I feel compelled to say that-I am somewhat amazed that a claisn based on the evidence which has been placed before me should have been instituted in this Court. The only excuse for it is that Tam Wa did from time to time take upon himself duties and obligations that he was not called upon to take. He says he wanted to help the widow and doubtless he wanted to retain some security for his Tls. 2,000 joan to Chun Kam.
The syndicate it is admitted fell into financial straits' and could not pay off the mortgages when they became due. The result was that Tam Wa on October 5. 1011, had to pay off -the mortgage to the Kiangsi Mission of Tls. 7,500 and interest, taxes and legal expenses; he then on November 2, 1911, mortgaged it to Kranz for Ts. 13,000 tw cover the expenses he had been put to since 1908 concerning the land: in April, 1920 he had to pay the Public Custodian Tls. 13,612. /2 and the only way he has been able to cover his payment since, is by obtaining a loan of Tls. 10,000 front the Shanghai Commercial & Sav-inga Bank by depositing the title deeds with that bank who retain them until he repays the loan.
I am of opinion that the plaintiff has no claim whatsoever. against the defendant. Tam Wa. It appears that if she hes a right of action against anyone it must against the syndicate, but although in her statement of claim she pleads that she has acquired the interest of Oong and Anyang the evidence before me is that Churn has acquired the 17 shares of the 21 and that the plaintiff hag only a claim to four shares.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.