In their defence the defendants stated that plaintiff neglected, failed, and refused to carry out and perform all duties and obligations on his part to be performed and carried out in said contract and was negligent, inefficient, untrustworthy, and insubordinate to his superiors, to the damage and injury of defendants.
Tt was further alleged that plaintiff, contrary to written instructions and contrary to his duties and obligations to defendants refused to proceed to New York on the business of defendants and in the performance of his duties and the rendition of his services was discourteous, rude and impolite to the patrons, customers, dealers, and clients. He was also alleged. to have been impolite, overbearing, rude, profane and discourteous to the staff of the export department causing the staff to become utterly demoralized, some of whom resigned and others threatened to resign.
Defendants also alleged that Mr. Hanish made certain, speculative purchases of goat-skins, egg albumen, and other products' and merchandise, to their great injury and damage and that he made and caused to be made false and untrue calculations regarding the purchase and sale of merchandise, and sent and caused to be sent untrue and false telegrams containing false and untrue quotations to the offices of defendant company in America.
It was further stated that, with other persons, he conspired to oust and do away with W. A. B. Nichols as general manager and president of defendant company, and further conspired with others to wreck, destroy, and demolish the business of defendants for his own interests.
Plaintiff was further stated to have on various occasions destroyed valuable records and papers belonging to defendants and that when he left their employ he took away from the offices valuable papers, records and documents known as a file of condition sheets and although requested to do so had refused and failed to return same.
Defendants asked for the _petition to be dismissed and for judgement against plaintiff ordering him to return to defendants the file of condition sheets or in liew thereof judgement for their value.
In his replication, plaintiff denied the allegations set forth in defendant's answer.
Irems iN THE Cua.
Mr. Hanish said that he had been in Shanghai nearly a year. He came to take up the post as assistant general manager "to defendants. Previous to coming to Shanghai he was connected with Fearon, Brown & Ca., of New York, Witness continued his work with the defendants until July, 1920, when he was discharged. So far as he was permitted, he performed all terms of the contract up to the time of his dismissal. He did not know of any reason why he was discharg-
His claim for Tls. 70,000 represented the face value of the contract from the time of his dismissal until its proper termination. At Tls. 1,000 2 month for four years and one month, it amounted to Tls. 49,000: passage money for plaintiff and his family was figured at Ts. 1,500, and the balance was an estimate of 10 per cent. commission to which he was entitled under the contract. Witness was unable to procure a statement of the firm's accounts.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bryan, witness said he was a naturalized American citizen, having taken out his final papers before the war. There were 19 reasons given by de-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.