The case of Jatz Y. T. King against O. A. Andersen & Ca. came before his Honour Judge Lobingier in the U.S. Court for China Inst Friday.
Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. J. W. Schoenfeld, complained that ani injustice was being done to his client, inasmuch as his titles to real estate valued at about $50,000 which, as compradore, he had deposited with defendants, had been and were being held by defendants and as they were his stock in trade he was suffering hardship.
No charge had been brought. against plaintiff and a claim for $9,000 only had been presented over a year ago, whereas plaintiff claimed that an accounting would find the defendants in his debt to the extent of about $2,000. Understanding that counsel for defendant was not prepared to answer, a later motion for judgement by default had been filed.
Mr. Stirling Fessenden stated for the defendants that the motion for judgement by default was not in order inasmuch as counsel for the defence, Mr. Bryan, had filed an affidavit: moreover, that neither he nor Mr. Bryan had stated they were not prepared to answer, but that the proper thing would be for the plaintiff to set forth a petition. The delay, Mr. Fessenden further stated, had not been due to defendant, but that after the case had been taken out of court and submitted to arbitration every effort had been made by defendant to facilitate an early trial. Claims against plaintiff were alleged to exist at present to an extent of $20,000.
As plaintifis counsel wished to
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.