The defendant in his defence ad~ rite that he did purchase the shares Hor delivery on December settlement day and did sigm the confirmation note confirming the purch@@e, but pleads that the plaintiff falsely and fraudulently represented that the rubber market was '"strong" and that the best price for Torah Merah shares for December delivery. was Tis, 225, whereas the plaintiff knew that the rubber market was not "strong," nor was Tls. 2.25 the best price obtainable, and, further, that the plaintiff represented himself to be a member of "the Stock' Exchange" and caused the defendant to believe that he was a member of the Shai change, oF some body of stock or when, in fact, the plaintiff? was not member of any recognized stock or share exchange in Shanghai. The' defendant admits that he refused to. take delivery of the hares and that ho knows nothing about the resale. The defendant pleads in the alternative that, if he {s indebted at al, he is only indebted in the amount of Tls. 600, which yrould be the difference in price if he plainti@ had re-sold the shares at the date of the defendant repudiation of the purchase, namely, November 8, 1926.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.