'The case in which C. G. MePherson was fined G. $5 by the U.S. Commissioner, Mr. "A. Krisel, some time Jago, was' brought to the attention fof the same official in the U.S.
Court for China on September when the question was again raised to whether an appeal against this decision was criminal or civil matter, Counsel appearing in the case were Mr. F. J. Schuhl for Mr.
McPherson and Dr. George Sellett, US. District Attorney, for the American Government, Mr, Schuhl said that the Court was asked to decide whether the appeal was lodged within the specified time, as Dr. Sellett had contended that the appeal was not accompanied by the necessary filing fee and that it was not filed within the time limit, Counsel stated that it was only. necessary that the appeal should be Jelaimed and maintained and it had been lodged on the day judgment. had been given, He asked that the record be changed according!
The first witness called was Mr. 3. MI. Howes, clerk of the court, who. said that judgment in the case was delivered on April 27. Nothing in the appeal petition showed the date Jon which it had been despatched: Jas far as witness remembered, it was rent on the same morning that Judgment had been given.—The appeal had not been filed then because it was not accompanied by the necessary fee, 25 cents gold. Wit ness denied asking Mr. Schuhl for $50 a8 security.
Mr, Schubl:—The $50 ws sent subsequently under protest.
Mr. Howes, continuing, said that all he asked Mr. Schuh! for was a deposit, No amount was mentioned nor did he ask Mr. Schuh! for $50 as security.
The Record Amended In reply to Dr. Sellett, witness said that, on April 27, he had a telephonic conversation with Mr. Schobl and he had asked Mr. Schuhl for the filing fee, pointing out that the documents could not be filed unless the fee was paid. On the following Monday, he saw Mr. Schuh} and mentioned the same matter to him. On Tuesday, he received $50. He did not refuse 25 cents gold nor did he recall Mr, Schuhl offering to put up this sum instead of $50. Never in a single instance had he refused to accept a filing fee.
Dir. L. T. Kenake, the assistant clerk, said that the $50 which Mr. Schuhl chose to send as security was not asked of him. Witness may have mentioned that $50 would be sufficient.
Mr. Schuhl here contended that!
2 deposit in eximinal cases wae not required and that the $50 asked for was exorbitant: he intended to get this back, Argument then arose between fcouneel_ as to whether it was a Jeriminal or civil appeal, and Dr. Sellett remarked that Mr. Schuh! was very ingenious in construing what was meant by security, It was ingenious and ridiculous to money again. She had refused, End then gone out into the street to find policeman. She had come back with a constable and had the secosed arrested.
Tu the witness box the accused deniedgall knowledge of the affair. He said that he had never been to the house and did not know any of the previous witnesses. He had been walking along the street. to by some oil when the constable had arrested. him, without giving. any reason for 30 doing. He could pro. Gace a witness to prove what he said, but at that moment the man court. The Registrar Eecordingly granted-an adjournment 2 pam. for the witness to be When the egurt sat again Nada Singh, the witness named, appeared. In the witness box he said that he argue that it meant security for fees. The question was whether Ube court clerk was entitled to claim 2 fee before filing a document. If Mr. Schuhl was right the record was wrong and should be changed, otherwise it was correct and must stand, Mr. Howes was recalled and said that fees invariably had been Jcollected in eases of misdemeanour on appeal: sometimes fees had been questioned but witness did not know of a single instance where a fee had -been refused.
The Commissioner said that he recollected the practice of notice of appeal being accepted when it was in writing but Mr. Schuh! contended that an appeal could be. lodged orally.
After further argument, the Com missioner added the following rider to. the record:
The record of this case is hereby amended by the following addition to the record, "That after judgment was rendered by the Court, Mry Schuhl, acting on behalf of the defendant, informed the Court that would appeal, The Court thereupon informed Mr. Schuhl that oral notice in open court was not suffi" cient, that a written notice fled within the time allowed would have to be made."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.