Fifly per_cent of 2 total commission of US. $11,25084 was claimed by Mr. Chang "Tien-tsu from the Hosken Trading Ca, in a civil action heard before Judge M. J. Helmick, the US, Court for China, last Wednesday. Afler an all-day hearing, the ease was adjourned when Mr. H.
Rodger, counsel for the defendant Jcompany, "said a statement of accounts of the commission money; Jdrawn up by a chartered accountant, would be ready.
Mr. Cornell S. Franklin, counsel for the pisintiff, who was cross.examining Mrs. W. M. Hosken, president of the lHosken "Trading Ca, said he wished a statement of accounts to be produced before proceeding with the Mr. Chang, in evidence, said that Atty per cent of US. $1250.94 was: due to him as commission for effect" ing the sale of US. $50,000 worth of Fairchild aerial camera equipment to the Central Aviation Academy at] Hangchow on behalf of the Hosken Trading Ca.
Mrs. Hosken said she was willing te pay Mr. Chang 50 per cent. of the ely profit. The gross profit on USS. }$50,000 was in the neighbourhood of $11,250.94, though she could not be: sure of the figure. She admitted signing a letter and was agreeable' by it to pay Mr. Chang 50 per cent. of the nett profit, or 50 per cent. of the gross profit less Shanghai over. head' charges, New York. overhead charges, and @ commission to Col. S.
Various other reductions, such as freight, cables, and travelling expen-wre mentioned in the morning's ing, cutting the nett profit on the sale to $3,69928, of which about $1,64684, it is alleged, is due to the Mr. A. C. Cornish, of the Standard-'Vacuum Oil Ca, was mentioned as. the man who St brought Mr. Chang.
contact with the Hosken Trading Company.
Hearings in the sult brought by Me. T. T, Chang against the Hosken JTrading Company for an accounting and commissions on an order placed with the Hangchow Aviation Schoot weregoncluded on Thursday afternoon before Judge Milton J. Helmick in the US. Court for China. Evidence concerning the alleged expenses connected with the order for aerial Jeameras from the Fairchild Aviation [Corporation was presented by Col. I. Moller, and evidence bearing on the Jomce by Mr. Michael Neuchal, and The latter declared that he understood Mr. Chang was to receive 50 Jper cent. of the commissions on a $50,000 (U.S) order, and he believed Mr. Chang sought a more detailed Jdefinition of the meaning of the words "nett profit" on the occasion Jot an argument. This took place at. the Cathay Hotel, where Mrs, Hosken handed Mr. Chang a letter which has figured prominently in the case, promising him fifty per cent. of the nett profits from the deal.
'Mr. C, S. Franklin, counsel for Mtr. Chang, contended' that the attitude of the defendants showed they were attempting to deprive the plaintiff of what he was entitled to, Jand asked 50 per cent. of the more than U.S. $11,000 named as the amount Jof the commission, minus certain deductions admitted by the plaintiff Mr. H. D. Rodger, for the defendant, Jargued that Mr." Chang's act in threatening Mrs. Hosken with the upset of this contract" had deprived him of all right to collect, while the Jdefendant was justified in deducting salaries, rent, cable charges, freight, Jete. from the epmmission claimed by "Mr. Chang.
Judge "Helmick stated that he Jwould enter judgment for the plain itt and that he would advise counsel Jat that time on the basis of his Jcalculation. He also indicated that, it counsel desired to file further landings, they might do 20.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.