The question of the lability of Pawnshop proprietors in cases where goods are pledged in circumstances that may be suspicious and the failure of the proprietors to notify such cases to the Police authorities was the subject of much debate in the Provisional Court on July 25, between Mr. K. E. Newman, counsel for the de and Inspr. Jefferson of the Police.
The argument arose out of a case concerning the pledging of six cases of drawing instruments, valued at $600, at three pawnshops at 95 Woochang- Road, and 130 and 185 Woosung Road. These goods were part of property that had been stolen from the Hamburg-Amerika S. S. Ca, and the Police charged the proprietors with failing to notify them immediately that such goods were in their, possession after having received a circular notice from the Police.
Ins, Newman said that the pawnshop licence was so drawn up as to expect the proprictois to be able
for purloiners of articles which they to whether clients wi owners distinguish from appearance
Wad browghe with them to. pawn, The, Police interpretation of! the wording of the licence was not fair to the Pawnshop. proprietors, and the regulations had evidently been fawn up by a layman and. not a lawyer, It was a ridiculous document, said counsel, and he contend: td that if the Police. were upheld by the Couit it would seriously and unreasonably affect the trade of the pawnshop proprietors in Shangal Eesides injuring the present cooperation existing between them snd the Police.
Tape. Jefferson told. the Court that a conviction would have the effect of "strengthening auch cooperation, as pawnshop proprietors would then understand what. thet diary was in such elreumstances, Judge Hsiung, with whom sao Mr. Shimize, Senior Consuls" Deputy,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.