Judgment September Yiko Hu, chief judge of the yurt of appeals of the civil vision of the Second Branch of the and his associates, Judg: tan and Lee Moh, in an appeal filed by Mr. H. D. Rodger, the local] 'American legal practitioner, against 'a decision handed down' by the Shanghai Special District Court on May 5, 1930. Mr. Rodger's claim was in'vespect of a dispute over the payable to him for.his services in connection with the arbitration proceedings following the sinking of of the str. Hsin Dub Ming by the Japanese str. Atsuta Maru No. 2.
'The respondents wore the Ta Tung) 'Ya Kee Ca. and Mr. Yang Zai-dien for whom Messrs. S, Kau and T. T Chang appeared, Mr. Rodger con ducting his own' case.
1 Court, in reversing 1 judgment, ordered respond ents pay to appellant the sums of Tis, 1,000 and $6,250, with interest at the rate of five per cent. from April 12, 1929, to date of payment. The appeal of Yang Zaiwas dismissed and that gentleman was ordered to pay costs.
Mr. Rodger stated 25 per cent. of all moneys received regarding the Atsuta Mara No. 2 was the agyged upon for his serve ies, hi he lower court, judgment w: given in his favour for Tls. 1,009 and $6,250, with interest at the rate of five per cent, and costs, Respondent made a counter appeal] and asked for the dismissal of Mr. Rodger's claim, as well as the ca collation of the original judgment, with costs.. He said that, Mr.
Rodger hasbeen pai '$40,000,° which was of the Chinese Bar asked how it could]
ible for Mr. Rodger to demand more. The power of attorney, he said, stipulated that the agreed fee to be paid for a winning judgment, bat, as this matter was. not determined by court proceedings. Mr. Rodger could not receive the attorney's fee, Mr. Yang suggested that Mr. Rodger was unwarrantably In giving their reasons, the Court said that the undisputed power of] attorney stated that the attorney's fee for a winning judgment should be Tls. 1,000 and 25 per cent. of all money' recovered as damages. The English version stated. "mone; covered from the owners 0
Atsuta Maru." 7 at the time of the agreement, the intention include all compensation recovered! from the Japanese.—Respondents alleged that of cargo was paid to the merchant owners and was not received' by them but of this the Court had no proof. The words judgment" did not nec arily mean that the parties must retort to court proceedings: either {in the arbitration or a compromise, so long as the object of securing compensation was attained. Tt could rot, therefore, be said that the arbitration award was not a winning he judgment then says that the dispute between respondents and the Japanese was compromised and com Ponsation was duly obtained: the object was therefore, attained, 20 how could it be claimed that court proceedings were necessary? If it were a fact that the compromise should have been concluded when! the payment of $40,000 was paid to Mr. Rodger, intention" of denial' (now raised by Yang Zaiien) was very apparent.
Regarding the fee for the ar-bit ration: the deed of - settlement explained very clearly that it was paid by the Japanese separately and that such payment was duly received in full on signing thereof, which had nothing to do with the amount, of compensation. "In the event that respondents did not receive or had not received this from the Japanese, it Is their own fault in waiving this right. Yang Zaidien's claim that this should deducted from the compensation unreasonable, Mr. Rodger of joined the Chinese Bar Association at that time, and his works was not confined toa Chinese court, so Yang Zai-dien improperly introdaeed the rules of the Bar Association, Taking the above fects into consideration the Court found. that there were reasons for Mr. Roger's
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.