Old Board or Bolsheviks: Which axe the True Owners?
The question as to who is legal representative of the Russian Volunteer Fleet was again under consideration at the Mixed Court on Saturday, when proceedings were continued in the action brought against the company by Messrs. Patstone & Patstone, who are making a claim in connexion with the strs. Erivan and Astrakhan.
Mr. L. Hartigan appeared for plaintiffs, Mr. A. Ting represented the old board of directors, and Dr. O. Fischer appeared on behalf of Mr. J. H. Elleder, representative of the Soviet directorate in Moscow.
Mr L. F. Patstone gave evidence, stating that he was the recognized Shanghai agent of the Fleet by virtue of the power of attorney granted to him from, Vladivostok. Witness produced this document, which was dated November 19, 1920. Mr. Patstone went on to say that he resigned in January of this year and sent a telegram announcing his resignation to Mr. Agareff at Peking. The reason for his resignation was that there had been, in his view, a breach of contract in that the Fleet failed to repay' money which he had advanced. He had learned from Peking that Mr. Elleder was appointed to be his successor.
Dr. Fischer submitted that the question to be decided was: who is the defendant in the case? If Mr. Elleder was recognizd as the authorized agent in Shanghai, and therefore the defendant to this suit, the question would simply one of account between Mr. Patstone and himself. On the other hand, if the appointee of the old directorate (Mr. Goddard) was recognized, it must follow that Mr. Patstone had never legally been recognized.
After further argument, the matter was again adjourned.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.