A Further Demand to Have Case Referred from Mixed Court Assessor) Li Sion-moi (Chinese Magistrate) at the Mixed Court on Saturday morning an plication was made by Dr. O. Fis cher for a re-hearing in the case of Hurry Rosenberg (trading as the Rosenberg China Ca.) and the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Volunteer Fleet, the Court, in its original decision, naving decided 10 take jurisdiction' in the matter. ntift (who was represented by FI. Schuhl and Mr. C. P. Hole comb)' claimed from the defendant Tis, 212,279.04, M. $44,406.62 and Meged to have been the damages suffered as a result of defendants' breach of contract! and moneys paid to the defendants, Dr. Fischer dealt with the position of the Court on two points, namely, the right of the Mixed Court to sume jurisdiction over Russian eases, and the right of the Court this special case. With regard to the former it was generally agre-that the Court did not deal with tical questions and. steps were taken by the Soviet authorities and the Chinese. Gorernment to deal with the question in Peking. Counsel would limit his Jeontentions to the question of the Goutt's right" in' this. special case. The Court in deciding the case originally had applied the regu tons relating to civil procedure of the Chinese Republic published in the 10th year of the Republic. Counsel pointed out that Article 14 of these regulations stipulated that th: court which had jurisdiction was the court of the' Tesidence of the defendant unless otherwise provided {for in these regulations. Article 16 said that the head office of juri persons is determined by where it.
situated. 'The Vladivostok Court, therefore, should be a competent court-to'deal with this action in view of the fact that defendants' that city. Articles. 20 and 24 provided that in actions: Jeoncerning contracts there is concurrent jurisdiction of two courts, ie, the court of residence defendant and the court of the performance of the contract; therefore, as this contract provided for the performance of the contract in Shanghai and Vladivostok, both feourts could have concurrent juris-Jéietion. The same regulations pro-ied that in eases of concurrent Jurisdiction, the plainti@® had the ght to choose before which court hho was going to take action. Tu the lease before the court the plaint Iliad in his agreement with defendants expressly agreed to refer the ease to the courts at Vladivostok, and had therefore exercised the tion which was granted to him der these regulations and was estoped now from coming into the Mix-jed Court and saying that his agreement or consent to place the action before the Vladivostok Court was not enforcible.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.