Some important evidence was} given by H. M, Deputy Registrar of Companies in Shanghai, and an unexpected and sudden adjournment of the further hearing was _orde upon the application of plaintiffs counsel when what has come to be known as the "Caviar case" was once again called on Tuesday (Nov. 27) in H. M. Supreme Court before Judge 'A. G, Mossop.
'The action Is one in which two Soviet citizens, G.P. Vedernikox and Vohmianin' (in business as the Fish Trading Company) seek to recover from Centrosojus (England) Ltd, the sum of $83,300 as damages for an alleged breach of contract 10. supply them, the plaintiffs, wi "100 Russian.' boods " (equivalent 10. 3,000 English Ib.) of first quality. fresh black caviar, produce of the. USSR. in hermetically sealed tins of five Russian Ib, each, at the price of G.$70 per pood cult. Shanghat" in. two ets, the frst of which was to arrive at the end of December 1933.
14 the balance at the end of Maren 1934, The defendants deny, inter alia, that they ever entered into tne contract as alleged, and say that, if any such contract was made, which do not admit, it was made by one A. P. Kovaleft, who had no authority to enter into such a contract, either as their agent, or on their' bebait, Mr. H. H, Reeks (of Messrs. Ellis Hays) appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, while Mr. John MeNeitl (of Messrs Hansons) together, with Dr. F, Wilhelm (of Messrs Musso Fischer & Wilhelm) represented the defendants, Charles Rene Lee, Deputy-Registra Companies in' Shanghai, evidence that a copy of the M morandum and Articles of Association of the defendant company was! fon the file of the Registrar of Com. panies in Shanghai. Cross-examined by Mr. Reeks, witness stated that the company was incorporated in China and" registered in. London under the Order-in-Councit in 1928. He further stated that he did not aflow any member of the public to inspect the Articles and Memorandum of any company on his file.
The Judge: Have you any particu. Jur reason for refusing (0 allow th Rublle to see a company's memorandum and articles?—T take it by inference: it specifically mentions that the chief local agent's name and Address shall be open to inspection, which is omitted in the case of the other documents.
Q: Your interpretation of the OrderineCounell 1s, therefore, that the memorandum and articles of associa tion of this company on file by you are merely for the information' of the Consular ofcer?—Merely for the purposes of record, T think, my' lord.
So that any member of the pub-ein Sh wanting to know what the to get that information from you?—Not without reference to the Registrar: he could not find it out at my amice.
Mr. MeNeill: That point has never been argued. There is nothing to, prevent a member of the public applying by writ of mandamus to com-el the production of these docu-rents.
The Judge: Tam merely as a question of fact. I don't know who. ther this witness is right or wrong jon: the point fact, nobody here can Information without going to for it.
'Upon the conclusion of this wit ness' testimony, Mr. McNeill that his case for the defendant had closed, and he proceeded at once to address the Court, 'No act done by a person," said counsel, "purporting to act as agent, for ancther, who hag no outaurity to do that act, Is binding upon the principal, unless the principal estopped' from se: ting up. that there was no actual authority. The plaint its have alleged a written contract, and the answer of the defendants to that is: We formally deny. that there ever was a written contract, and if there was any such contract it was signed, or purported to be signed, on behalf of the defendant company by someone who had no authority to do.s0. There were no further pleadings, and the position is, that the plaintiffs are taken to have Joined issue on the defence, and it not now necessary to file a reply Joining issue.
The Judge: The point being that the plaintiffs have never raised the uestlon of estoppel?
Mr. McNeill: Yes, must be] raised.
Counsel then proceeded to quote numerous authorities, chief among which was the leading case of Pole Leash (1864) 33 L. J. Eh, 188 to the effect that a person setting up authority in an agent must be held to strict proof that such authority was vested in tim, and then submitted, after an examination plaintiffs evidence that, on sued evidence, they had not sustained such burden of proof, Mr, Reeks: The defendants took! our bargain money, and that te ratification, and the whole company, submit, knew that the taking of that by itself was bargain money, and we can certainly prove implied authority. As to the question of Aling a reply to the defence, by our local, Rules of Court, by which we are, bound, parties are' limited to ling one statement of claim and one de. fence. If the issues are not. clear to the Court, the Court will then, if it so desires, order further pleadings. I submit, therefore, that I" was not entitled to file a reply to the de. fence: if, however, you lordship holds that a reply could have been Sled, and is desirable, then, I ask permission to file it now. 1 will also, moreover, the point that, by the retention of the sum of $2,500, the defendants ratified the contract upon which we are now suing.
The Judge: I want to get with this case, but, at the same time, feel that the defendants are not going to be much prejudiced by further adjournment, provided that hey are covered on' the question of costs and if you wish It, T will ad. Journ this matter to enable you 10 file a reply to the defence, with such particulars as you may be: called upon to file, and to enable} Mr. McNeill to start his summing-up de novo on the next occasion meet. We will Just regard today's proceedings as a day lost to us, 50 that we would simply be put back in the same position as we would have been In, had that reply been fled. Are you prepared to follow ruling like that, Mr. Reeks?
Mr, Reeks: Yes, my lord.
Mr. McNeill: T would ask that two] matters be reserved: one is that Feceive the benefit of my I friend's opening on the new issues and the second fs that your lordship will permit me to recall, if T think fit, either or both of the plaintiffs for In the scuffle which followed the Jdefendant fell to the ground. His jove brow was badly cut and he believed he was kicked In the face. During the scrap the defendant was badly mauled whilst the complainant was untouched and left shortly afterwards. Pinyan then lett by the front door. The next thing that is known is that a sailor named Upson saw the two fighting again with their fists outside. "Upson rushed in to separate them but in so doing was Struck on the jaw by the complain-
23-year-old aviator, who was. killed in the crash. Mr. W. E. Beall, Far [Eastern agent of Boeing, was the only /witness called, and the inquest was Municipal Gazette
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.