On Tuesday the morning and afternoon sessions ware occupied by My. Duncan MeNeill in continuing his opening speech for the defendants.
Mr. MeNeill commented upon the fact that the late Mr. King continued to pay off mortgages to defendant's although, as now alleged, there was a large sum of money due to him from the company, and this was some time after the ex-pity of the agreement. It was an absurd situation. One could understand Mr. King borrowing further from defendants as a set off against what was said to be due to him under the agreement, but one could not understand why he should actually have paid money to the company.
Council proceeded to discuss the question as to whether the statute of limitations applied. This being an action for account, the statute required that proceedings should be begun within six years of the cause for action. In this case the cause of action became vested in the late King Chun-kee on June 1905, on which date he became entitled to demand an account of the premium income. Counsel submitted that the statute fully and completely barred the plaintiff, and the mere fact that part of the delay in claiming arose from there being no duly appointed administrator did not prevent the statute from running.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.