'The hearing of the charge of manslaughter against P. C, Frederick Chaplin, in connection the death of a' Chinese cook in the iM. Court on Dee. 27, before the Registrar, Mr, A. J. Martin, After a plan' of the canteen had incen put in, evidence of an autopsy fonder made by the liquidatr was m mate on April 11, rik. induced resevutor, is appearing for the preveettion, and Mr, M, B, Brown A damages for ts 1920-and May 1}, 19 both of which were extended December Hy 1 nto. ant the refusal of the bill went to che essence of the contract, is true that eyo of the ed int the ted of the cantoer scale, showing the posit counter, furniture, doorways and Mr. R, G. Me.
Mi who sented the Bans, dealt in a very fable manner with all the ints in the notice of appeal, Mis mas directed there had been no re-Banks and riy fission Ty Arnhotd Brethers & Ca, Ltd, that it must be shown Amiold Brothers & Ca. Ltd, that the refusal of the Dill tendered went to the root or essence of the cone tract, and finally tha: there was breach of the contract by Arnholt Brothers & Ca. Ltda. in not ren dering bills before December a1, Tw21, to the amount of the balance remaining under the contr the first two points he argument principally on the correspondence that passed between the Bank and Arnold Brothers Coy Lid from December 23 to December 20, 1921, and by selecting: certain sentences in Uwise letters from the Bank to show first there had been no direct repaid by the Bank Int rather a desi have the contracts carried out Arnhold Brothers & Ca, Ltd, through another Bank, and secondly' that rescission by Arnhold Brothers Ca, Ltd., took place only after the Bank had expressed that desire to them. To support his argument he enlarged on the improbability of the Bank refusing to make money on contracts at that time in their favour, and on the pro hability of Arnhold Brothers & Ca.. Lid, seizing at any opportunity to the lost of money on unfay-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.