Suit was originally brought in the old Mixed Court by Mr. Master for the owner of ear 3082, November 5 of last year, but the ease did not come up until' February 18 and iwas then carried over to May 12, the date on which judgment was given. After reviewing the matter of the collision the Judge, Mk. Wu Ching-hsiung announced that the points that had to be settled in his mind were whether the defendant had taken due care in the selection Jand supervision of his chauffeur, and whether the collision was due to the lchauffeur's neglect. The burden of proof, said he, was upon the defen= Jdant in the first instance and, in the second, upon the plaintiff, He went Jon tosay that the defendant had Jcomplied with Municipal regulations by employing a chauffeur with a proper license and had employed the man for three years, during which time no charge had' been brought Jagainst_ him for breach of trafic regulations. Judge Wu then remark-Jed that although condition No, 7 jin the Council's license regulations held the car owner responsible for all accidents and claims for dam= repeated demands for payment had been made in letters reminded coun-tel of the old parliamentary saying} "SE T tell you a thing three times it a 0." There seemed to have been a misunderstanding between Edward Evans costs in an action agains: John arson. Inv. J. J. Evans esta'lisnthe sale te the defendant of a for which they sent to the Continent. Defendant admitted that counsel as to what actually the|t me compradore signed for it Lut he position was.
Mere silence was not|had forgotten thut he had placed evidence of an implied contract. the order and bought another copy. "Mr, Lloyd has never admitted legal liability and we do not admit now" continued counsel. It was
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.