Stating that the parties might possibly come to some agreement, Judge Sir Peter Grain in Supreme Court on August 21 granted an adjournment of three weeks in the case in which Mrs.. N. Divecha claimed from Mr. M. J. Divecha the sum of $960 dfe for maintenance under a separation deed dated June 15, 1929, and $160 costs. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. E. T. Maitland, and defendant by Mr. R.F.C. Master.
'The claim was for maintenance at $100 a month from July 1929 to. July 1930, 12 months, totalling $1,200, less $240 that had been paid at' the rate of $20 a month. Mr. Master asked for an adjournment, and the judge in granting this stated that the vacation would still be on at the end of the three weeks, and, if defendant desired it, a further adjournment could then be asked. charge preferred was regarding promissory note held by Toba Singh, The prosecution alleges that accused saw Toba Singh, a Sikh police, watchman and also a money-Tender, at the Astot House hotel, and a few days later borrowed $250
note in exchange, and signed it W. from him. He gave a promissory Wilson, with the address as 2208 Avenue Haig. Later, Toba Singh received a letter from accused which purported that a false name had been used, and when accused was asked if this was so, he admitted the offence, was charged by the Police, and made a voluntary state ment.
Detective Sub-Inspector T. F. Hy Robinson, attached to Central Police Station, stated that he had that morning seen Brigadier Barrett, in Jcommand of the Shanghai Area, and obtained from him written permise sion for accused to be tried by the i witness was also given another written authorisation, signed by Capt. R. F, N. Brown, of the Shanghai Area, itmos. Both authorisation were handed into the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.