In August, 1925, Mr. Davey mentioned to Mr. Wallis certain sum: Jot money owed to the "Shanghai Mercury" by Garner, Quelch & Ca., Ld., and Mr. Wallis agreed to collect sum. He saw Mr. Quelch, the [governing partner, and this gentleman was quite willing to settle the account. He pointed out to Mr. Wallis, however, that there was a of $103 owing to. Garner, editor of the "Shanghai Mercury."
That being the case, the was }willing to pay his account to the "Mercury," less this sum of $1 {for which he would give Mr, Wall separate receipt, crediting it to /Haynes's account. This course was followed, and Mr. Davey subsequent lly agreed to it, though at a later Jdate there was some litigation between the "Mercury" and Mr, [Haynes as to what the latter's exact [position was with the paper. Later, fwhon the accounts between Mr.
[Wallis and the "Mercury" were made up, Mr. Wallis was credited [with his commission in respect [this account, in September, 1925, and Mr. Wallis remained in the employ of the paper up till July, 1926, during the whole of which time this acount was never again mentioned.
When Mr. Wallis did leave the paper, he considered that there were! [two sums of money owing to him the "Mercury," one for $208.15. Jand another for $278.30. As he was junable to collect these amounts he! sought legal advice from Mr. P, W.. Goldring, and the latter wrote in hi behalf to the "Shanghai Mercury. life received a reply from Mr, Davey lat great length, in which Mr. Davey accused Mr. Wallis dt acting in collusion with Mr, Haynes to. the Jdctriment of the paper, and alleged that Mr. Wallis had: failed to adhere to the terms of his contract, Hnagmneh ce he, was soleting, advertising
drag," the "Eastern Truth," both of Spectato for "that seurriloo which were concerns run by Mr. Haynes, That being 90, he failed to see that he was liable to pay Mr. Wallis his commission, The Action of the "Mercury"
Mr. Wing at this stage pointed lout to the jury that here they had man making a certain claim. The!"Mereury" disputed that claim, and were, therefore, quite entitled to put] Horward their grounds of defence in lan ordinary way. Instead, however, they took a course of action which formed the basis of the case they were hearing to-day. Mr. Walls, Inearly li the time he was in [Shanghai, had been in the employ] jot the "Shanghai Mercury," and [when he loft them he went about the town in a perfectly rational [way. In other words, there was no reason for anybody to suppose that it was his intention to leave the Port. Nevertheless, on September 25, Saturday, the "Mercury" a obtained a warrant for his are: Jon a charge of embezzling the sum fof $108, that being the sum con-Jeeed in' the "Garner, Quelch account. Mr. Wing put it to the [jury that the fact of the warrant} being applied for on a Saturday was strong evidence of the malice which the plaintiff "alleged. {fendants were perfectly well aware that by issuing a warrant at that time they would derive the peculiar! satisfaction which people of their mentality did derive from placing the object. of their dislike under arrest and in gaol until the Monday {the earliest time on which the case could be heard. One would hav thought that it was quite patent that Mr, Wallis never did have thi '$108, because the whole idea of the transaction was that Garner, Quelch should not pay cash, but' should leredit the amount to Mfr. Haynes's
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.