Judgment and costs were award-the defendant by Judge P. Grant Jones in the Sone M. Supreme Court acne grog te 4H, larnam Singh against Jai Sin ested abusive language." He.said CE, Newman appeared same straight towards him and re-for $318 on a promissory note. for the will it me with lal? end that the money was loaned to the defendant accused took out pistol and fired. last year when the latter left here He was very excited, and could not jon home leave. Two witnesses remember how many' shots he fired. brought by the plaintiff, however, Accused added that a man then told the Judge that they' knew no-ight him from behind and took: thing about the matter.
to the charge room. He denied The defendant denied the promis-having alleged that the havildar: sory note bore his signature, and fired first. The interpreter on that! told the Court that there was no occasion could not properly explain need for him to borrow. mens as what accused was saying. he arrived in-India with lo Cross-examined, Bhajan -Singh money. He left here with aw aid he had Known the deceased and two children, but he took the havildar for three years, and had plaintiff's wife back to. Shanghai served under him for the past year.
He was senior havildar in' the pon the request of the plaintiff. plaintiff was a good friend of station. had felt no enmity against him.
Before Oeleber 17 aconed it Put fro monte ater lis return sce is, but is, return from India with the pi When the havildar first used bad was told not to language, accused answered him. house any more.
Mr, Newman suggested that what caught my pistol, and the trigger The havildar ran towards me and had "happened possibly furnished went off accidentally (he said). He motive of this action. was trying to take the pistol away.
Counsel for the prosecution: You Access to Child Denied were seen running across the compound, shooting him in the back, Do Holding that the interests and you wish us. to believe your pistol welfare of the child should was going off accidentally then? iven the paramount considera-dental, and ater that T knew no- Hei. Sufteme Comet "eRe pat Accused: The first shot was ac- tion, Judge P. Grant Jones, in thing, judgment for the Addressing the court for the pro- defendant in the action of Dr. ZA. secution, Mr. Moseop said it was|Gorivitz, Russian dental surgeon, now established beyond doubt that against" Mrs, SD. Wilkio® for by the accused. They knew that at the havildar died-of a gunshot fired access to their illegitimate dash, Toast three of the shots, including that which inflicted the fatal wound, were fired from behind. "No prove: fection could excuse or justify murder. The "most. that provocation could do, and only in certain eases was t0' Feduce "murder fo man-Slaughter. There was. no. suggestion that the havildar beat accused or caused him any bodily harm. If fatter Rearing his Lordship's direc. tions they found that the accused coimmitied murder, it would be their duty to put sentiment aside and retura a verdict of guilty.
Counsel for the defence remarked that it was a tragic concatenation ex. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. E. L, Hartopp, while the ease of the defendant was conducted_by Mr. Wilkie, her husband.
The judgment follows:
In this action plaintiff a Russian citizen practising as a dental surgeon in Shanghai seeks specific performance by defendant, who }was formerly a citizeness of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics Jbut is now married to a British subject, of a contract concluded between them.on Avril 25, 1928 whereby inter" alia plaintiff' under-tock to pay a sum f $90, per men. sem towards the maintenance of their illegitimate daughter until she came of age or was married and was to have access to the child at certain times and places.
Plaintiff and defendant. Cohabited at Harbin from the year 1923 onwards and on July 3, 1926 the child Lydia was there born to them, Plaintif? contributed to the support of defendant and her child and Felations continued between them Alleges he da covered that ten until January when plain
fant was having intercourse with Janother man and so severed relations with her. He then offered to take the child and pay defend-a sum of money but defend. ant refused the offer and put an end to plaintiff's access to the child. Plaintiff thereupon took [proceedings in the Special District Court at Harbin asa result of which a compromise was effected and made an Order of Court on
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.