The first witness called by Dr. Mei at yesterday's session, was Mr, B, Fong Lam, president of the defendant company, since its tablishment in Shanghai in 1920. He testified to non-delivery of the 305 cases of lamps called for under: the terms of the alleged contract, dated December, 1925, and said Uhat the two contracts had not been returned. Questioned by Dr, Mei ax to whether he had ever made a demand on the plaintiff for their return, witness anid no, not until after, September, 1928," Cross-examination of witness by his counsel, Mr. Rodger, brought out the point that between December 31, 1925, and September 11, 1926, no' demand for cargo had been made by. the plaintiff under the terms of the. alleged contract, Further evidence brought out was. that witness's firm had been: in lence with and had cabled in Germany regarding the amps, and that a profit] of Tis, 7,000 would have resulted for defendant had the contract been signed. Business had been dove to the extent of Tls. 20,781.80 in 1926 in other lines with the plai tiff and during that time, witness stated, no demand regarding the cargo had been made by plaintiff.
Following testimony by the plaintiff, Mr. Zung Yen-ling, who told how the agreement had' originated ay regards supply the "Existo" Jnmps to the plaintiff firm, the case was, adjourned.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.