Revenue Office, stated that when on May 17 an effort was made to collect the rate from accused, he refused to pay, saying that the amount was incorrect. Woo. produced a receipt for $89 rent, where-
foo, in reply to the Judge, saic should pay $187.60 he had a shop at 25/6 Shanse Road.
"The landlord was the United Insurance Ca. He rented the shop of the Cantonese was Wong, and he kept a sundry goods store. He did not know where Wong" now The rent had been collected Uhree times since March. Accused had not now got the receipts. He next said that the rent had not been collected. Since he had occupied the premises he had paid the Fent once, in April, When the rent was paid' he forgot to enter it in the account book; he left that to After he had paid one
ownership of the property ent, he, found that the changed. He produced a rent re ceipt to the tax collector when he called on May 17. It was his wife's mistake: she produced the wrong receipt.
Kwel-liang, rent collector to the Ching Yuin Ca., said accused' shop was the property of his company. Accused rented it from January 1. The Ching Yuin Ca., bought the property from Mess 'Sassoon in January, 1932. Previously witness collected the rent from a tonese. In February, the premises having changed hands, "he collected the rent' from accused. Witness collected the rent in March, April and May: He cold not re~ of me ber who paid him in cash. He had never increased the rent; had always collected $137.50.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.