In the second cause of action in the complaint, it is alleged that about November 16, 1930, Judge Helmick requested the defendant to dissolve the ce-partnership arrangement, and that soon thereafter the defendant changed the name of the ce-partnor~ ship from "Allman & Winkelman" to 'G. Allman & Ca." The defendant alleged to have done this without making any effort whatever to comply with the Judge's request to dissolve the ce-partnership and, according to the complaint, this conduct constituted a fraud on the US. Court for China. Another allegation in the complaint ty that the defendant concealed from the plaintiff the Judge's request.
The first witness called by Mr. Nelson was Mr. Henry Martin Wolf, Netherlander like the plaintiff. "He testified on the examination that his, occupation consisted largely of bringing people together on business matters, that he had known the defendant for years, and that he had introduced the plainti to the defendant after suggesting, that a partnership be formed, "My. Roy Allman had told him that his income was $860,000 0 year, he said, and asked him to pass the information along, During cross-examination, Me, Rodger elicited the testimony that after the papers of agreement had been signed, the plainti had cancelled a debt, of $200 owed to Mr. Wolf saying "We are square." Mr. Wolt further festined that the plain-had acted for him In making col lections of debts atter the agreement with defendant was signed but had never paid him one cent.
Mr, Rodger then turned to the sub-Ject of a tion interview at the American Club between the defend~ ant and. the witness on Monday, August 9, 1997, The witness admit-tod that he had telephoned to Mr. RG. Allman to arrange the interview, He said that at that interview the defendant said that he (the defendant) had treated him (Mr. Wolf) wrongly and was willing to pay him '$1,000 og a commission for services Fendered In bringing in a partner with $20,000. "He testified that he had asked for that commission long, before but had never gotten it Mr. Rodger then announced that a detective had been listening to the entire conversation and had taken it down on paper. Mr. Wolf then talk-fed rapidly and when interrupted ried out "Let me talk" Asked if the word "commission" was once used, Mr. Wolf replied "No, I prefer for services rendered.'"
Second Witness the afternoon session, Mr. Nelson frst called Mr. Herman Vanderee to the witness stand and he testified briefly that Mr. Winkelman had tried Ineffectually to make a collection from him' for Mr. Wolf. In the eross-examination, Mr. Rodger brought out that Mr. Winkelman hed acted for both Mr, Wolt and the witness at different times, The plaintiff then took the stand and gave details of his education at Mague, of his previous experiences: jin Shanghai, and of his meeting with defendant through the introduction by Me. Wolf. He said that he had been Jed to believe that defendant's come was in the neighbourhood of $$00.000° a year and that as partner he would make $12,000 per year. He said that defendant hod told him that he (Mr. RG, Allman) might be appointed District Attorney of the U.S. Court for China or Consul for Mexico. out security but that the attitude was "take it or leave it"
On October 1, 1996, the plaintive pald U.S. $0,500 to the defendant who had drawn up the agreement which vias signed at that time by both par-
'According to the plaintiffs testi-many, the only woy he could—ascertain the name of the firm was bY the heading on the firm's stationary Jand the name on the door' of the office at Hamilton House. First it was "Allman and) Winkelman" and then about the first of December it was-"R, G, Allman & Ca."
When the witness was asked what had happened to certain fees collected by the firm, he replied that he had taken them: When there was money in the firm's account. "Mr. Allman, said 'Bang, that's mine' so 1 said "Bang, that's' mine' the wit-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.