/Avnhold Brothers Sued Over New, -York Judgment: Defence of Misrepresentation In H.3I, Supreme Court, on Thurs day, Judge Grain heard arguments in the case of the National Aniline Chemical Ca, Inc., v. Messrs. H- Ey and C. H. Arnhold. The claim set out that plaintiffs previously were plaintiffs in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, in an action against the defendants trading as Arnhold Bros, and as successors to Arnhold, Kate berg & Ca. The New York Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for G.$298,884 and the Judgment was still in force and unsatisfied) The present claim was for Tis: 509,892, being the equivalent of the judgment amount plus me terest ai 6 per cent, per annum-
The plaintiff's were represented by Mr. H. Lipson Ward, instructed by Mr, W. Chalaire and the defendants by Mr. A. C, Holborow. There was no defence and no evidence was given, except proof by Mr. Chalaire of American Court procedure and the fact that interest went with judgments and execution could be levied for its recovery, Beyond this the case became one of legal argument and many authorities were put 'Inv, Holborow said that the judgment was the outcome of " contract: relating to the purchase of the plaintiffs' egg business, the defendants acting as agents for Another" American "company." who Stterwards repudiated ibility, The defendants denied lability and contested the action on that point, Claiming that they were intentionally sled regarding the value of the the allegation moun to ftrerlion of. talao and fraudulent misrepresentation: These facts appeared on the records of the Court in America, but the Judge would not put this evidence to the jury, on the ground that it was excluded by the terms of the Jcontract. An appeal was entered against the judgment and was due for heaving next month: Information from New York was to the effect that there was every reason for confidence that the Judgment would be reversed, It had been suggested that an appear prevented further action on the judgment, but in Eng-Yish law an appeal pending in foreign Court was not in itself defence.
Mr, Holborow declared that there was nothing to support the con~ tention that interest could be claim" ed on a judgment rendered in a for= eign country. In any case, no claim be made to interest unless interest was given in the judgment. Tt was possible there might be a claim for damages, but none had been made, Mr, Ward said he must emphasize that there was no merit in the de+ fence, They now were admitting that there could have been a claim for damages and there would have been no defence at all had the claim included the phrase "and/or dame ages" with reference to interest. If it should be necessary, he would ask permission to amend the claim in that way and he was sure it would be permitted. Further, he pointed out that a Federal Statute said that interest attached to all judgments of Federal Courts and, that being s0, the right to interest must be part of the judgment.
The judge said that were many, authorities to be consulted and therefore he would reserve judg ment.
Mr, Ward said that all the issues in the ease were gone into in the New York Court and answers made on all points: The only matter now. at issue and with which the present action was concerned was the me terest and the execution of the judg ment.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.