Mr, Wright, in cross-examining, pointed to an item for motor cars in the list of debts payable, witness informing him that they were engaged to transport his daricing. girls to their homes. Mr. Wright: reiterated several times that the majority of the dancing partners) were escorted away from the premises in motor ears by patrons of the cafe, all parties making considerable noise. Witness refused to affirm that he knew of this procedure in his own knowledge. Witness admitted to counsel that he knew it was wrong for him to remain open after 2 a.m., as he did. He also admitted that he received ample warning from the police regarding what would happen if he not change his ways.
Mr. Wright—But you continually. remained open until 6 am. Did your lawyers advise you to? (Mr. Newman objected) Witness agreed with counsel that he (counsel) was not wrong when he suggested that he had flouted the authority of the Council, He intended to apply for an extension licence, but failed to do $0, He usually closed between 4.30 and 5 am. after he received the warning notice. He thought that was justifiable until the French Court settled the matter, His lawyer, witness said, was too dassy to get out an injunction against the Council between August 25 (the day when the barbed wire fence was erected) and October 12, He had had persons guide patrons from Keswick Road into the cafe, after the fence was up.
Mr. Wright—I suppose that you will allow people to enjoy a good night's rest in summer?—Not in my business, Mr. Wright—Well, allow others who work all day?—~Patrons of a cafe?
No, there are other people, decent people.
Mr. Wright—You know the Shanghai Defence Force came out here, or has that not penetrated your mind yet? Shouldn't they have a good night's rest, they who look after your life and property?—Why, certainly.
Witness admitted that he did not think that the 8.M.C. had a personal grudge against him, and that there must have some justification for the complaints.
The hearing was then adjourned, Difficulty of Entry Me. M. Bordes, tax collector employed by the French Municipal Council, was Wednesday's first witness, being called by counsel for plaintiff. He stated that he had tried to enter La Gaieté Cafe about 10.80 one night towards the end of last August, in order to pay a chit and that he had found the entrance guarded by a policeman and barbed wire in front of the premises in Brenan Road. There was no musie or entertainment going on, and only candles were in use. Testimony regarding this visit was corroborated by Mr. H. Lo. Moutlec, also an employee of the Trrench Municipal Council, who had accompanied Mr. Bordes, and who stated that an Indian police constable had told them the place was closed, Next Mr, Nieco, accountant for Mr. Levy, was called by counsel for plaintiff and questioned regarding the financial condition of La Gaité.
Mr. Newman—Will you tell their Honours what was the profit made last year—$15,000 to $16,000.
Mr. Newman—Up to the time the barbed wire was put before Mr. Levy's door, what was La Gaite's financial condition—in August? He. had just begun to make money in August when he brought in some artists and musicians. For August hho made more than $3,000 profit.
Further questioning elicited that running expenses of the cafe were about $6,000, that the month of May last' year showed a loss, that June and July showed increase in profits and that in August there (had been a considerable increase.
These had dropped right away to. almost nothing after August 24.
Witness had kept plaintiffs day' business book, he said, and had prepared a list of Mr. Levy's. creditors. After the premises had been closed, money had had to be paid out to musicians, to the extent of about $1,800 a month, to the entertainers and boys, and for rent at the rate of $245 for summer and $145 for winter. months.
had also been required.
The Cafe Business Following this evidence, Mr. Wright suggested that the cafe business must be an extraordinarily paying one. However, he would waive the question of damages and would deal with what were the salient points of the case, Plaint-its establishment was a small, not very pretentious looking cafe. Brenan Road opposite the entrance of Jessfield Park. The business of the cafe in summer was conducted out of doors and it was quite possible that in the winter, the performance would not be a source of inconvenience to people in the Vicinity. It was not necessary, however, to point out to the court that residents forced to stay in Shanghai during the summer, should not be deprived of a good night's sleep. A" good many" had. been deprived, and it was. proposed call citizens of repute in the community to testify on this point, "1 do not know," Mr. Wright went on to say, "what is the point of view held by' Mr. Levy regarding the public's convenience, but man has a right to make himself public nuisance. 'The court has been told that this case involves an important principle. Of course the poor old Council gets a lot of abuse in Shanghai, but we have a very simple point' indeed in this ease which tans on a very sordid state of affairs, Has an adminis-power to abate a public nuisance?
'Wright presented to. the court' thereafter the conditions, governing plaintiffs cafe licence, condition 7 being that 2 a.m,, should be the closing hour; condition 18, that no drunkenness or disorderly: noise should be allowed. on the Premises; and condition 27, that breach of these conditions subjected the plaintiff to withdrawal of
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.