc him. The defendant jin leder, of the Rus-mo: it.
Fleet, stated that this request had been made by the Customs officials who found that the present anchorage of the vessels limbeded the work of the Customs Department. Counsel for the applicants pointed out that the anchor of the Astrakhan was dragging and that the vessels were not in a safe position. The vessels, if mov-led, ald still remain under the jurisdiction of the Court.
The two vessels, it will be. remembered, were placed under the jurisdiction of the Court several Idays ago when members of the terew, who alleged that they had {not been paid their wages for many months, made an application to \the Court to be allowed to sue in \forma paupers. The Court gave {no decision then on the application but ordered the detention of the vessels.
Incidental to the application made on behalf of the two vessels was a claim by Messrs, Pat-stone é& Patstone Ld. et al., through their attorney, Mr. L, Hartigan, for the recovery of $40,000 due to them from the steamships Astrakhan and Erivan. Plaintiffs, im this case, allege that the money is due to them for cash paid to the terews of the two vessels, for supplies furnished, for medical attendance, legal services, ete. company, of which Mr. Leicester Was at one time the reputed agent, occupied premises owned by complainant and was given permission to pull down " wall in the premises conditional upon paying the landlord's compensation, equivalent to Tls.-T60. The tenants had abandoned the premises for about {two months, leaving four months During the hearing it was stated. (that there had been a dispute for several months as to the ownership of the vessels, the dispute arising primarily from the political conditions of Russia and Siberia.
Opportunity was taken on Tuesday by Mr. Goddard, representing the Merkuloff Government of Vladivostok, to intervene on behalf of self as a peaceable man?—I do.
Mr, Rodger—Have you had trouble with Mr. Carl Crow? Mr. Seddon protested that this question was not relevant.
Counsel for defendant went on to say that Mr. Davey was known to very excitable. Counsel contended that defendant had every right to visit the offices about the accounts mentioned, and that the affair had been as much the fault of the complainant as of the defendant, rent unpaid and the sum of Tls. 420 was now due on this account.
Defendants had left on the pre-{mises furniture and fixtures valued at about 298 on which the landlord's lien is maintained. Plaintstf asked for an order giving him Possession of the premises, furniture and fixtures contained therein and also for judgement for $400, the approximate difference between the Tls. 570 due and the $398 value of defendants furniture, ete.
Judgement was given as asked. ihis clients. Mr. Goddard maintained that his clients alone had: the right to move the vessels as they were the owners.
Mr. Hartigan, appearing for Messrs. Patstone & Patstone objected to the intervention, contending that if the application was granted it would interfere with and delay the prompt settlement of the claim of his clients. His clients were not interested in the ownership of the vessels as they had a maritime lien on them for the funds and materials supplied. His clients' claim was
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.