In the'course of @ lengthy argument of the cause for the Banque, Mr. Macleod contended that th promissory note was signed by w of an equitable mortgage or pled hut it was only part of the security iziven by the Chinese and assigned to the Banque. The money was paid: by the Mill into the Mixed Court in discharge of the [forte purpose. OF Fel securities, and there vee no real reason why the Banque. should not have the money. If it was argued that the Banque could not claim on the promissory note because it was not endorsed und because it was not mentioned in the "Memorandum of deposit," the complete answer was that the note was Jonly a part of the security give The intention of the parties ws sd Jan equitable transfer, and the noninclusion of the promissory note in the list of securities was purely air oversight. Counsel strongly em: phasized the justice of his client's claim in equity.
Mr. Holborow arued that the court was bound strictly by the memorandum of deposit, and, as the promissory note was not men-Uoned in this document, the Banque could not now come forward us a creditor. In law, the gen-body of ere ditions were entitled to this sum of money, promissory note or no promissory note. The tiation was expressly confined to and bound by the terms of a written document, viz, the memorandum of transfer, and' nothing was said to the Banque about the premisory: note. It was yoing 9 long way 19 suggest the invariable practice of banks was to make a loan only on some security which the borrower got from Chinese. The fact ws banks did not know whether Chinese credit was ood, or care whether they got security from Chinese not. Unfortunately, the Banque [Indo Chine overlooked Mr, Dent's ancial position. Counsel argued, in effect, that that this case involved really two loan transactions; one, fbotween Hix. Dent and the Mayor Mill, und the other between Mr Dent and the Banque.
The hearing was adjourned until next morning.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.