Evidence of the defendant in the of W. S, Tsao, plainti v. the Commercial & Credit Information Bureau and Mr. F..G, Bowen og manager, for alleged back salary and commissions amounting $110.20 was heard on July 19 at the U.S. Court for China by the>Commissioner, Mr. Alexander Krisel.
At the conclusion of the hearing, similar action in the amount of, $57.50 against the defendant by Samuel Tiles was heard.
Counsel in both cases were the same, Mr. N, E, Lurton appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr. C. S. Franklin-for the defendant.
The actions concerned differ {in verbal contracts which the plai ffs alleged were to the effect that they were to receive commissions for such contracts as they could secure for advertising in a book of ating. published by the defendant. They alleged the commissions were to be paid when the contract was signed.
Then defendant maintained the agreement was that no commissions were to be paid until the money called'for in the contracts was pi the defendant. Contention that many of the contracts secured by the plaintiffs have not yet been Paid and, therefore, no commissions have been forthcoming, Mr, Krisel Yeserved judgment in both cases.
On July 24, in the suit of Mr, N.S, Tsao, Mr. Krisel dismissed his claim for 16 days salary and tra portation but ordered the bureau to remit commission moneys on the: wth of each month for all contracts: solicited by Mr. Tsao and fully collected. The piaintif? was suing for $110.20, representing commission and transporter tion, The bureau was also ordered to pay Mr, Samuel Tiles, another form= er employee, commissions..on all contracts secured by him "as they. are paid up. Mr, Tiles' claim was for $57.50,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.