Three Hearings in 22 Months A case in the District Court which was heard a year ago came up for hearing again on April 22 and was adjourned indefinitely after counsel] for the plaintiff, Mr. H. D. Rodger, protested against the time taken to: Jcomplete the case, which he said was simple one and could be decided in a matter of hours, The case concerns a claim made Holdo Stromvall, a Swedish firm of porters, agents here for La, Perla Del Oriente, against JOlsufetf, a tobacconist in the Sas-Jsoon Building, for money unpaid aiter a delivery of cigars had been made and taken by the deferitant, who it was stated still owed $1,063, 70, the amount claimed.
After the petition had been filed, the case was heard on June 22, 1928, and then the plaintiff's Mr. Rodger informed the [Swedish Consul-General of the delay, asking him to communicate with the President of the Court so that a hearing might be set. Counsel took this up with the Consul-General because he had received no reply to letters sent to the court} about the hearing of the case, In the first hearing in 1928 Judge Hsu was sitting and Judge "Yang. took the case in-the second hearing, Jwhile another judge sat yesterday.
were informed that when Judge Yang tried the ease he asked the parties to compromise remarking, upon the simplicity of the case." At jo later stage Judge Yang said that he did not want to hear the case any. longer as. both patties The judge said nformed by the would be na! that he was] fendant that attenil the Jeourt and that consequently ha would adjourn the case. Mr, Rodges aid the case had been adjourned three times. in 22 months. and. would like the court to proceed wi immediately. He asked segment by default, When told that the case had be adjourned, Mr. Rodger Your honour, you might that you would adjourn this case When you saw me in court at 10 o'clock. I waited here more than fan hour and have wasted my time for nothing."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.