Ten Years for Chinese Who Shot at Russian Police Constable Several eases were heard at the!
Mixed Court on Tuesday in which Chirese were charged with possession of arms and ammunition, highjway robberies, armed robberies and attempted murder.
Five men were charged with being members of a gang of armed rob: berg, deemed to be a menace to the peace and good order of the International Settlement. They were! arrested with a pistol, two revolvers quantity of ammunition in their possession. Five charges were Decision on a Motion in Suit Brought Against Chinese Telegraphs 1 An interesting decision was given en Thursday by the Mixed Court in the ease in which the Behn, Meyer Ca, sued the Chinese Government Telegraph Material Supply Department of the Ministry of Communica thong and Loh Shang-kung and Sung Wen-hsien, to recover £563, 78. 2d. and Tis, 176.25 for goods sold and petition, the plaintiffs stated that on February 11, 1926, the defendants gave the plaintiffs four checks amounting to £437. 4s. '5d. and Tls. 152.94, payable. on. February 15, but that on presentation, they were dishonoured. Dr, Mei represented the plaintiffs and Mr. Sidney A. Moss acted ay counsel for defendants, In answer to the petition, Mr. Moss filed a motion, stating that the first defendant was a department of the Government of the Republic of Chinas consequently, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Mixed Court and, therefore, not a proper party defendant in any action me stituted in that Court. The motion further alleged that no cause of 'a vas shown in the pet Wen-hsien for the reason that they were, employees of the Republic of China, and were acting ay sue and not in any individual capacity during time mentioned in the blaine tift's petition 'The matter was argued at seme Jength and eventually the counsel was ordered to file briefs, In the course of his brief, Mr, Moss argued that the Mixed Court was not, and never had been, a properly' constituted Chinese covet. Te was a sues for the and eviminal law to Chinese residents of the International Settlement. Its statute is clearly defined Regulations of 1869, and the vane those Regulations and Amendments was the Court given the right to assume jurisdiction over the pro= perty of the Chinese Government, The question, Mr. Moss went on to say, was nota new one, for ax Into as April 23, 1924, it wag decided by the Court in the case Fowles v. the Shanghai-Nankinge Railway, that the Railway, being a branch of the Ministry of Come munications of the Republic of China, was not subject to suit in the Mixed Court. A month later in the same year, in the case of Jovina the Chinese Post Office, the Ceuct refused to take jurisdiction ay the defendant was not under the arisdice tion of Court. There were cone sequently two branches of the Minis. try of Communications being sned in the Court and, in each case, the Court had held' that it had no diction, Counsel argued that Court, having held" it no jurisdiction over two branch the department, could not assur Juriediction ever a third, and for that reason, he asked that the casa be chemissed, The Decision Yesterday morning, Mr. By: Dutch Assessor, and gave their decision in 3 stated that the plainti through thei Consular repr tives, approach the ment, as represented in Shanghai by the Commissioner for Foreign Affaire, in order to settle this matter out' of Court beters fon the question of jur rendered. The care Fine dies
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.