In H, M, Supreme Court, Saturday, Judge Grain gave judgment in the case in which Mr, Kentwell, as liquidator of one of the so-called stock exchanges est ablished a few years ago, was tryed by an elderly Chinese' finanter, Mr, Chow Kwel-ching, the promoter and principal shareholder, for an accounting. His Lordship gave Sudgment for the plaintiff, ordering an accounting and awarding costs fon the higher scale, There followed brief outburst by Mr. Kentwell, which the Judge quickly stopped and then gave the defendant liberty to appeal, which Mr, Kentwell said he would do, The Judgment ments regarding the company. The total amount paid by the plaintiff {for the purpose of these companies amounted to $46,654, and he has been paid back $26,000, The amounts that the defendant has been proved to Ihave received are $5,900 legal fees, $8,877.50 paid to him by the Bixed Court (which appears in Gonzales' bank account as paid to his account jas trustee of the Shanghai Coal Produce Company), Tls. 2,000 paid ito him by one Gonzales (of the Spanish Consulate) called the Offcial Trustee. This sum the defend-
Jant signs for as Counsel for Official Trustee. And a further sum of Tis, 2,500 paid by Gonzales to the defendant as liquidator. The defendant also received Tls. 250 for Following is the full text of the Judgment as rea:
The plaintiff, CHow Kwei-ching, in this case isa Chinese merchant who was interested in the promotion of a Chinese company, under the name of the Shanghai Coal Produce and Stock Exchange Company. The defendant, L, K. Kentwell, is an English Barrister called to the Bar in 1916 and admitted as a legal practitioner in H, B, M, Supreme Court for China in 1918, The company was founded about the middle of the year 1921, and called "The Shanghai Chinese Coal Produce & Stock Exchange Company." The plaintiff in his state ment of claim alleges that he subseribed for 950 shares in this com-
Jdrawing up bye-laws for the com-any, But no copy can be produced Jof these bye-laws; not even the [defendant's draft copy, which one Jassumes must have been filed in the defendant's office.
The amount proved to have been received by the defendant is therefore $14,777.50 and Tis, 4,750, which i is approaching the sum that the plaintiff? himself received out his claim for $46,664, The plainti inow asks for an recount from the defendant of the company or com ies, of the sum obtained from the liquidation of the company or companies and payment to the plaintiff Jof such amount as may be found Jdue to him on the taking of such pany and purchased 8,126 additional shares, Further that he advanced to the company for promotion expenses the sum of $34,000 and paid for legal expenses in connexion with the company the sum of $5,900. These sums it was agreed by the other promoters should be refunded to him out of their subscription moneys paid into various native banks. In 1921, the plaintiff employ. ed the defendant as his lawyer, and through the defendant another company, called "The Chinese Coal Pr duce'& Stock Exchange Company, with capital $125,000 (which never subscribed) was registered at the Spanish Consulate.
In February, 1922, the plaintity, having failed to get his first com: pany registered as a Chinese com-Tony in Poking, consulted the defendant as to how he could get his money back from that company, The plaintiff? alleges that the di fendant advised him that, by geting the second company wound up by the Spanish Consulate, the d fendant could obtain for the plainiff the monies from the first com-
The defendant in his statement of defence denies that he received monies on liquidation, he admits; {that he was appointed by the Spanish [Consulate to receive claims from the creditors of the Coal [Produce Compan; appointed to receive payments. He Jetates that all payments were to be made to one Gonzales, who had been appointed Official "Trustee. That any monies paid to him, the defend-sant, were paid to him'as Counsel for the Trustee and were paid over Gonzales as soon as received. He denies that he paid plaintiff the $26,000. He further denies, para. graph 9 of the Statement of Defence, that he ever received any money of the "Shanghai Chinese Coal Produce & Stock Exchange Company" and says that the plaintiff is not entitled to an account.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.