It is most distressing and rejgrettable that a man who has been called to the English Bar for about 10 years and has practised as an admitted legal practitioner before this Court for about the same time, should have lent himself to obtain:
1g @ false and fraudulent registra-
side issue, but it is part, of lon. This registration is only 8 the history in' the ease and also, concerns a legal practitioner in my Court, I felt bound not to pass it without some comment.
The next event was the liquidation of the company registered in the Spanish Consulate, which resulted in the liquidation of both companies. The plaintiff states that the defendant told him he was going to liquidate the company. Plaintiff asked which company he was going to liquidate, as the first company was a Chinese company and. would have to be liquidated the Mixed Court and the Spanish company had done no business and could not wound up. But the defendant said that he was going to liquidate the money from the first company to the second company; that he was engaged by the Spanish Consul to be Tiquidator; ang that it was the only means by which the plaintiff could get his money back. The plaintitt states that he objected at first but finally agreed, as the defendant was legal adviser and he had paid him fees to look after his affairs ang his interests. The Spanish law! regarding the liquidation of companies is set Sut in the "Spanish Code of Commerce" anq is definitely "applied extraterritorially to China." The defendant, as a member of the English Bar and a trained lawyer, would be compelled by his duty towards his client to ascertain the details of such law before undertaking duties as liquidator of the plaintiffs company. He had also registered three other companies at the Spanish Consulate in November, 1921. Moreover, it was easy to as is most con~ few articles in 20 days an inventory of assets, with Dalance sheet of the accounts, and to Jeommunicate to the shareholders! every month the status of the Viguidation. Article 231 states that the liquidator is responsible to the JArticle 233 states that any shareholder has a right of action before competent judge or Court.
An Incredible Action The defendant states in a letter to Mr. Covey, dated November 13, 1924, "Mr. Chow never gave m instructions to wind up any com-I received my instructions From the Spani-h Consulate." The defendant states ne received instructions to wind gp from the Spanish Consulate, but en produce no evid-fence of such instructions. It. incredible that a trained lawyer would begin to wind up a company without some document of authority
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.