Defendants in their testimony alleged that plaintiff had told them when he sold the plant, then known as the American Printing Ca., that he wished to get out of it only what hho had put into it, this sum bei given by him as approximately $10,000. "Plaintiff was taking a clerical post in the American Consular Service and wished to leave shortly for Amos when the transactions were begun.
Defendants claimed that they had taken Mr. Glass's statement as to the value' of the items supplied to} them, they not being expert in vala~ ing printing equipment, and that subsequently they had come to the conclusion that the things were overvalued.
As witnesses for the defence during the morning, Mr. A. J. Richardson, proprietor of the A. J. Richardson, & Ca., auctioneering firm apred and testified regarding the Tinotype machine,—_papereatting machine and other items purchased by plaintiff at an auction held in Chapoo Road on the premises of the Venus Printing Ca, last July. Wang, On-ting, the Chinese clerk whose it was to assist the auctioneer also gave testimony. Two maaterprinters, Mr. C. W. Douglas and Mr. J. L. Cowen also appeared for the defendants and their opinions were Presented to the court relative to the value of printing machinei the evidence Mavromati; a consulting engineer} who stated that the machinery had been over-valued.
Misrepresentation Denied At the commencement of the afternoon session, Birs. Bessie Gleason Bowen, p: of tha Commercial Credit & Information Bureau explained the circumstances leading up to the transaction with Mr. Glass. She reiterated that Mr, Glass had explained that he wished to get out of the plant simply what he had put toto it as he wished to leave for 'Cross examination brought out the fact that Mr. Glass had sold his interest in the plant to' defendants.
Mr, F, A. Bowen, general manager of the defendant firm then took the stand and testified that plaintiff had finished only about 150 pages of the Comacrib Directory, to the value of about $150 from defendant's point told plaintiff in April of this year, when plaintiff had made a trip to Shanghai to collect the note, that there had been misrepresentations on the inventory regarding the value of the mate Plaintiff was thereafter recalled and stated that the prices paid at auction represented only a fraction of what he had afterwards put into tne machinery, to wit, for rebuilding the linotype and perforating machines He denied any misrepresentations and declared that he would still be the loser in the transaction, even after collection of the note for $2,500.
Further evidence was then introduced regenting the price of type [and adjournment was ordered.
After further evidence had been given as to the value of the machinery and type, counsel addressed the Court and reviewed the evidence. His Honour said that he would not deliver judgment until counsel had filed their findings of fact. He intimated, however, that he would find for the plaintiff and was of opinion that no fraud had been committed on the part of the plaintiff, The promissory note, therefore, would have to be honour-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.