Chia-tse, representing the defendants, contended that China never entered into wer with any foreign Power insofar as the recent Shanzhai hostilities were concerned. 'The interpretation of the Clause of the charter party by plaintiffs! counsel was not accurate. Defence conns stated that if the contention plaintiffs were right, then China was already at war' with Japan the charter party was, signed because at thet time Japan ed already had started military operations in Manchuria and had been at war with Gen. Ma Chan-shan who was in command of part of China's national army.
Counsel said he would also refer to Taylor as to the effects of war Which included the break of aiplomatic relations. That was not the case with the recent Shanghai hostilities because. China did not sever her diplomatic velations with Japan and both Dr. Lo, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Dr. Yen, chief Chinese delegate at Geneva, their messages to the League, asserted that China merely adopt: qd) self-defence measures and had ever declared war upon Japan Furthermore, counsel said, Legisletive "Yuan of the National Government never voted for a war jupon Japan and the impeachment against President Wang Ching-wat is alleged failure to refer the armistice agreement to the Legisla~ tive Yuan for approval was later dismissed by "the Government, which showed that China never was at war with Japan insofar as the recent Shanghai hostilities wore Defence counsel further contend-Jed that even if the recent Shanghai hostilities were a war, the chatter arty was inno way embarrassed.
the defendants could "have - used the vessel on the China coast where there was no interference from the Japanese Navy, Even in Shanghai there was no interference wit the free "navigation of Chinese boats. Counsel suggested that" the anghai Chinese Shipowners Ase scivtcn, might" be applied to for information in this regard.
The ease was aljoarned for forther hearing.
The case of Hazara Singh v, Anderson in H.M, Supreme Court on July 18 was ordered by Judge Grant Jones to be struck out as defendant explained that he had paid the money at issue into court, intiff said that he had been paid money in connection swith other claims through the court and that apparently. there had been a mis-
A Russian named M, N. Tretiakof? brought action in HM. Supreme Court on duly 18" against. Mr. H. A. White. Owing to the fact that, plaintiff was not able to explain his claim in English and as he did not provide himself with an interpreter, Judge Grant Jones ordered that he ease should be your, Plaintiff, however, wai that he could sue again bit he would have to bring an interpreter to ¢x-plain his ela Supreme Court morning, before Honour Judge P. Grant Jone A. Reeks, appearing on behalf of Mr. C. J. Merritt, petitioned for a decree' absolute inthe divorce proceedings in. which Mrs. J. A. Merritt had been named defendant, The decree nisi was made by Judge Sir Peter Grain on Decomber 8, 1931, and as there had been ino intervention, said, Mr. Recks, he would apply for a decree absolute. The petition was granted, Ax unemployed, Chinese was sentenced to a year's imprisonment by' the' "Shanghai "Special District Court on July 12 for larceny: by trick. According to" the police, the prisoner recently obtained a snake and. hodigehog" and trained them to fight. He" then brought them to Shanghai and. organised a travelling show. When he was resenting. the show, the prisoner sent. two. companions to. pick. the Pockets of the spectators, many of whom had been victimised late according tothe 7) prisoner. was arrested several days ago. at the ings and Nach ectaen Ronde, but lis, accomplices made good their esca At police station, accused conten tothe crime.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.