{t is worth noting that no argiment has been presented to me nor (as far as I know) to the Provincial Court at Tientsin by the plaintiffs on the action pending in the United States Court against the present plaintiffs, though it is certain that they must know that these steps have been taken in this Court. The question of law that appears to me to be involved is whether those plaintiffs are entitled to stay all proceedings on that deposit receipt merely because they have a claim for damages against the present plaintiffs which exceeds in amount the money held by the trustees. That question IT cannot answer, inasmuch as Tam not aware of the grounds on which such an_ order could be obtained in the United States Court, which alone has jurisdiction to deforming it and which can be asked to determine it in proceedings against the other trustees who are subject to its jurisdiction. It seems to me that the present defendants are bound to carry out the terms of the agreement of February 1922, independently of the action for damages now pending, as soon as the proceedings for forfeiture have been abandoned or settled favour of the former registered owner of the ship. I can see no answer in law to the demand of the present plaintiffs -once that matter has been so settled.
The Provincial Court must now proceed to deal with this matter on those lines, and defendants must pay the costs occasioned by this special case.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.