After Mr. Rodger had outlined his clients! plea and read a letter from the Hankow Chinese chamber of Commerce to the effect that defendants had been registered with the Chamber for yenrs and that they were residents of Hankow, Mr. Schuh submitted that the Court had Jurisdiction over defendants, Ho stated that all the negotiations had! been conducted in Shanghai, After had filed suit in the former Mixed Court, Mr. Rodger and he had settled the case on the basis fof which the first defendant agreed to pay the full sum of Ts. 152,000: Tls. 50,000 was to be paid in cash Jand the balance in five annual in: stalmence. The firat defendant was compradore of the plaintiff company. in Shanghai, and all_the business was transacted in Shanghai, lived in Shanghai and so did brother, and it was only after pro Jegedings had been filed that they had Jabsconded to Hankow. Their security for the amount was property and an og factory outside of Hankow which had now been. occupied by the military. All the title deeds were now in the vaults of the Equitable Eastern Banking Corp, in Shanghai. Defendants owned a house in Avenue Foch and they had left, Shanghai only just before Mr. Rodger had filed his motion. Defendants had an office in Shanghai where they transacted business on 'a considerable scale. They had agents in Shanghai and had Inrge quantition of merchandise in certain godowns here, In a recent action in the U.S. Court for China they Jadmitted being residents of Shang hai, Every penny in the action was pared on contracts made in Shang hai and each which had been lonned Counsel the plea to jurisdiction be den'
A Residence in. Shanghai John J: Brenneman, who held power of attorney for the plaintiff Jcompany, said that, before September 6, the first defendant was in Shanghai and resided in Avenue Foch, where he owned a large house, He did not know that defendants had gone away. They had an office here and witness had been there. The first defendant was compradore in the plainti® company for six years. The money had been advanced for the purchase of mer chandise. Defendants had sent representatives to witness for a sett ments. Witness stated that de fendants were here when the suit waa filed.
In cross-examination, witness a fruitted that he saw the defendants jin Hankow in 1926, but he had not seen them in Shanghai during 1927. He had seen their representatives but had not seen the defendants, Mr. Schuhl submitted that the plea should be overruled and that it was a terrible thing for merchants and foreign business houses if they dealt with Chinese who came [from the interior and contracted with them ju matters. involving large mums of moneyjif such. people
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.