The two parties contradict each other almost entirely with regent to the facts of the case, It appears that the plaintiff Kelambi arrived in Shanghai in February 1925 from Ceylon, The defendant Weerappulli states that he was introduced to Kelambi as a destitute fellow-countryman, a Cingalese and although Kelambi denies that he was destitute, the facts tha: he does admit support the statement of Weerappulli. Kelambi states that he had lost his money in Ceylon in the rubber "slump" and there were actions against him in Ceylon and his property was sold to meet the claims on him and ho further says that on the voyrgo to Shanghai he was robbed of all the money he had by some Chinese on the ship.
Kelambi also admits that he was introduced to Weerappulli by a fellow-countryman in order that he might borrow money from Weerappalli which he Wid, At the time he was introduced to Weerappullt he, Kelambi, was living in a Chinese house." Weerappulli gave hiv money to pay off his rent in the Chinese house and paid rent for him for a room in Miller Road.
Weerappulli continued to lend Kelambi money and got employ: ment for him at a cafe, but Kelambi could not keep his place. Then Weerappulli, tired of supporting the plaintiff Kelambi, suggested that he should try and do sums business and that he Weorappulli would finance him.
ly in agreement. The plaintiff now fo far the parting are penta claims that he and the defendant were in partnership and that a share in the goods belongs to him. But he does not produce a title of evidence beyond his own statement to support such a claim.
A verbal agreement was enter ed into and the business was start
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.