v, The Shanghai Electric Asbestos Ca., Ld.
In this case the plaintiffs brought a claim for £171 198. 9d., being the balance of price for goods sold and delivered as per account rendered in March 1911.
Mr. A. 8. Wilson appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. H. P. Wilkinson defended.
Mr. Wilson informed his Lordship that he received instructions ty issue the writ by telegraph and he was not, as yet, acquainted with the merits of the case. The claim was for the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered and, as far as the claim went, that was sufficient. He would, therefore, ask that the defendants be ordered to file a statement of their defence.
Mr. Wilkinson said that before they came to the question of filing a defence he would like to tell his Lordship how the claim stood. It had already formed the subject of writs and proceedings at home in the High Court, which were dismissed. It was dismissed without going into the merits of the case, because the plaintiffs were suing the firm at home. In the course the correspondence it appeared that the defendants did not deny that they owed the plaintiffs something. The point was, hower that they had a counterclaim against the plaintiffs. They thought that about £07 7. 2d. was due to the plaintiffs. That was offered to them and the next they heard of it was the issue of the out here. The plaintiffs quite admitted that they owed something, but they would not arrive at the amount if they were sued in two hemispheres for the £171 198. '9d. Counsel read the correspondence, which showed that leave to issue a fresh writ had been obtained at home so that possibly there was still a writ in existence in England. He suggested that there should be an adjournment to enable the plaintiffs' solicitor to communicate with home and to hear further as to the dismissal of the second writ, The case was adjourned until May 2.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.