In their answer defendants deny that the title to the assets of the C. 0. C, is vested with the liquid: tors or receivers and further denial is made that plaintiffs have been duly appointed liquidators or reccivers in accordance with the law by the Provisional Court. Moreover, denial is made that the shares in question were converted to the use' of defendants as stated in the petition, In_ presenting plaintiffs' case, Mr. Schuhl stated that the action hinged upon clearing up the following questions: (1) Was the C. 0. an. unrecognized company at all times prior to this action? (2) Had tiffs been duly appointed as liquidators of the C. 0. C.? (3) Did the defendants convert to their own: use 358° shares of the Realty Syndicate in or subsequent to January, 19277
Mr. Schuhl pointed out further that the directors of the C. were directors of the Realty' Syndicate, and money judgment was asked against the Realty Syndicate and individual directors.
First witness for plaintiffs was then called, Mr. T. J. Beck, 9 British subject, who for the past
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.